In Re the Rate Appeal of Benedictine Health Center

*508ANDERSON, Paul H., Justice

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that the Department of Human Service’s (DHS) “not-to-exceed-claims-paid” policy1 as applied to Benedictine comports with the plain meaning of Rule 50. Therefore, the policy is not an interpretive rule that must be promulgated under the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act, Minn.Stat. ch. 14 (2006) (MAPA). See Cable Communications Bd. v. Nor-West Cable Communications P’Ship, 356 N.W.2d 65.8, 667 (Minn.1984) (“[If an] agency’s interpretation of a rule corresponds with [the rule’s] plain…