Investors cheer Senate bill while WellPoint cries foul

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A last-minute change that would saddle it with more taxes had Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc. crying foul as the U.S. Senate effectively approved the health care reform bill early Monday morning.

But investors on Wall Street didn’t care. They bid up the shares of WellPoint and its health insurance peers in exultation that those companies will most likely not face competition from a government-run insurance plan.

Shares of WellPoint shot up 3 percent on Monday. Its competitors Aetna, Cigna, Humana and UnitedHealth saw their shares rise between 2 percent and 5 percent.

“This bill is clearly not bad for industry and, depending on implementation, could actually be a positive,” wrote Les Funtleyder, a health care stock analyst at New York-based Miller Tabak & Co., to his clients.

Indeed, WellPoint would share in $34 billion in annual subsidies called for by the Senate bill to help low-income Americans buy health insurance. The bill is projected to bring 30 million customers to health insurers in exchange for placing significant restrictions on the industry.

But the subsidies will be funded by a bevy of new taxes, included $6.7 billion a year paid by health insurers. Insurers would pay based on their share of total industry revenue.

That burden would be extra heavy on for-profit insurers such as WellPoint, after a last-minute exchange excluded not-for-profit health plans. If the Senate’s not-for-profit exception prevails, the new taxes could total nearly $2 billion a year for WellPoint. The taxes would not take effect until 2011.

The company has annual revenue of $61 billion and annual profit topping $2.5 billion.

The exception could also fall harder on some states than others, WellPoint representatives were quick to point out. In Indiana, for example, 81 percent of health plans are for-profit. That’s much higher than the national average of 55 percent and several times higher than the 23 percent of health plans that are for-profit in neighboring Michigan.

“Indiana taxpayers will subsidize states like Michigan, which has a very low enrollment in for-profit health insurers,” said a statement distributed by WellPoint. It added, “Over time, unequal taxation will lead to the erosion and potential insolvency of for-profit plans.”

Health insurers are by no means the only industry group to complain about the new taxes in the Senate bill. Medical device manufacturers are still lobbying to reduce the $2 billion per year they will be assessed if the bill becomes law. The House version of health reform relies less on industry taxes and more on taxes on high-income individuals.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who has consistently blasted both the House and Senate versions of health reform, raised his rhetoric to new heights after Monday's Senate vote. He called the Senate legislation "a backwards, anti-taxpayer disaster of a bill" and said he was "severely disappointed that any of our delegation would vote for such an anti-Indiana measure."


  • Yahoo!
    ...another BIG win for the slimeball corporate whores at BIG Health Insurance!Nice to know their political payments, er, contributions to Bayh and the rest of his whore buddies in the Senate have paid off...a few million invested in key Senators pays BILLIONS in profits so it's well worth it!!! It's good to know as a doctor I'll be fighting with these assholes over patinet care for the rest of my career while the patients continue to die and the Wellpoint execs continue to rake in the stock options and retire to wherever the fuck greedy assholes go when they get done screwing the 'consumers'! Fuck 'em all!!!

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.