Barron's: Brighter days ahead for WellPoint

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

It’s been a tough year for major health insurers, but Barron’s magazine predicts a big comeback for Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc. and its rival, Minnesota-based UnitedHealth Group.

Barron’s writer Johanna Bennett writes that both companies are poised to roll up or steal market share from the roughly 1,200 smaller rivals that do not have the “enormous scale” needed to thrive in the lower-profit environment the new health law will create.

"It is going to be a very Darwinian situation," Scott Richter, a portfolio manager with Cincinnati-based Fifth Third Asset Management, told Barron’s. "Size and scale will win out and create a new playing field."

WellPoint’s stock price has swooned 16 percent since President Barack Obama signed the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law on March 23. The law requires health insurers to take all comers, no matter how sick, and requires them to devote at least 80 percent of premium income to medical care, not overhead or profit.

Enrollment in health insurance plans should surge in 2014 thanks to the new law’s mandate that all Americans buy insurance. Barron’s reported that Credit Suisse analyst Charles Boorady expects total revenue in the health insurance industry to increase by a third, to $795 billion, by 2019. Profits should rise a tidy 8 percent annually during that time.

WellPoint’s 33 million health plan customers and strong Blue Cross brand names should help it draw a better-than-average portion of that growth.

"If you look down the road a few years, these big companies like United and WellPoint could be generating some pretty healthy cash flow," Jason Nogueira, an analyst with T. Rowe Price, told Barron's.

You can read the Barron's story at this website, although it requires a subscription to access.


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. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing