IBJNews

Health insurance investors unfazed by court ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

This week’s ruling by a federal judge could force Congress to rework the new health law to avoid a health insurance market collapse. But the decision had little to no effect on investor sentiment toward WellPoint Inc. and its peers.

Judge Henry Hudson in Virginia declared unconstitutional the individual mandate—the health reform provision that requires most Americans to purchase health insurance or else pay a fine. Hudson said that part of the law goes beyond Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce.

Hudson did not, however, declare the entire health care law unconstitutional, which leaves in place another new rule that requires health insurers to accept all customers regardless of their health status.

The ruling strikes at the heart of health reform. The grand bargain between President Obama and the health insurers in 2009 was to guarantee them millions of new customers (and generous subsidies) through the individual mandate in exchange for a ban on insurers’ turning away sick customers.

The insurers, led by Indianapolis-based WellPoint, soured on that bargain in the fall of 2009 when Congress reduced the fines for not having insurance to a level the insurers thought was too low to be effective.

But since Hudson did not strike down the entire law, his ruling leaves in place the ban on turning away sick customers, also known as medical underwriting. Nearly all—including the Obama administration—agree that having one provision without the other is a recipe for disaster.

“Banning medical underwriting without an individual mandate will wreak havoc on the market for individual insurance, perhaps causing many or most insurers to withdraw, as they’ve already done in the market for child-only insurance,” Mark Hall, a professor at the Wake Forest School of Law, wrote in a blog post.  “Despite all of that, the judge severed and struck only the individual mandate, leaving to Congress or administrative agencies the task of avoiding the train wreck of potential market collapse.”

In spite of such dire consequences, Wall Street shrugged at the ruling. WellPoint’s stock has been flat this week, closing Tuesday at $58.11. The stocks of other big health insurers also treaded water.

That’s because investors already expected Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee, to rule against the individual mandate. Two other federal judges had already dismissed legal challenges to the law. And a fourth case is pending in Florida.

“It has been clear for some time that this case was going to the Supreme Court and that this [ruling] is one stop on that path,” Les Funtleyder, who advises hedge funds on health care stocks for Miller Tabak & Co. in New York, wrote in a research note.

He acknowledged that Hudson’s decision could create “volatility” in the insurance markets, but said the fundamentals of the health insurance business are so strong right now, they will cloud out health reform news until at least the next election. In WellPoint's case, analysts are expecting the company to end the year with a profit of $2.8 billion, a 17-percent surge from last year, excluding a one-time gain in 2009 from selling a subsidiary.

“With respect to the managed care stocks, we believe until the 2012 election fundamentals will trump what will be a very noisy political environment,” Funtleyder wrote. “We continue to have a constructive stance on the group.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT