Health insurance investors unfazed by court ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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.”


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. From the story: "The city of Indianapolis also will consider tax incentives and funding for infrastructure required for the project, according to IEDC." Why would the City need to consider additional tax incentives when Lowe's has already bought the land and reached an agreement with IEDC to bring the jobs? What that tells me is that the City has already pledged the incentives, unofficially, and they just haven't had time to push it through the MDC yet. Either way, subsidizing $10/hour jobs is going to do nothing toward furthering the Mayor's stated goal of attracting middle and upper-middle class residents to Marion County.

  2. Ron Spencer and the entire staff of Theater on the Square embraced IndyFringe when it came to Mass Ave in 2005. TOTS was not only a venue but Ron and his friends created, presented and appeared in shows which embraced the 'spirit of the fringe'. He's weathered all the storms and kept smiling ... bon voyage and thank you.

  3. Not sure how many sushi restaurants are enough, but there are three that I know of in various parts of downtown proper and all are pretty good.

  4. First off, it's "moron," not "moran." 2nd, YOU don't get to vote on someone else's rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the US Constitution. That's why this is not a state's rights issue...putting something like this to vote by, well, people like you who are quite clearly intellectually challenged isn't necessary since the 14th amendment has already decided the issue. Which is why Indiana's effort is a wasted one and a waste of money...and will be overturned just like this has in every other state.

  5. Rick, how does granting theright to marry to people choosing to marry same-sex partners harm the lives of those who choose not to? I cannot for the life of me see any harm to people who choose not to marry someone of the same sex. We understand your choice to take the parts of the bible literally in your life. That is fine but why force your religious beliefs on others? I'm hoping the judges do the right thing and declare the ban unconstitutional so all citizens of Wisconsin and Indiana have the same marriage rights and that those who chose someone of the same sex do not have less rights than others.