IBJNews

Insurers may prove choosy with overhaul exchanges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

The leader of the nation's largest health insurer warned Thursday not to assume widespread participation from his company in part of health care overhaul's coverage expansion that unfolds later this year.

UnitedHealth Group Inc. CEO Stephen Hemsley told analysts the insurer's involvement in online exchanges that are expected to help millions buy coverage will depend on whether it's financially viable for the company.

"We will only participate in exchanges that we assess to be fair, commercially sustainable and provide a reasonable return on the capital they will require," he said.

These exchanges are expected to start accepting enrollment this fall for coverage that begins in 2014. Customers will use the websites, which will vary by state, to compare policies and apply income-based tax credits toward their bills. Many details on the exchanges have yet to be worked out, so Hemsley said the company hasn't made any specific decisions.

But he estimated that UnitedHealth will participate initially in roughly 10 to 25 exchanges, when at least 100 might be set up.

"In a perfect world, we would participate in them all," he said, adding that the insurer will keep evaluating exchanges and could eventually join more.

These exchanges will target individuals and people who have coverage through small employers. The consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers has estimated that they will generate $50 billion in premiums for the industry and at least 11 million customers by next year.

But insurers will have to spend money to make that money. The overhaul will impose taxes and fees on insurers, and it introduces some restrictions on how they can set premiums or the price of coverage.

Insurers, who are not required to participate in the exchanges, also will have to design plans that fit the requirements for each state exchange and build networks of health care providers.

"There is a significant risk ... that if the economics on the exchanges are not favorable, they're simply not going to participate," said Sheryl Skolnick, an analyst who covers insurers for the institutional broker and dealer CRT Capital Group.

That could affect the premiums people pay for coverage. Proponents of the overhaul say the exchanges will help restrain premium hikes because insurers will be competing against each other as customers compare several policies side by side to find the best match.

UnitedHealth competitor WellPoint Inc. said it is planning to be on exchanges in all 14 states in which it sells plans with its well-known Blue Cross Blue Shield brand. But a company spokeswoman said in an email the Indianapolis-based insurer wants to see exchanges that emphasize competition and maximize choice for customers.

Whether insurers ultimately leave some exchanges thin on competition remains to be seen.

Wells Fargo analyst Peter Costa said every company will weigh the risks of participating in those exchanges against potential benefits. But too many details about the exchanges remain unknown to say how those deliberations will pan out.

Morningstar analyst Matthew Coffina expects widespread insurer participation.

He noted that some companies will lose business to the exchanges, so they will need to be on them to recapture it and gain new customers. He also noted that government officials will want credible companies like UnitedHealth or WellPoint on their exchanges and not just small, local insurers.

"I think regulators are aware of that, so they'll want to offer rules and terms that are attractive enough to attract a robust participation," he said.

Hemsley spoke to analysts Thursday morning after UnitedHealth announced results from the recently completed fourth quarter. The insurer's earnings slipped 1 percent to $1.24 billion. Earnings per share rose 3 cents to $1.20 compared to the last quarter of 2011, when the company had more shares outstanding.

UnitedHealth's total revenue climbed 11 percent to $28.77 billion.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • and likewise about Providers
    Let's also not assume all providers will participate in the products offered by insurance companies on the exchange. Providers need to be choosy as well.

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. liek the rest of America

  2. These quaint,obsessed musings by the stalkers are certainly entertaining, but I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, all the yelping below has to do with Zak Brown.

  3. It's evident that Moffett was pushing the right buttons and corporate America is now trying to squash him. He just wanted to withdraw the free pilot services provided to the company by the pilots to try and put some pressure on a company that has not been interested in negotiating a contract in over 5 years. The company does not provide a contract because not having one has saved them a bundle of money. Shame on any Republic pilots not standing behind their union leader just because things are getting tough, can you not see such strategic moves by the company as putting the last union president in a corporate position and into THEIR pocket. Do you really believe the last union president is so appalled at the attempts by Moffett, do you not remember his oppositions to the company? We stood behind him. It has been proven over and over again for thousands of years without fail, a man cannot serve two masters. Anyone that believes people vote contrary to their paycheck and livelihood deserve to be taken advantage of, the recent statements by the former union president are laughable as he denounces the current union president from his new corporate position. Have you ever seen a drafted sports player score points for his previous team, it cannot be done, he is not on the pilots side anymore, he gets his money a different way now than you and I do, and he should not be allowed to remain on the seniority list. A drafted player brings strength, credibility, tactical knowledge, and a strategic advantage to his NEW team, he would not be drafted or paid were it otherwise. We are all forced to choose only one side to play for and support, not doing so has many references in life such as insider trading and shaving points, all illegal for good reason. This basic fact is why corporate moguls, scientist, and engineers all sign non-discloser agreements and non-compete clauses, as protection in case they are lured into switching sides as our former union president has done. No NFL coach ever drafted a player so that both teams could benefit and better understand each other, they are recruited to win the game against that former team, period. Likewise the company does not recruit the former union president by accident or mutual understanding, its strategy. Don't confuse playing the game with good sportsman-like conduct in support of common business and prosperity goals, with the requirement to only play for one side. Good men we all love and favor fall subject to this manipulation, often without their knowledge, and it is not a betrayal of their friendship to oppose them when they switch sides. If we did not love and trust them, they would not have been chosen and lured to the other side in the first place. The deception by the drafted player is not made at a conscious level, it's just human nature and it's all about money and power which corrupts our ability to be objective and loyal to two masters. This is why our court system created the defense attorney, and why our military created counter intelligence. Its strategy and its propaganda, and it works, and that's why the "powers to be" manipulate the chess pieces by sometimes changing their colors. Some players know they are being manipulated when their color is changed, but it brings them more money and power so they do not care. The rest have good intentions but do not even realize they are being manipulated. This tactic is also known by another name, Divide and Conquer. In battle sending an imperfect message with an imperfect team is obviously not ideal, but it's still being sent by YOUR team, your union leader, a leader that has common goals and common rewards with you, they are the best, because we have elected them to do a job for us. If you are not backing Moffett but believing the spin by those that have recently switched sides, you are taking food out of your own mouth. Showing unity and backing an imperfect situation still results in taking just as much ground, it's about unity and bargaining power. It's not necessary to wait around for that perfect attack because it will never come, the company will spin and attempt to destroy anyone that gets in their way. Ultimately it's not about any specific attack anyway, ASAP or whatever it makes no difference, it is and always has been only about power. If this company cared about safety it would not build pairings with 8 hour overnights, come on, are you that naive? Besides, do you really think Hoffa cares, no, he got a call from corporate America and was squeezed into denouncing Moffett. If he didn't they would spin the safety card against him and the Teamsters National with implication for truckers, future contracts, insurance rates etc...saying something like the Teamsters use safety as a bargaining chip, blah blah blah... Do you really think any pilot is going to do something unsafe for the contract, absolutely not, the only ones threatening safety here is the company with reduced rest, fatigue, and poverty. Do you not find it odd that Hoffa and the Teamsters are opposing a Teamster president publicly? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and work with one of their own? Why did they not sit down and help him strategize, correct any mistakes, and charge ahead? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and leverage a contract for all those pilots that have been paying Teamster dues, isn't that why we have all been paying Teamster dues in the first place? I sure haven't been paying dues so that the Teamsters National could come along and write this kind of an article undercutting our union leader and our unity. Whose side is the Teamsters National really on, it's obviously not the Republic pilots side.

  4. No matter what Moffatt does the company is going to spin it like he is the terrorist and brainwash people like you into believing it, wake up, back your players that are trying to change things for you and your livelihood. Where has Hoffa been for the last 6 years, except collecting our dues. Seriously, do you really think an FO going for upgrade, signed off by a checkairman ready for the upgrade, who then fails, is not even capable of returning as a First Officer.

  5. whoa!

ADVERTISEMENT