IBJNews

Supreme skepticism boosts WellPoint stock

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

However the U.S. Supreme Court ends up ruling on President Obama’s health reform law, WellPoint Inc. and its health insurance peers already owe a big thank you to the nation’s top justices.

Indianapolis-based WellPoint’s stock price shot up nearly 11 percent last week—and its peers weren’t far behind. That’s because investors, like most observers, didn’t expect such harsh questioning of the law from even perceived “swing“ votes on the court, such as Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

"Going into the debate on the mandate, there was almost a sense of complacency out there that the mandate would stand, as would the law," CRT Capital analyst Sheryl Skolnick told the Reuters news service. "Investors were thrown a curve ball."

The favorable reaction from Wall Street came not only because harsh questioning by the court’s conservative justices put in doubt the law’s “individual mandate” that all Americans buy health insurance, but also because the justices raised the possibility that they would strike down requirements that insurers accept all customers, regardless if they are already sick or not.

The Obama administration itself argued that the justices, if they decide that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, also should eliminate the law’s requirements that health insurers accept all patients and another provision that says insurers must base all customers’ premiums on the health of the entire “community” in which that person lives, not on his or her individual health status.

The group of 26 states—including Indiana—that filed the lawsuit challenging the health reform law pushed the justices further, saying that if the individual mandate falls, the entire law should be thrown out with it.

From investors’ standpoint, either result would be better for health insurers than the worst-case scenario they feared: that the individual mandate would be struck down while the other requirements would stand.

That outcome would have prevented WellPoint and its peers from gaining some 30 million new customers, while still leaving them on the hook to pay the bills of patients who waited until they were sick to start paying premiums—premiums that would be restricted in price by the overall health of the community.

The stock prices of WellPoint’s main competitors—Hartford-based Aetna Inc., Philadelphia-based Cigna Corp., Louisville-based Humana Inc., and Minnesota-based UnitedHealth Group—each saw their stock prices rise between 7 percent and 10 percent last week.

"People at this point have pretty much dismissed the potential for an adverse outcome here, which would be the individual mandate gets tossed and everything else remains the same," Susquehanna Financial Group analyst Chris Rigg told Reuters.

That’s the current sentiment, but it is far from certain, Indianapolis health care attorneys Greg Pemberton and Taryn Stone noted in written commentary about last week’s hearings on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

“Ultimately, the challenge to the severability of the individual mandate provision from the rest of the Act is fundamentally a question of congressional intent. Would Congress have intended the entire Act to fall if the individual mandate is found unconstitutional?” wrote Pemberton and Stone, who are part of the law firm Ice Miller LLP. They concluded, “At this point, there is no clear indication on how the Court will rule.”

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. Apologies for the wall of text. I promise I had this nicely formatted in paragraphs in Notepad before pasting here.

  2. I believe that is incorrect Sir, the people's tax-dollars are NOT paying for the companies investment. Without the tax-break the company would be paying an ADDITIONAL $11.1 million in taxes ON TOP of their $22.5 Million investment (Building + IT), for a total of $33.6M or a 50% tax rate. Also, the article does not specify what the total taxes were BEFORE the break. Usually such a corporate tax-break is a 'discount' not a 100% wavier of tax obligations. For sake of example lets say the original taxes added up to $30M over 10 years. $12.5M, New Building $10.0M, IT infrastructure $30.0M, Total Taxes (Example Number) == $52.5M ININ's Cost - $1.8M /10 years, Tax Break (Building) - $0.75M /10 years, Tax Break (IT Infrastructure) - $8.6M /2 years, Tax Breaks (against Hiring Commitment: 430 new jobs /2 years) == 11.5M Possible tax breaks. ININ TOTAL COST: $41M Even if you assume a 100% break, change the '30.0M' to '11.5M' and you can see the Company will be paying a minimum of $22.5, out-of-pocket for their capital-investment - NOT the tax-payers. Also note, much of this money is being spent locally in Indiana and it is creating 430 jobs in your city. I admit I'm a little unclear which tax-breaks are allocated to exactly which expenses. Clearly this is all oversimplified but I think we have both made our points! :) Sorry for the long post.

  3. Clearly, there is a lack of a basic understanding of economics. It is not up to the company to decide what to pay its workers. If companies were able to decide how much to pay their workers then why wouldn't they pay everyone minimum wage? Why choose to pay $10 or $14 when they could pay $7? The answer is that companies DO NOT decide how much to pay workers. It is the market that dictates what a worker is worth and how much they should get paid. If Lowe's chooses to pay a call center worker $7 an hour it will not be able to hire anyone for the job, because all those people will work for someone else paying the market rate of $10-$14 an hour. This forces Lowes to pay its workers that much. Not because it wants to pay them that much out of the goodness of their heart, but because it has to pay them that much in order to stay competitive and attract good workers.

  4. GOOD DAY to you I am Mr Howell Henry, a Reputable, Legitimate & an accredited money Lender. I loan money out to individuals in need of financial assistance. Do you have a bad credit or are you in need of money to pay bills? i want to use this medium to inform you that i render reliable beneficiary assistance as I'll be glad to offer you a loan at 2% interest rate to reliable individuals. Services Rendered include: *Refinance *Home Improvement *Inventor Loans *Auto Loans *Debt Consolidation *Horse Loans *Line of Credit *Second Mortgage *Business Loans *Personal Loans *International Loans. Please write back if interested. Upon Response, you'll be mailed a Loan application form to fill. (No social security and no credit check, 100% Guaranteed!) I Look forward permitting me to be of service to you. You can contact me via e-mail howellhenryloanfirm@gmail.com Yours Sincerely MR Howell Henry(MD)

  5. It is sad to see these races not have a full attendance. The Indy Car races are so much more exciting than Nascar. It seems to me the commenters here are still a little upset with Tony George from a move he made 20 years ago. It was his decision to make, not yours. He lost his position over it. But I believe the problem in all pro sports is the escalating price of admission. In todays economy, people have to pay much more for food and gas. The average fan cannot attend many events anymore. It's gotten priced out of most peoples budgets.

ADVERTISEMENT