Aetna's Retreat From Obamacare Is More Than It Seems
320AUG 16, 2016 12:59 PM EDT
By Megan McArdle
Aetna is pulling out of 11 of the 15 states it serves on the Obamacare exchanges. Longtime readers of this column will be unsurprised at the reason: It's losing substantial amounts of money on its exchange policies.
Thats not necessarily the only reason, of course. Companies in heavily regulated industries -- and health care is now probably our most heavily regulated sector outside of nuclear power plants -- spend a lot of time engaging in n-dimensional chess games with the various government entities that have jurisdiction over their operations. Public statements and market moves may be exactly what they look like. Or they may be part of a complicated strategy involving some third, fourth or eighth factor that does not, at first glance, appear to be much related.
In this case, it has been delicately suggested that the company may have in mind its proposed merger with Humana (and that related announcements by Anthem are designed to aid Anthem's Cigna merger). The government is currently suing to block both mergers; the companies would, obviously, like them to go through. The deals would consolidate an industry that currently has five major insurers down to three, giving them considerably more pricing power with both customers and providers. Because the individual market is a relatively small piece of their business, those mergers are probably worth a lot more to them than whatever goodwill the companies earn by losing money on the exchanges.
The losses are not to be ignored. Insurance regulators and the Securities and Exchange Commission do not give the firms much room to claim that theyre losing money if they're actually making it hand over fist. Even if that werent the case, the failure of so many co-ops, which dont have other lines of business, suggests that these markets are not, on the whole, a good place for insurers to make money. But its at least plausible that if the government werent blocking their mergers, these companies might be willing to go along with those losses for a few years in order to generate some regulatory goodwill for their broader business.
more...
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-16/aetna-s-retreat-from-obamacare-is-more-than-it-seems
louis-t
(23,295 posts)They are no longer allowed to rob you blind just because they can.
It has insurance companies whining that they are being persecuted.
I don't believe the line about 'n-dimensional chess' for one minute.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)They are loosing money in those states, so they are leaving.
Seems simple enough to me.
louis-t
(23,295 posts)More likely not losing money, but not making it hand over fist like they used to, so they're taking their ball and going home. Trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy by shrinking the number of providers to create market shortage. Prices go up, and they can point and say "Job killing Obamacare!!!"
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Insurance is pretty well regulated. They have to file reports which are audited, so they can't just make these numbers up.
Also, what good does a shortage and price increase do in a market they are no longer in?
TexasTowelie
(112,252 posts)this is proof that the private sector does not operate more efficiently than government entities. I'm not familiar with all of the aspects of the ACA, but if there is no private sector options (or few) then the clientele should be able to choose the federal exchange instead.
Marcuse
(7,488 posts)area51
(11,911 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)When it is really the socioeconomic insurance compendium at fault.