Showing posts with label insurers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label insurers. Show all posts

Monday, July 9, 2012

Health-care Stocks: Medicaid insurers surge on Amerigroup deal

By Russ Britt, MarketWatch

LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) — Medicaid insurers surged in early trading Monday, anticipating a reshuffling among health carriers after WellPoint Inc. announced plans to buy Amerigroup Corp. for a 43% premium.

Shares of Amerigroup /quotes/zigman/265070/quotes/nls/agp AGP +38.17%  , a player in Medicaid coverage, were catapulted by 38% after WellPoint /quotes/zigman/362231/quotes/nls/wlp WLP +3.17%  , one of the nation’s biggest insurers, agreed to pay $92 a share for the company, or $4.9 billion. Amerigroup shares were up $24.46 to $88.80 while WellPoint shares were up nearly 3% to $61.50.

Health insurer WellPoint is buying Amerigroup for $4.9 billion, bringing together two major health-care carriers. (Photo: Associated Press)

The news sent shares of other Medicaid insurers soaring, as the market apparently now expects more mergers in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling on President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul bill. The ruling preserved the federal expansion of the Medicaid program for indigent patients, though the court ruled that it’s not mandatory for states to participate.

Fellow Medicaid insurer Centene Corp. /quotes/zigman/292665/quotes/nls/cnc CNC +19.32%  posted a 20% gain to $34.73 on the news. Other Medicaid insurers to bask in the glow were WellCare Health Plans Inc. /quotes/zigman/341770/quotes/nls/wcg WCG +18.47%  , which was up more than 18% to $62.39, while Molina Healthcare Inc. /quotes/zigman/317140/quotes/nls/moh MOH +16.78%  surged by 14% to $26.31.

Analysts said, however, that WellPoint wasn’t reacting to the Supreme Court ruling by making the deal for Amerigroup. The move allows WellPoint to have substantial lines of business in both Medicare and Medicaid.

But the deal will also allow Indianapolis-based WellPoint to benefit from the Medicaid expansion, analyst Chris Rigg of Susquehanna Financial Group said in a morning note to clients.

“There is uncertainty around states’ willingness to participate in the expansion program but if all states opt in, approximately 17 million uninsured lives are expected to be covered through Medicaid expansion,” Rigg wrote. He added that the new company would have a presence in the four largest dual-eligible states, with potential revenue of $100 million.

Deutsche Bank’s Scott Fidel concurred, adding that Amerigroup, headquartered in Virginia Beach, Va., was probably the best-positioned Medicaid player.

“This acquisition significantly enhances WellPoint’s Medicaid franchise providing the company with the best pure-play asset and management team in Medicaid managed care, in our view,” Fidel said in a note to clients.

Russ Britt is the Los Angeles bureau chief for MarketWatch.



View the original article here

Friday, June 22, 2012

Health insurers foresee rising premiums if court nixes 'individual mandate'

When President Obama pushed for a sweeping overhaul of America's health insurance system in 2010, the health insurance industry went along with a central premise of the law: that it would agree to insure "all comers," regardless of their state of health, if a new mandate also coaxed younger and healthier Americans to buy insurance.

In principle, millions of Americans who could not otherwise afford insurance would be covered, while the influx of healthy purchasers of insurance would help pay the costs. Any day now, in a ruling by the US Supreme Court, this central bargain in Mr. Obama's Affordable Care Act could unravel.

It's not hard to see why the health insurance industry doesn't like that idea. The Supreme Court could rule that the "individual mandate" in the law is unconstitutional, thus removing a big expected stream of revenue, while leaving in place the law's guaranteed-access provisions, which impose big costs on insurers.

RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about health-care reform? Take our quiz!

But outside experts say the negative consequences also would ripple beyond the insurance business to affect the pocketbooks of millions of Americans, who would face a rising price for their health insurance.

"We have the worst possible outcome" in this scenario, says J.D. Kleinke, a health-policy expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Yet this outcome appears quite probable, he says, because the Supreme Court is tasked with considering questions of law and the Constitution, not what would be optimal for America's health-care system.

"They're thinking about it legally.... They've got pressure not to be activist," says Mr. Kleinke. He predicts that "their tendency is going to be to do as little as possible but still do what they believe is legally correct. You do the math on that, you end up with: They take away the mandate, they leave the rest."

The court case could bring new and sharper definition to the clause of the Constitution that allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The central question is: Does a mandate on individuals to carry insurance (or pay a fine) represent a lawful regulation of commerce or an unconstitutional intrusion of the federal government on the affairs of individuals and state governments?

It's possible that the high court will opt for a ruling that doesn't center solely on the individual mandate. The justices could vote to uphold the entire Affordable Care Act (ACA), or they could strike it down entirely. Or they might sweep away both the individual mandate and the law's central marketplace reforms (guaranteed access to insurance) together, following the reasoning of the industry and the Obama administration that those provisions have an inherent linkage.

If the court strikes down the individual mandate without doing anything else, many Americans would still be glad to have the ACA's provision of access to insurance, without regard to preexisting health conditions.

And it's not clear how much insurance costs would rise. Some studies by health-care experts suggest the price jump could end up being smaller than the dire rhetoric from the industry implies – especially after factoring in the law's tax credits that defray the cost of buying insurance.

Other studies conclude that the rise would be substantial for families who don't have coverage through employer-sponsored plans. One midrange estimate of the impact, from the Congressional Budget Office, is that insurance premiums could go up by about 15 percent.

RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about health-care reform? Take our quiz!

Related stories

Read this story at csmonitor.com

Become a part of the Monitor community


View the original article here

Health care insurers to dole out $1B in rebates to consumers

Health insurers will dole out a total of $1 billion in rebates to 12.8 million Americans this summer -- an average of $151 per family --as a result of the 2010 health care reform law, the government said Thursday.

The rebates announced by the Department of Health and Human Services come from a provision of the law that punishes insurers who spend too much of policyholders' premiums for boosting company profits instead of paying for their medical care.

However, it's unclear if insurers will have to issue rebates at all if the Supreme Court strikes down all of the health care law.

The court, which is reviewing the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, is expected to issue its ruling later this month. The court could uphold the law, overturn it partially or completely strike it down.

HHS spokesman Keith Maley said the agency was confident that the law is constitutional.

"We are focused on ensuring the benefits of the law are applied to Americans across the country, including ensuring consumers get value for their premium dollar," he said.

The rule mandated that, beginning in 2011, insurance companies would have to spend 80% to 85% of the premiums they collect on medical care instead of toward their own profits and overhead costs.

See average health insurance rebates by state

"The rule helps ensure consumers get fair value for their health care dollar," HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, said in a statement.

Insurers that didn't increase that allotment to the new federal standard would have to give customers a rebate for the difference beginning in 2012.

Exchanges could survive even if health reform law dies

HHS said insurance companies that failed to meet the required "medical loss ratio" must provide a rebate for the difference to their customers no later than Aug. 1.

For families who buy their health insurance out of pocket, the average rebate is expected to be $152. In the small group insurance market, where many small businesses buy insurance for their workers, the average rebate per family is expected to be $174, the agency said.

Large companies that insure employees themselves will have to pay out an average rebate of $135 per family if they fail to meet the rule, HHS said.

HHS said consumers owed a rebate could get it as a check in the mail, a lump-sum reimbursement to the same account that they used to pay the premium if by credit card or debit card, or as a reduction in their future premiums.

3.1M young adults gained health coverage since law took effect

For affected policyholders who are insured through their employers, their companies could provide them with the check or reimbursement, or employers could apply the rebate in another manner that benefits their employees, the agency said.

View this article on CNNMoney

More From CNNMoney.com


View the original article here

Health insurers foresee rising premiums if court nixes 'individual mandate'

When President Obama pushed for a sweeping overhaul of America's health insurance system in 2010, the health insurance industry went along with a central premise of the law: that it would agree to insure "all comers," regardless of their state of health, if a new mandate also coaxed younger and healthier Americans to buy insurance.

Skip to next paragraph

In principle, millions of Americans who could not otherwise afford insurance would be covered, while the influx of healthy purchasers of insurance would help pay the costs. Any day now, in a ruling by the US Supreme Court, this central bargain in Mr. Obama's Affordable Care Act could unravel.

It's not hard to see why the health insurance industry doesn't like that idea. The Supreme Court could rule that the "individual mandate" in the law is unconstitutional, thus removing a big expected stream of revenue, while leaving in place the law's guaranteed-access provisions, which impose big costs on insurers.

But outside experts say the negative consequences also would ripple beyond the insurance business to affect the pocketbooks of millions of Americans, who would face a rising price for their health insurance.

"We have the worst possible outcome" in this scenario, says J.D. Kleinke, a health-policy expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Yet this outcome appears quite probable, he says, because the Supreme Court is tasked with considering questions of law and the Constitution, not what would be optimal for America's health-care system.

"They're thinking about it legally.... They've got pressure not to be activist," says Mr. Kleinke. He predicts that "their tendency is going to be to do as little as possible but still do what they believe is legally correct. You do the math on that, you end up with: They take away the mandate, they leave the rest."

The court case could bring new and sharper definition to the clause of the Constitution that allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The central question is: Does a mandate on individuals to carry insurance (or pay a fine) represent a lawful regulation of commerce or an unconstitutional intrusion of the federal government on the affairs of individuals and state governments?

It's possible that the high court will opt for a ruling that doesn't center solely on the individual mandate. The justices could vote to uphold the entire Affordable Care Act (ACA), or they could strike it down entirely. Or they might sweep away both the individual mandate and the law's central marketplace reforms (guaranteed access to insurance) together, following the reasoning of the industry and the Obama administration that those provisions have an inherent linkage.

If the court strikes down the individual mandate without doing anything else, many Americans would still be glad to have the ACA's provision of access to insurance, without regard to preexisting health conditions.

And it's not clear how much insurance costs would rise. Some studies by health-care experts suggest the price jump could end up being smaller than the dire rhetoric from the industry implies – especially after factoring in the law's tax credits that defray the cost of buying insurance.

Other studies conclude that the rise would be substantial for families who don't have coverage through employer-sponsored plans. One midrange estimate of the impact, from the Congressional Budget Office, is that insurance premiums could go up by about 15 percent.


View the original article here

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Health Insurers Will Keep Parts of 'Obamacare,' Regardless of Court Ruling

UnitedHealthcare and Humana, two of the nation’s largest health insurance companies, will keep major and popular parts of President Obama’s health care initiative regardless of how the U.S. Supreme Court rules.

UnitedHealthcare announced on Monday morning that it plans to continue to provide customers with preventive health services without co-pays or out-of-pocket charges. The company will also allow parents to keep children on their health plans until age 26. Humana followed suit with its own statement on keeping the same regulations on Monday afternoon.

Both companies will also observe the law’s prohibition against lifetime limits on insurance payouts and canceling coverage after a patient gets sick, unless that patient intentionally lied on the insurance application.

According to Bloomberg News, health insurance giant Aetna also vowed to maintain some new rules, but did not specifically detail which provisions should stay.

“A number of provisions in the health-reform law have been woven into the fabric of our health-care system, bring value to customers and consumers, and should be maintained,” Aetna said in an e-mail to Bloomberg.

The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing several major challenges to the law, and is expected to issue rulings this month that could dispatch all or part of the law.

“The protections we are voluntarily extending are good for people’s health, promote broader access to quality care and contribute to helping control rising health care costs,” Stephen J. Hemsley, president and chief executive of UnitedHealth Group, said in a statement. “These provisions are compatible with our mission and continue our operating practices.”

Health and Human Services' chief health information technology officer, Farzad Mostashari, said it was part of a larger trend of the health reform law delivering permanent improvements to the health care industry.

"It goes to show how there are some changes afoot that are in the direction that we need to move," Mostashari told National Journal in an interview. "I'm greatly encouraged by what a lot of the commercial plans are doing."

The health insurance industry lobby also welcomed United's announcement.

"This is an example of health plans stepping up to give consumers peace of mind about their health care coverage," Americans Health Inusrance Plans Spokesman Robert Zirkelbach said in an e-mail.

Jonathan Miller contributed.


View the original article here

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Independent Study Shows That Health Insurers Will Pay $1.3 Billion in Rebates

NEW YORK, NY--(Marketwire -04/27/12)- Health insurance companies' shares fell Thursday as independent study showed that health insurers will pay $1.3 billion in rebates. Nearly half of that sum is expected to be paid back from four major insurers: United Healthcare Group Inc., WellPoint Inc., Aetna Inc. and Coventry Health Care Inc. according to Goldman Sachs. The Paragon Report examines investing opportunities in the Health Care Plans Industry and provides equity research on WellPoint, Inc. (WLP - News) and Coventry Health Care, Inc. (CVH - News).

Access to full reports can be found at:

www.ParagonReport.com/WLP

www.ParagonReport.com/CVH

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act health insurers must spend 80 percent of premiums from individuals and small businesses, and 85 percent of premiums from large employers on health expenses and quality improvements. If an insurer does not spend enough on health costs it must refund the difference back to the consumer. According to a study published by the Kaiser Family Foundation approximately 31 percent of individual policyholders, or around 3.4 million people, are expected to get rebates.

Paragon Report releases regular market updates on the Health Care Plans Industry so investors can stay ahead of the crowd and make the best investment decisions to maximize their returns. Take a few minutes to register with us free at www.ParagonReport.com and get exclusive access to our numerous stock reports and industry newsletters.

WellPoint is expected to pay out around $94 million on $33.2 billion in eligible premiums. The company announced that first quarter 2012 net income was $856.5 million, or $2.53 per share, including net investment gains of $62.4 million after-tax, or approximately $0.19 per share. Net income in the first quarter of 2011 was $926.6 million, or $2.44 per share, including net investment gains of $35.6 million after-tax, or approximately $0.09 per share.

Coventry Health Care is a diversified national managed healthcare company based in Bethesda, Maryland. The Company announced that they will release first quarter 2012 financial results on Friday, April 27, 2012. Allen F. Wise, Chief executive officer, will be hosting a conference call at 8:30 a.m. ET on that day.

Paragon Report provides Market Research focused on equities that offer growth opportunities, value, and strong potential return. We strive to provide the most up-to-date market activities. We constantly create research reports and newsletters for our members. The Paragon Report has not been compensated by any of the above-mentioned companies. We act as independent research portal and are aware that all investment entails inherent risks. Please view the full disclaimer at:
www.ParagonReport.com/disclaimer


View the original article here

Friday, April 27, 2012

Health Insurers Plan Over $1 Billion in Rebates

Health insurers will have to rebate about $1.3 billion to consumers and employers this summer, under a new health-care overhaul provision. Stefanie Ilgenfritz has details on Lunch Break. Photo: AP.


View the original article here

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Health insurers to pay $1.3 billion in rebates: study

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Health insurers will pay $1.3 billion in rebates to consumers and employers this year under a provision of President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law that penalizes plans that devote too little of their premium revenues to health services, an independent study showed on Thursday.

The study, published by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, said the data illustrated some of the tangible benefits that consumers and employers could expect from the embattled 2010 law if it survives two major legal and political election-year challenges.

The rebates, which are due by August 1, stem from premiums paid in 2011 on plans representing nearly 16 million beneficiaries. But Kaiser, a nonprofit healthcare research group, said most of the money is expected to go to employers rather than consumers.

The healthcare law, Obama's signature domestic policy achievement, has proved unpopular with many voters and could be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court by the end of June or repealed next year if Republicans gain control of the Congress and White House in the November elections.

If the law were overturned or repealed, insurers would no longer be required to comply with the rebate provision.

"While the health reform law as a whole continues to divide the American public, there are tangible changes taking place that benefit consumers," said Kaiser President Drew Altman.

"Greater regulatory scrutiny of private insurance is improving value and helping to get excess costs out of the system," he added.

Under the law, called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, health insurers must spend at least 80 percent of premium revenues on health expenses and quality improvements. The rule is intended to limit what insurers devote to marketing, administration and profits.

Kaiser found that some of the biggest rebate payouts are expected in states, including Texas and Florida, where the law faces some of its stiffest opposition from Republican politicians and other conservatives.

The study's overall projection parallels separate findings by investment bank Goldman Sachs, which estimated this week that the $850 billion health insurance industry would pay out about $1.2 billion in rebates on 2011 premiums.

Goldman said just over half that sum - $600 million to $650 million - can be expected from four major health insurers: United Healthcare Group Inc, WellPoint Inc, Aetna Inc and Coventry Health Care Inc.

The bank said its forecast was lower than the $1.4 billion initially predicted by the administration, partly because the government adopted a more industry-friendly policy than anticipated but also because of proactive pricing by insurers.

"The latter dynamic has arguably contributed to the recent increase in industry price competition," Goldman said.

Kaiser also found that 31 percent of consumers in the individual insurance market could expect to receive a total of $426 million in rebates, for an average of $127 per person.

About 20 percent of the insurance industry's market for large employers could receive $541 million, while more than one-quarter of the small group market that serves small businesses could look forward to rebates totaling $377 million.

A main source of public dislike for healthcare law is a provision that requires most Americans to buy private health insurance by 2014 as part of a plan to extend health coverage to more than 32 million people who are uninsured.

Reform advocates insist that much of the public's dislike for the law stems from a lack of knowledge about the advantages it offers to consumers and others.

(Editing by Mohammad Zargham)


View the original article here

Thursday, April 5, 2012

Montana health insurers post profits in 2011

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana increased its health insurance premium income by $40 million last year, but still posted an underwriting loss for the third straight year, according to a report filed with the state insurance commissioner.

The state's largest health insurer offset $5.4 million in underwriting losses with $9 million in investment earnings, for a net gain of $3.1 million in 2011.

"The company understands that in some years there will not be an underwriting gain, and therefore we put our reserves to work to offset the cyclical losses," said Frank Cote, senior director of government affairs for Blue Cross, told Lee Newspapers of Montana for a story published Thursday.

New West Health Services of Helena and Allegiance Life & Health Insurance Co., of Missoula, both reported increased premiums, but Allegiance reported a net loss.

New West increased its premium income by 32 percent to nearly $159 million, reported an underwriting gain of $1.6 million and a net profit of $1.4 million.

Allegiance increased its premium income by 26 percent to $71.6 million, but reported a $3.6 million underwriting loss and a $2 million net loss.

New West is selling off its commercial health insurance business while continuing as a provider of Medicare Advantage, a supplemental coverage for those on Medicare.

"We would have grown more had there not been the publicity regarding changes here at New West," said Tanya Ask, vice president of external relations. "We had very significant growth in Medicare Advantage."

Allegiance increased its number of covered customers to 21,000, but lost money because of higher-than-expected claims, said vice president Todd Lovshin.

The reports also included executive compensation.

Blue Cross Blue Shield president and CEO Mike Frank received about $514,000 in total compensation in his first full year as president, including a $103,000 bonus.

At New West, the state's second-largest health insurer, president and CEO David Kibbee received $414,000 in total compensation, but received no bonus.


View the original article here

Monday, April 2, 2012

Sector Wrap: Big health insurers trade higher

NEW YORK (AP) — Shares of the biggest health insurance companies rose Thursday after the end of oral arguments in the Supreme Court case on the U.S. health care reform law.

The court is expected to make a decision in June on the health care legislation, which President Obama signed into law in March 2010 after months of public and Congressional debate. Some parts of the law are already in effect, but major provisions including the mandate requiring most people to buy health insurance don't kick in until 2014.

The mandate is arguably the most controversial part of the law, and for health insurers, it would mean a big increase in both customers and expenses.

While it's difficult to predict what the court will do based on oral arguments, analysts Dave Shove of BMO Capital Markets and Sarah James of Wedbush both said that the Medicaid expansion part of the law is probably safe. More than half of the 30 million people who would gain health insurance coverage under the new law would be covered through Medicaid.

James said she spoke to a panel of three legal experts, and all the panelists think the court will uphold the Medicaid provision.

"It is almost inconceivable the court would find the Medicaid expansion unconstitutional since a law has never been found unconstitutional under the argument the states (who are opposed to the law) are using," she wrote, summarizing the panelists' views. James said investors are expecting the same outcome.

Shove wrote that that the Medicaid expansion is similar to other changes made since Medicaid was created in 1965.

Shove said health insurance stocks should do well until the ruling comes down because business trends have been strong and should surpass Wall Street expectations. Shove rates shares of UnitedHealth Group Inc., WellPoint Inc. and Aetna Inc. "Outperform," and he has "Market Perform" ratings on seven other companies in the industry.

UnitedHealth is the largest health insurer in terms of revenue, and WellPoint is the largest by enrollment. Shares of UnitedHealth rose $2.67, or 4.8 percent, to $58.11 Thursday and WellPoint's stock picked up $1.62, or 2.3 percent, to $71.62. Aetna shares gained $3.04, or 6.5 percent, to $49.56.

Shove said he expects the law to be altered in Congress in 2013 no matter what the court decides, but he expects the individual mandate will be stricken from the law.

"We expect the Justices to hold that the mandate is unconstitutional and sever it from the law, forcing Congress to rework this legislative Rube Goldberg machine," Shove wrote in a note to clients.

Also trading higher were shares of Humana Inc., which added $2.90, or 3.3 percent, to $91.54, and Cigna Corp., which advanced $1.90, or 4 percent, to $48.97.

James said it will be good for Medicaid-focused insurers like Centene Corp., Molina Healthcare Inc., Amerigroup Corp., and WellCare Health Plans Inc. if the Medicaid provision is upheld. However those stocks were little changed on Thursday: Centene shares lost 28 cents to $47.45, Molina shares fell 29 cents to $33.44, Amerigroup shares declined $1.35 to $65.63, and WellCare stock rose 73 cents to $70.58.


View the original article here

Friday, March 23, 2012

Insurers speed health care overhaul preparations

The nation's big insurers are spending millions to carry out President Barack Obama's health care overhaul even though there's a chance the wide-reaching law won't survive Supreme Court scrutiny.

It's not that health insurance companies want to bet big that the court will uphold the Affordable Care Act, but they can't afford not to. It will take at least several months and lots of resources for insurers to prepare to implement key elements of the law, which includes a controversial requirement that most Americans have health insurance by 2014.

WellPoint Inc., the nation's second-largest health insurer with 34 million members, has said it will spend $100 million this year on technology upgrades to meet the law's requirements. Aetna Inc., third-largest U.S. health insurer with more than 18 million members, says it expects to spend $50 million this year in part to upgrade software and computers.

Even smaller insurers like Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, a private company with 4 million members, are spending big. This year, the company, which employs 7,000 people, plans to add about 100 employees and spend nearly $20 million.

The law calls for big changes in the number of people receiving coverage, what must be covered and who pays for it, so insurers that don't prepare until after the court's ruling, expected in late June, will run short on time, said Kirk Roy, vice president of national health reform with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.

"Waiting is too big a business risk for any insurer," said Roy, who was promoted to his current job shortly after the overhaul became law in 2010.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments over the law for three days starting Monday. Among other options, the justices could uphold the law, strike it down completely or get rid of some provisions.

Insurers will be paying particular attention to arguments over two key provisions. One is the so-called individual mandate that requires most people to carry health insurance by 2014 or pay penalties. Of equally high interest is the requirement that insurers cover everyone who applies even if they have a pre-existing condition, like diabetes, which can produce high medical costs.

The two mandates are important cogs in the law's push to expand coverage through health insurance exchanges set up by federal and state regulators. These exchanges will be mostly online marketplaces, where individuals and small business employees can go to comparison shop for insurance policies. Insurers are spending money to figure out how to set prices for their coverage on these exchanges, which will vary by state and require changes like the inclusion of subsidies to help people pay for coverage.

Much of the money insurers are spending is paying for a close look at how to set premiums high enough to cover the expected increase in claims from people with pre-existing diseases, but not so high that healthy customers are scared off. That includes research into how many people with chronic conditions will need expensive prescriptions or how their customers will use health care.

"There's an awful lot of work that goes into preparing those kinds of analyses," said Sheryl Skolnick, an analyst at CRT Capital Group, an institutional broker and dealer. "One should not do that in a rush because making a mistake could literally be fatal to the health plan."

Even though these changes wouldn't take effect for a couple years, insurers are preparing now because they'll need to have their plans ready several months before then. They will have to submit plans to regulators and then wait for a review and approval, the timing of which will vary by state. Additionally, they will need time to advertise the plans before customers will be able to start signing up in October 2013.

Insurers also have to prepare for more pressing deadlines. For instance, the overhaul requires for them to create benefits summaries by September that make it easier for consumers to compare coverage. The summaries will give consumers details like a plan's deductible or the annual amount a patient pays out of pocket for care before insurance coverage kicks in. They'll also give examples for how the plan would cover events like childbirth.

The forms aim to make insurance shopping easier, but they pose a headache for the industry, said Karen Ignagni, CEO of the trade association America's Health Insurance Plans. That's because the summaries will have to be adjusted, depending on the plan, to account for varied pharmacy benefits or provider networks. An insurer with 50,000 different small business customers would likely have to design thousands of different forms.

"It's not a simple matter of creating a computer program," Ignagni said.

If the health care law is altered or thrown out, some money spent this year would have to be written off. For instance, insurers won't need computer programs that interact with state-based exchanges or marketplaces.

But not all the money would be wasted. Roy, with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, says the overhaul has compelled insurers to make it easier for customers to understand their coverage and how much it costs — a valuable change whether or not the law is upheld.

"Generally people tell all of the insurance industry, 'Your stuff's complicated and confusing ... make that simpler,'" he said. "That's absolutely something that we're working on."

The overhaul also encourages insurers to invest in improving the quality of care and ultimately reducing costs. Market forces also encourage this: Health care costs are still growing faster than inflation and worker wages, and employers that provide coverage need help narrowing that gap.

"The forces that led us to the need for health care reform are not going away," said Les Funtleyder, health care portfolio manager with Miller Tabak, an institutional trading and asset management firm. "If not (the Affordable Care Act), there is going to be something else that replaces this."

EDITORS NOTE _ This is part of a weeklong package of stories previewing the Supreme Court's consideration of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law.


View the original article here

Insurers health law prep at a glance

Health insurers have been implementing parts of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul and preparing for provisions yet to take effect, even as the Supreme Court prepares to review whether or not the 2010 law is constitutional.

Some things the law has required insurers to do so far and what remains to be done:

Insurers already have:

— Expanded dependent coverage in individual and group policies to include adult children up to age 26.

— Eliminated lifetime limits on the dollar value of insurance coverage. That refers to how much insurance coverage pays out to cover claims.

— Restricted annual limits on coverage, a practice that will be prohibited starting in 2014.

— Provided preventive care like immunizations or mammograms without charging co-pays or other forms of cost sharing.

— Stopped excluding children from coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

— Started spending minimum percentages of the premiums they collect on care or programs to improve quality.

Still to do:

— Create by September user-friendly summaries of standard benefits for people shopping for coverage.

— Prepare to sell coverage on state-based exchanges that will allow individuals and employees of small businesses to shop for insurance starting in 2014.

— Offer coverage to everyone who applies and stop excluding people with pre-existing conditions starting in 2014.

— Stop pricing coverage based on a person's health status.

— Start paying an industry-wide insurer fee that begins at $8 billion in 2014 and increases afterward.

___

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation.


View the original article here

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Health insurers question Obama birth control plan

(Reuters) - Health insurers said on Friday they feared President Barack Obama had set a new precedent by making them responsible for providing free birth control to employees of religious groups as he sought to defuse an election-year landmine.

Obama on Friday announced the policy shift in an effort to accommodate religious organizations, such as Catholic hospitals and universities, whose leaders are outraged by a new rule that would have required them to offer free contraceptive coverage to employees.

Instead, the Obama administration ordered insurers to provide workers at religious-affiliated institutions with free family planning if they request it, without involving their employer at all. Insurance industry officials said the abrupt shift raised questions over how that requirement would be implemented.

"We are concerned about the precedent this proposed rule would set," said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's trade group. "As we learn more about how this rule would be operationalized, we will provide comments through the regulatory process."

Zirkelbach said insurers "have long offered contraceptive coverage to employers as part of comprehensive, preventive benefits that aim to improve patient health and reduce health care cost growth."

Employers who have signed on for such health plans in the past paid part of the cost of birth control prescriptions, while their employees also bore some of the expense through co-payments.

Aetna, the third-largest U.S. health insurer, said that it would comply with the policy but needed "to study the mechanics of this unprecedented decision before we can understand how it will be implemented and how it will impact our customers."

An Aetna spokeswoman said the company "did not have any direct input into the actual policy decisions that were made."

When asked about the insurer concerns, the White House cited a report from the U.S. Health and Human Services Department that estimates the costs of providing free birth control can be offset by reducing expenses associated with unintended pregnancies.

(Reporting by Lewis Krauskopf in New York, Additional reporting by Caren Bohan in Washington, Editing by Michele Gershberg, John Wallace and Matthew Lewis)


View the original article here

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Health Insurers in Arizona Face Federal Scrutiny

Health insurance companies in Arizona are facing scrutiny from Washington as federal authorities have taken over reviews of rate increases of 10 percent or more from the state.

The Arizona Republic reported that federal regulators have called one company’s most recent rate increase unreasonable and vowed thorough reviews of 32 other health-insurance plans that are pursuing double-digit rate increases.

On Sept. 1, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services took over reviews of health-insurance rate increases of 10 percent or more from the Arizona Department of Insurance when the federal agency said Arizona was among the states that didn’t have regulations in place for effective rate review.

The federal government does not have the authority to reject or modify health-insurance rate increases in Arizona because state law does not allow such oversight.

But consumers might see some rate relief under the new federal health care law. The Affordable Care Act requires that 80 to 85 percent of revenue collected by insurance companies be spent on medical care instead of administrative costs and profit. Insurers that don’t meet that ratio must issue rebates to customers beginning later this year.

Still, some observers question whether the federal law ultimately will result in long-term rate relief for Arizona consumers.

Federal authorities said last week that Trustmark Life Insurance Co.’s plan to raise health-insurance rates on Arizona consumers by 13 percent is unreasonable and called on the company to rescind, refund or justify the rate increase.

The federal agency has started similar reviews and posted detailed rate information on 32 other health-insurance plans that will raise rates from 14 to 44 percent this year for thousands of Arizona consumers.

Trustmark representatives disputed the conclusions from the federal agency. It said its rates are driven by rising costs and increased use of medical care. The company added that because it is a smaller insurer, the amount of money it spends on medical care can swing widely from year to year.

The company said it will maintain compliance with the nation’s new health care law.

The federal oversight of Arizona’s health-insurance industry has generated a backlash among insurers.

Insurance companies have urged the Arizona Department of Insurance to beef up its rate review so that companies don’t have to submit paperwork to the federal government when they seek to increase rates.

Erin Klug, spokeswoman for the Arizona Department of Insurance, said insurers want to avoid sending duplicate paperwork to the federal government and the Arizona agency.

Under Arizona law, health insurers that sell policies to individuals still must submit paperwork to the Department of Insurance detailing proposed rate changes. Insurers that sell small-group policies only need to provide a certificate each year that indicates their filings comply with Arizona law.

Klug said her agency is using proceeds from a $1 million federal grant to investigate how the state can improve its rate-review process to pass muster with the new federal requirements. The Department of Insurance expects to submit proposed changes to the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council.

Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

View the original article here

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Sector Snap: Health insurers

NEW YORK (AP) — Starting with UnitedHealth on Thursday, health insurers will report their fourth-quarter results over the next two weeks, and a Jefferies & Co. analyst expects the companies and their stocks to do well in early 2012.

Analyst David Windley said he expects to see "solid" fourth quarter results because health care use is still low. He expects that trend to continue in early 2012, causing the stocks to trade higher.

Consumers are visiting the doctor less often and having fewer elective medical procedures as they try to save money, so health care use has been rising more slowly than companies expected when they set their premiums. That means health insurers will profits will be larger than expected.

Windley said enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans should be strong. Medicare Advantage plans are privately run versions of the government's Medicare insurance for the elderly and disabled. Interest in those plans is expected to grow as baby boomers age and become eligible.

The analyst said UnitedHealth Group Inc., the largest health insurer in terms of revenue, "has the best risk/reward profile in a still risk-averse market" because of its size and its advantages in pricing. He raised his price target for its shares to $68 from $60 and maintained a "Buy" rating for stock in the company, which is based in Minnetonka, Minn.

Windley also rates shares Aetna Inc., Cigna, Humana Inc., and WellPoint Inc. at "Buy." He rates Health Net Inc. at "Hold."

Windley expects Cigna and WellPoint to give 2012 annual guidance when they report their quarterly results. WellPoint is the largest health insurer in terms of membership, and analysts expect it to report a profit of $7.76 per share in 2012, according to FactSet. For Cigna, analysts expect a profit of $5.64 per share.

WellPoint reports its fourth-quarter results on Jan. 25, while Cigna will make its report on Feb. 2.

Here's how the industry's stock performed Tuesday as the overall markets rose modestly:

— Shares of UnitedHealth rose 72 cents to $53.42 in afternoon trading;

— WellPoint stock picked up 88 cents to $72.79;

— Cigna shares gained $1.24, or 2.7 percent, to $46.85;

— Humana shares rose 54 cents to $95.25;

— Aetna stock climbed 86 cents, or almost 2 percent, to $44.56; and

— Health Net shares rose 60 cents to $35.19.


View the original article here