A rather disgusting look at the Aetna/Humana merger and why we need change

[Mr. Green]

A rather interesting bit of numbers on Aetna's costs of the failed merger. Total money thrown out the window looks to be roughly $1.8 billion and the company considered that an acceptable gamble on what most considered to be a highly unlikely deal. Yet a much smaller loss on the ACA exchanges, $450 million in 2016, is enough to merit withdrawing from the exchanges in 11 states and dropping over 700,000 customers.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-merger-20170214-story.html

[FIRE me]

A rather interesting bit of numbers on Aetna's costs of the failed merger. Total money thrown out the window looks to be roughly $1.8 billion and the company considered that an acceptable gamble on what most considered to be a highly unlikely deal. Yet a much smaller loss on the ACA exchanges, $450 million in 2016, is enough to merit withdrawing from the exchanges in 11 states and dropping over 700,000 customers.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-merger-20170214-story.html

I think the withdraw is a hissy fit over the failed merger.

[AZDude]

No, all the major healthcare companies are withdrawing from the exchanges due to losses. It does not make financial sense to offer those plans.

Its been discussed quite a bit here but the basics are that the people signing up for the exchange plans ended up being more unhealthy and more risky than the average person they insure. Healthy people were not signing up or already had other insurance.

[Jammu]

No, all the major healthcare companies are withdrawing from the exchanges due to losses. It does not make financial sense to offer those plans.

Its been discussed quite a bit here but the basics are that the people signing up for the exchange plans ended up being more unhealthy and more risky than the average person they insure. Healthy people were not signing up or already had other insurance.

All? No, not all. A contra view.

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/02/slavitt-obamacare-should-be-profitable-year-if-republicans-dont-blow-it

[AZDude]

That article wasn't much to go on, but I will change "all" to "almost all" and call it good. And just to be clear, I am firmly in the SPHC camp.

[obstinate]

No, all the major healthcare companies are withdrawing from the exchanges due to losses. It does not make financial sense to offer those plans.

They're withdrawing from certain exchanges. Most Americans have a lot of choice, but there are some less populated areas where it doesn't make as much sense to run plans.

[FIRE me]

No, all the major healthcare companies are withdrawing from the exchanges due to losses. It does not make financial sense to offer those plans.

Its been discussed quite a bit here but the basics are that the people signing up for the exchange plans ended up being more unhealthy and more risky than the average person they insure. Healthy people were not signing up or already had other insurance.

I'm healthy and I signed up.

I never saw any doctor last year. My only insurance involved service last year was a flu shot that I got at the Kroger pharmacy.

This year I plan to select a new doctor (I don't like the one I have), which will require a new patient visit.

Unless my health takes a turn for the worse, that new patient visit and this year's flu shot will be all I get for my $2,300 (post subsidy cost) in premiums. And I'll have to pay for the new patient visit, since it is not preventive care, like an annual physical would be. Counting the subsidy, Aetna should make about $5,900 off me this year.

[inline five]

This is pretty standard corp behavior. My own company is insanely stingy on customer service/quality of product yet spends billions buying back stock (at a loss) yearly. 'Merica.

[J Boogie]

No, all the major healthcare companies are withdrawing from the exchanges due to losses. It does not make financial sense to offer those plans.

Its been discussed quite a bit here but the basics are that the people signing up for the exchange plans ended up being more unhealthy and more risky than the average person they insure. Healthy people were not signing up or already had other insurance.

I'm healthy and I signed up.

I never saw any doctor last year. My only insurance involved service last year was a flu shot that I got at the Kroger pharmacy.

This year I plan to select a new doctor (I don't like the one I have), which will require a new patient visit.

Unless my health takes a turn for the worse, that new patient visit and this year's flu shot will be all I get for my $2,300 (post subsidy cost) in premiums. And I'll have to pay for the new patient visit, since it is not preventive care, like an annual physical would be. Counting the subsidy, Aetna should make about $5,900 off me this year.

You prefer this method to paying for the penalty and/or catastrophic high deductible insurance?  Are you choosing this costly plan out of principle (you want to help subsidize unhealthy people)?

[Mr. Green]

No, all the major healthcare companies are withdrawing from the exchanges due to losses. It does not make financial sense to offer those plans.

Its been discussed quite a bit here but the basics are that the people signing up for the exchange plans ended up being more unhealthy and more risky than the average person they insure. Healthy people were not signing up or already had other insurance.

I'm healthy and I signed up.

I never saw any doctor last year. My only insurance involved service last year was a flu shot that I got at the Kroger pharmacy.

This year I plan to select a new doctor (I don't like the one I have), which will require a new patient visit.

Unless my health takes a turn for the worse, that new patient visit and this year's flu shot will be all I get for my $2,300 (post subsidy cost) in premiums. And I'll have to pay for the new patient visit, since it is not preventive care, like an annual physical would be. Counting the subsidy, Aetna should make about $5,900 off me this year.

You prefer this method to paying for the penalty and/or catastrophic high deductible insurance?  Are you choosing this costly plan out of principle (you want to help subsidize unhealthy people)?

I'm healthy and pay for ACA insurance as well. Anthem made About 2k on me last year and they'll make 3k on me this year. I would not choose to go uninsured and pay the penalty because that would risk all our money on not receiving a cancer diagnosis or some other serious medical issue that could happen at any time. If real catastrophic insurance could be had (not this bridge crap they have with payout limits, etc.) I would consider that, depending on the cost and the benefits, but those plans don't exist anymore in my state.

[FIRE me]

No, all the major healthcare companies are withdrawing from the exchanges due to losses. It does not make financial sense to offer those plans.

Its been discussed quite a bit here but the basics are that the people signing up for the exchange plans ended up being more unhealthy and more risky than the average person they insure. Healthy people were not signing up or already had other insurance.

I'm healthy and I signed up.

I never saw any doctor last year. My only insurance involved service last year was a flu shot that I got at the Kroger pharmacy.

This year I plan to select a new doctor (I don't like the one I have), which will require a new patient visit.

Unless my health takes a turn for the worse, that new patient visit and this year's flu shot will be all I get for my $2,300 (post subsidy cost) in premiums. And I'll have to pay for the new patient visit, since it is not preventive care, like an annual physical would be. Counting the subsidy, Aetna should make about $5,900 off me this year.

You prefer this method to paying for the penalty and/or catastrophic high deductible insurance?  Are you choosing this costly plan out of principle (you want to help subsidize unhealthy people)?

To question one, Yes.
To question two, (hell) No.

I prefer the certainty of knowing that if I should have a serious medical event, I will not have high out of pocket expenses. With cost sharing, my maximum out of pocket is under $900. I decided that was the best choice for me.

[ChpBstrd]

$1.8 billion was the amount they were willing to gamble to tighten the health insurance duopoly to one fewer player. Let that sink in. The increases in premiums that would occur due to less competition were going to pay off more than $1.8 billion - in profit, not revenue!

[Metric Mouse]

$1.8 billion was the amount they were willing to gamble to tighten the health insurance duopoly to one fewer player. Let that sink in. The increases in premiums that would occur due to less competition were going to pay off more than $1.8 billion - in profit, not revenue!

That's not so much amortorized over ten years. And if they're losing 450 million a year, it wouldn't even bring them back to profitability.

[Kiwi Fuzz]

A rather interesting bit of numbers on Aetna's costs of the failed merger. Total money thrown out the window looks to be roughly $1.8 billion and the company considered that an acceptable gamble on what most considered to be a highly unlikely deal. ...

Monopolies make insane profit. I'm not surprised that they were willing to face such losses for the potential pay off if it worked out.

[jjandjab]

Maybe too much philosophizing for this, but here's my take.... the basic problem is that until the US decides that healthcare is a basic right/social good, it is a just going to remain a gigantic, difficult to regulate business with massive profits for the largest players.

People are now just so accustomed to looking at their health as a good with a risk/reward profile - especially on financial based websites. We buy insurance for ourselves as we do for our house and car. But fewer people (at least that I know personally) talk about the companies making a profit on their homeowners or car insurance (well, maybe on MMM) - however, they will say "my health insurer made x amount on me", with a negative connotation. Berkshire Hathaway makes a billion on GEICO car insurance - great! Aetna makes a billion on health insurance - they are screwing the public!

A US citizens health will just be a tradeable, marketable, expensive good until something changes. The insurance companies will continue to reap tremendous amounts of money based on the very real public fear that a catastrophic illness with bankrupt themselves and even their kids, etc, which is a very real threat. Just sad.