Aetna cuts 600,000 lives for profit
ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
2009/12/07 22:24:20
By: Jason Rosenbaum Friday December 4, 2009 1:00 pm
Aetna announced that it will deliberately cut 600,000 people from its insurance rolls to raise its profits next year:
In a third-quarter earnings conference call in late October, officials at Aetna announced that in an effort to improve on a less-than-anticipated profit margin in 2009, they would be raising prices on their consumers in 2010. The insurance giant predicted that the company would subsequently lose between 300,000 and 350,000 members next year from its national account as well as another 300,000 from smaller group accounts.
…
Aetna’s decision to downsize the number of clients in favor of higher premiums is, as one industry analyst told American Medical News, a "pretty candid" admission. It also reflects the major concerns offered by health care reform proponents and supporters of a public option for insurance coverage, who insist that the private health insurance industry is too consumed with the bottom line. A government-run plan would operate solely off its members’ premiums.
Aetna is saying they want to make more money on each person they insure to please Wall Street, so they are raising prices. It doesn’t matter to them if this action causes them to lose some less profitable customers, customers that actually use their health care benefits. In fact, they welcome it. They are more than happy to let these people be priced out of the market, go uninsured, go bankrupt, or lose their lives. These people are not bringing in enough money for Aetna, so Aetna would rather not have them as a customer.
Aetna is following the insurance company playbook as articulated last year by Wellpoint CEO Angela Braly when she said, "We will not sacrifice profitability for membership." In other words, the insurance companies won’t sell health coverage to more people if it means they will make less money on each person.
They don’t care about coverage, they just care about profits. This is exactly why we must have a public health insurance option.
Health reform without a public option will not not work. The insurance industry playbook would still be on the table, and they would still find ways to cut people for more profit. Even with laws against insurance companies denying care, they would still find ways to do it.
The CBO confirms this with their analysis. Even with laws making it illegal for insurance companies to deny care, the CBO found that while the public option would keep down insurance premiums overall, it would attract less-profitable customers that the insurance companies don’t want and would refuse to insure.
There is no substitute for a public health insurance option that’s national and available everywhere on day one – no triggers. And indeed, the bill on the table in the Senate gets us there.
To those moderates who are holding out, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. There may be some things in the Senate bill you don’t agree with, but that’s no reason to deny this country the reform it needs and wants. It’s time to allow this bill to come up for a fair, majority vote in the Senate.
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/17633
Private Insurance companies are great, aren't they?
Aetna announced that it will deliberately cut 600,000 people from its insurance rolls to raise its profits next year:
In a third-quarter earnings conference call in late October, officials at Aetna announced that in an effort to improve on a less-than-anticipated profit margin in 2009, they would be raising prices on their consumers in 2010. The insurance giant predicted that the company would subsequently lose between 300,000 and 350,000 members next year from its national account as well as another 300,000 from smaller group accounts.
…
Aetna’s decision to downsize the number of clients in favor of higher premiums is, as one industry analyst told American Medical News, a "pretty candid" admission. It also reflects the major concerns offered by health care reform proponents and supporters of a public option for insurance coverage, who insist that the private health insurance industry is too consumed with the bottom line. A government-run plan would operate solely off its members’ premiums.
Aetna is saying they want to make more money on each person they insure to please Wall Street, so they are raising prices. It doesn’t matter to them if this action causes them to lose some less profitable customers, customers that actually use their health care benefits. In fact, they welcome it. They are more than happy to let these people be priced out of the market, go uninsured, go bankrupt, or lose their lives. These people are not bringing in enough money for Aetna, so Aetna would rather not have them as a customer.
Aetna is following the insurance company playbook as articulated last year by Wellpoint CEO Angela Braly when she said, "We will not sacrifice profitability for membership." In other words, the insurance companies won’t sell health coverage to more people if it means they will make less money on each person.
They don’t care about coverage, they just care about profits. This is exactly why we must have a public health insurance option.
Health reform without a public option will not not work. The insurance industry playbook would still be on the table, and they would still find ways to cut people for more profit. Even with laws against insurance companies denying care, they would still find ways to do it.
The CBO confirms this with their analysis. Even with laws making it illegal for insurance companies to deny care, the CBO found that while the public option would keep down insurance premiums overall, it would attract less-profitable customers that the insurance companies don’t want and would refuse to insure.
There is no substitute for a public health insurance option that’s national and available everywhere on day one – no triggers. And indeed, the bill on the table in the Senate gets us there.
To those moderates who are holding out, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. There may be some things in the Senate bill you don’t agree with, but that’s no reason to deny this country the reform it needs and wants. It’s time to allow this bill to come up for a fair, majority vote in the Senate.
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/17633
Private Insurance companies are great, aren't they?
Top Opinion
-
sugarbuzz 2009/12/08 00:31:58
+11Aetna nearly killed me. I was taken to the emergency room with a bleeding ulcer caused by their second-guessing the Dr.'s prescription and insisting THEIR recommendation was adequate. Because of a chronic blood disease I have, they failed to take it into consideration and I was about a half an hour away from just slipping away from blood loss. I am still fighting them to pay the remainder of charges for that hospital stay too, and when released they refused to fill an RX from the hospital to maintain my recovery. So there you go....what a wonderful and compassionate example of big business and insurance philosophies Profit over EVERYTHING!
SINGLE PAYER IS THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE OPTION OUT THERE. We have to stop the screw job we are getting from all directions. Big insurance, big pharma the list goes on and on.
Those of you that think a "public option" is wrong because you already have your family covered so you don't want health care reform, well I hope YOU are one of the first that AETNA bends over. Enjoy the shaft cause it's comin!
End their Anti-Trust exemptions.
What're they more efficient at this or something??
Uh... wow.
How do they look at themselves in the mirror, is what I want to know?
Seriously though, I wonder of that 600,000, how many of them were of the Teaba66ing variety. You just know that a few of those people at least protested AGAINST healthcare reform of any kind. And now that they scramble to make up the slack in insurance, I wonder what their feelings are now if the subject of being for or against universal healthcare comes up on SH.
-every citizen is required to carry insurance (no exceptions)
-open market access to every available plan and portability
-consumers to may change plans w/o an increase in premium
-health care industry is a non-profit industry
-regulations regarding administrative costs
IMO, the compromise currently being discussed is a better option than the public option...
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/...
are not motivated by greed. I buried a child due to those evils.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
to end these evils? It is the big lie that a robust public option will be the cause of denying people healthcare. They already do it on a huge scale. And if it is so illegal where is the protection? Capitalism has brought SOME a high standard of living. I am curious what you say to the rest of America?
But, there are plenty of developed democracies that spend less and yield better health outcomes than the US, and have a completely privatized system (i.e. Germany, Netherlands, Australia, Japan, to name a few). In my view, this would be an easier model to transition to from our current system.
Your right Ed. I know this for fact having researched for example Germany and the Netherlands. But it would never be an easy transition because the status quo with
its big pockets will boycott it in any way possible.
I get attacked by those who oppose single payer as being a commie liberal who is
not intelligent, who is unAmerican in opposing the status quo. When I say that we do NOT have the best health care system in the world all kinds of assumptions are made. I must hate doctors. None of that is truth.
The truth is that the doctors are not the enemy. We have some of the greatest minds in medicine. We have the capability and the technology that is envied. But we have the worst delivery system in the world. Even doctors will validate that.
Just as a comparison and one example. Both Germany and the USA have a organ
transplant program. Now I realize the enormity of some dieing so others can live.
That carries heavy weight for sure. But in Germany an individual needing a transplant is put on to the respective list early on, therefore if they are fortunate to get a donar organ they have higher survival rates and longevity because they
were not waiting so long that other organs were damaged in process of the wait,
thereby minimizing survival. If anyone thi...
Your right Ed. I know this for fact having researched for example Germany and the Netherlands. But it would never be an easy transition because the status quo with
its big pockets will boycott it in any way possible.
I get attacked by those who oppose single payer as being a commie liberal who is
not intelligent, who is unAmerican in opposing the status quo. When I say that we do NOT have the best health care system in the world all kinds of assumptions are made. I must hate doctors. None of that is truth.
The truth is that the doctors are not the enemy. We have some of the greatest minds in medicine. We have the capability and the technology that is envied. But we have the worst delivery system in the world. Even doctors will validate that.
Just as a comparison and one example. Both Germany and the USA have a organ
transplant program. Now I realize the enormity of some dieing so others can live.
That carries heavy weight for sure. But in Germany an individual needing a transplant is put on to the respective list early on, therefore if they are fortunate to get a donar organ they have higher survival rates and longevity because they
were not waiting so long that other organs were damaged in process of the wait,
thereby minimizing survival. If anyone thinks for one instant that these procedures of wait and stall are not a part of the insurane agencies tactics they are very mistaken. In general terms in Germany you wait about 5 years, in the USA 10 years. It isn't rocket science to realize the cost of those added 5 years.
In America transplant recipients live about 5 to 7 years. In Germany those recipients live 10 -20 years.