United Health Keeping Reforms Regardless of Decision

[AllenChicago]

There's another thread on this forum where several of us predicted that all the major carriers in the market would keep reforms like these anyway, since the insurance companies know what the general public never really understood - these particular reforms were never very expensive nor risky in the first place. It would take more money to reverse all the certificate filings at this point than to just keep them. Besides, it's terrific PR and less kindling for the next round of firestorm arguments for health care reform.

Indeed.. AETNA and HUMANA have jumped on the bandwagon as well...
UPDATE 2-US health plans to keep some reforms, however court rules | Reuters

If the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare (in its entirety) will post-March23,2010 policyholders be "grandfathered" into their current plan provisions, like pre-March23, 2010 plans were when Obamacare was signed into law? Unlike that 2010 grandfathering, this one would be good for the consumer. It would be really great, from a sales standpoint, if the Supreme Court said that all plans sold within 60 days of their ruling would be grandfathered into current law!
-AC

 

[Ann H]

This too will be fixed.

UnitedHealthcare will work with other companies to try to find a practical way to implement a rule banning plans from imposing pre-existing condition exclusions on children up to age 19, the company says.
UnitedHealth Backs PPACA Consumer Protection Provisions | LifeHealthPro

That would be nice, wouldn't it? But UnitedHealthcare's craftily worded PR quote was misleading. Note that they didn't say they would try to find a way to implement GUARANTEED ISSUE for children PLUS no pre-ex exclusion. That would be adverse selection suicide for any carrier to implement on their own, or in step with other carriers.

Even the "no pre-ex for children" hope is destined for failure, although it was a great PR move on UHC's part to state that desire in the press release. Unless a State or the Feds mandate it, any carrier or group of carriers that implement GI for children, or even no-pre-ex for children is a sitting duck for adverse selection. It's also a gold mine for another carrier to enter that market (with discounted prices) and pick off the clean apps.

 

[Yagents]

I just read Humana/Aetna issued a press release stating the same thing as UHC.

I'm really liking this move for many reasons, but the biggest is I won't have to hear the democrats whine about these provisions when SCOTUS overturns the law. Take away their talking points, and watch the straw man fall

No more......"your college student will lose their coverage if we go back to bush, you'll go bankrupt from a major medical condition caused by bush, and you won't find that HPV early due to bush's policies"

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/art...WS-306119969&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=am

 

[somarco]

The Georgia legislature passed a bill in the recent session designed to go in to effect January 1, 2013. Essentially it requires carriers to issue stand alone children's major medical policies.

This is irrespective of SCOTUS and the overall future of Obamacare.

What they have done is make children's health insurance tremendously expensive, regardless of whether the policy is stand alone or part of a family plan.

Unfortunately the backlash from that won't hit the public airways until after the fall elections.

 

[AllenChicago]

This is a huge number of new members for just one quarter, considering the uncertain environment we're in this year.

July 19, 2013
"UnitedHealth signed up almost 10 million new members during the second quarter and medical claims came in lower than projected, a combination that helped boost revenue and profits."

Source: UnitedHealth adds members amid industry shifts | StarTribune.com

Perhaps stating early this year that they would not participate in many exchanges was a good move. Also, the agent webinars explaining what's being done by UH-GR to keep premiums relatively stable through December 2014 is paying off too, it seems.
-ac

 

[Yagents]

I'm sure this number is due to the recent Tri-care contract they one