By David Harsanyi
Thursday, August 18, 2016
It’d be a shame if
something terrible happened to that poorly constructed, expensive,
low-enrollment, government-run, fabricated health-insurance marketplace scheme
that we’re helping you prop up. — Aetna to Barack Obama, basically
So a giant rent-seeking insurance company is accused of
having threatened to leave Obamacare’s health insurance “marketplace” if the
government didn’t approve its giant merger. If true, this would be the least
surprising development in the past six years of Obamacare fiascos. Any giant
regulatory scheme bringing together big business and big government inevitably
leads to cronyism and corruption.
Not long after the Justice Department blocked Aetna’s
merger with Humana, the company announced it would be scaling back
participation in ACA. Now, Obamacare consumers in 11 states won’t be able to
keep their insurance even though, one imagines, they like their plans. But
choices are getting scarcer by the year. Aetna is now one of around a dozen major
insurance providers who’ve dropped completely out or scaled back participation
in exchanges.
A
recent Kaiser Family Foundation study estimates that 664 counties will
feature only a single insurer on Obamacare exchanges in 2017. In 2016, it was
215. Four entire states will have only one Obamacare insurer. In one Arizona
county, there may be none. Since Obamacare, in effect, solidified in-state
insurance cartels, the exchanges are starting to look very much the same. But
opening markets up across state (and national) lines is a silly idea, I bet.
At first, Aetna denied its move was connected the Justice
Department’s merger decision. Even in the most generous reading, this turns out
not to be exactly true. At Huffington Post, Jonathan Cohn and Jeffery Young
have gotten their hands on a letter from Aetna’s CEO that critics seem to
believe catches Aetna “threatening” the administration:
[I]f the deal were challenged
and/or blocked we would need to take immediate actions to mitigate public
exchange and ACA small group losses. Specifically, if the DOJ sues to enjoin
the transaction, we will immediately take action to reduce our 2017 exchange
footprint … [I]nstead of expanding to 20 states next year, we would reduce our
presence to no more than 10 states .… [I]t is very likely that we would need to
leave the public exchange business entirely and plan for additional business
efficiencies should our deal ultimately be blocked. By contrast, if the deal
proceeds without the diverted time and energy associated with litigation, we
would explore how to devote a portion of the additional synergies … to
supporting even more public exchange coverage over the next few years.
The correspondence has gotten Democrats very agitated, even though it is their
policies creating the problem. Even before the letter was uncovered, Elizabeth
Warren (“the health of the American people should not be used as bargaining
chips to force the government to bend to one giant company’s will”) and others
lamented the rise of corporate power rather than the convoluted regulatory
environment that fosters an unhealthy relationship between business interests
and government power.
To be honest, although I have little doubt Aetna was
hoping its position on the exchanges would help with the merger, the letter
sounds less like extortion and more like a sensible decision that any
accountable executive would make when his company is facing losses. The real outrage
isn’t that insurers like Aetna are abandoning Obamacare, but that companies
like Aetna likely participated in Obamacare for cronyistic reasons to begin
with.
ACA has inhibited competition, which has only benefited
big companies. Still, insurers are losing billions in the exchanges and at some
point it’s too expensive to be in bed with Obama. Why would UnitedHealth, the
nation’s largest insurer, participate in a program that lost it almost $1
billion in 2015? Aetna lost more than $430 million
since January 2014, and it was expected to lose $300 million this year. Merger
or no merger, Aetna would almost certainly stay in the exchanges if it made
fiscal sense.
At some point cronyism will be the only reason to
participate in Obamacare. Democrats will face increasing pressure to make this
social experiment work. For instance, according HuffPo piece, the Justice
Department asked Aetna CEO Mark
Bertolini how the merger would affect his company’s participation in exchanges:
Bertolini penned the letter, which
The Huffington Post obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, on
July 5 ― 16 days before the Justice Department announced it would fight the
Humana deal. The department had asked
Aetna how, if at all, a decision on the proposed merger would affect Aetna’s
willingness to offer insurance through the exchanges.
So it’s not like Aetna collaged a ransom note together
and mailed it to the president. The Justice Department was curious about how
the merger might impact the administration’s struggling health-care policy —
which is a political consideration.
Moving forward, will a company be looked upon more
favorably by a Hillary administration if it continues to sell plans in the
exchanges? Maybe. Should insurance providers that choose not to participate be
concerned about retribution from the administration or vociferous hard-left
senators ? Will the government, for instance, uncharacteristically respond to
an open-records request super-quickly to try and embarrass a company with some
misleading letter? You never know, it might happen.
On the other hand, will insurance giants that still
operate within the exchanges be able to make larger and larger lobbying demands
from a government that is feeling increasingly pressured to save exchanges from
death spirals? I guess we’ll just have to trust them to work it out.
Democrats reacted to inevitable news that you can’t
regulate affordability into markets by offering even less dynamic ways of
“expand coverage.” Hillary Clinton has promised to bring back the “public
option,” which is still a euphemism for a government-run insurance program that
would be completely detached from the price of health care and, like every
similar program, turn into a giant unfunded liability that never stops growing.
You’ll remember also that when debating Obamacare
Democrats regularly demonized the insurance industry for profit-mongering
(always an overblown assertion). Today, Warren demands that insurance companies
lose money to help keep Obamacare
solvent. These shortfalls are a hidden taxes collected by insurers and paid for
by consumers. For economic patriotism, I guess.
As a welfare program, Obamacare might be a success
(insurers that focus on Medicaid sure do well). As a business, though, not so
much. So it’s worth noting that when
liberals celebrate Obamacare enrollment numbers or other successes, these
fabricated “marketplaces” feature subsidized products sold to consumers who
compelled to participate or pay fines. Yet even then they hemorrhage companies
and dollars and breed the kind of cronyism that Americans claim to hate.
No comments:
Post a Comment