SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Aetna claimed this summer that it was pulling out of all but four of the 15 states where it was providing Obamacare individual insurance because of a business decision — it was simply losing too much money on the Obamacare exchanges.
Now a federal judge has ruled that that was a rank falsehood. In fact, says Judge John D. Bates, Aetna made its decision at least partially in response to a federal antitrust lawsuit blocking its proposed $37-billion merger with Humana. Aetna threatened federal officials with the pullout before the lawsuit was filed, and followed through on its threat once it was filed. Bates made the observations in the course of a ruling he issued Monday blocking the merger.
Aetna executives had moved heaven and earth to conceal their decision-making process from the court, in part by discussing the matter on the phone rather than in emails, and by shielding what did get put in writing with the cloak of attorney-client privilege, a practice Bates found came close to "malfeasance."
Source:
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-obamacare-20170123-story.html
At what point does arbitrarily screwing with the healthcare of millions of people rise to the level of criminality?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @01:45PM
Aetna was making money doing business that competed with Humana in a few areas of the country.
The merger probably would have eliminated this competition which might have made the merger illegal.
The govt complained and started a lawsuit.
Aetna responded by leaving those areas.
In public, they said they did this because they were loosing money.
In private it was shown that this was to eliminate the competition that might prevent the merger.
Hiding the facts seems reason to think they knew they were not doing good.
The judge saw through this and decided to rule as if they were still competing.
I think the judge missed the boat.
Before Aetna pulled out, they was only a probability that the merger would hurt competition.
With the pullout, Aetna proved that the merger would hurt competition.
Aetna improved the govt's case, probably on the advice of their lawyers.
I think the judge could have made a much stronger ruling.
If Aetna appeals, hopefully they will get hit with this.
It would seem to me that since the merger was not competed, there were two separate firms.
In pulling out from a profitable area, the two firms were acting as one to improve their market position.
It seems that this collusion might cause other anti-trust problems?
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Tuesday January 24 2017, @03:04PM
Having had Aetna for a period of time I can safely say that this was a smart move on their part. They can not compete with any other company. If they had competition their company would cease to exist because they do such a shitty job. Not so much a "we wont make as much money if we compete" but "pointless to compete because we are inept at this and will lose" .
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @11:15PM
My dad was very sick a few years ago (he's quite well now) and I had a lot to do with his care, doctors, hospitals, etc., and every time we said he had Aetna the healthcare workers would roll their eyes, kind of sigh, say "oh boy", and some would even say it was the worst - from the healthcare provider perspective.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday January 24 2017, @06:55PM
Same logic as the giant cable merger where the prime argument was that there would be no reduction in competition, since they had previously decided not to compete...