Publicly traded health insurance companies present a highly uneasy balance between various constituents. Policyholders rely on their insurer to provide timely, relevant, and cost-efficient care when needed. Does management “play games” with policyholders? Perhaps the insurer will no longer honor certain terms, or cut costs that prevent care with effectiveness and efficacy.
Author Name:
Publicly traded health
insurance companies present a highly uneasy balance
between various constituents. Policyholders rely on their insurer to
provide timely, relevant, and cost-efficient care when needed.
Healthcare is a very unique product and service offering – you
could say an anomaly – in the marketplace, in that it is an
extremely “high leverage” offering. When customers need the
product or service, they are at the mercy of the provider. If you
were stranded in a desert and you came across a lemonade stand, how
would you feel if the vendor charged you $10,000 for a glass of
lemonade? Or if he chose not to sell you lemonade at all?
Secondly, the insurance
is also a very distinct product in the marketplace. Individual,
organizational, and systemic risk can often be difficult, if not
impossible, to quantify. Policyholders are constantly paying
premiums to their insurer, but the insurer must be adept and ethical
enough to ensure that they have the capacity to honor their pledged
policies. When customers need treatment, they absolutely need to get
their care at that very time. Being a publicly-traded company,
however, forces the management team to cater to Wall Street’s
quarterly and yearly earnings expectations. The source of these
periodic performance measures are analysts from investment banks and
research firms that are often wrong in the measuring stick that they
hold company executives to. What happens when earnings expectations
for the third quarter are unreasonably high? Does management “play
games” with policyholders? Perhaps the insurer will no longer
honor certain terms, or cut costs that prevent care with
effectiveness and efficacy. That’s just a few examples of a
dangerous balancing game.
On an additional note, since the
passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (after the Enron and WorldCom
scandals), companies have been averse to going public due to the very
significant bureaucratic and financial burdens of complying with SOX.
Might this additional cost and burden cause publicly traded
healthcare
companies to pursue an extreme version of cost cutting in order
to protect the bottom-line? Other sectors, such as retail, telecom,
and financial services, go through the occasional cost trimming as
part of management’s mandates. The nature of healthcare’s
offerings, and its critical importance to the lives of its customers,
materially elevate the sensitivity of cost-cutting measures when
lives and limbs may be at stake.
| Additional articles about Health Insurance |
|
|
| About the author |
Michele Moore is an internet entrepreneur and is an expert SEO. He frequently writes about SEO articles including article submission , blog submission, directory submission etc. You can read his other articles only here on ext.com. |
| Please Rate This Article |
Number of ratings: 0
Rating: 0