iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Goldman To Private Insurers: No Health Care Reform At All Is Best

Goldman Sachs

First Posted: 03/18/10 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 03:40 PM ET

A Goldman Sachs analysis of health care legislation has concluded that, as far as the bottom line for insurance companies is concerned, the best thing to do is nothing. A close second would be passing a watered-down version of the Senate Finance Committee's bill.

A study put together by Goldman in mid-October looks at the estimated stock performance of the private insurance industry under four variations of reform legislation. The study focused on the five biggest insurers whose shares are traded on Wall Street: Aetna, UnitedHealth, WellPoint, CIGNA and Humana.

The Senate Finance Committee bill, which Goldman's analysts conclude is the version most likely to survive the legislative process, is described as the "base" scenario. Under that legislation (which did not include a public plan) the earnings per share for the top five insurers would grow an estimated five percent from 2010 through 2019. And yet, the "variance with current valuation" -- essentially, what the value of the stock is on the market -- is projected to drop four percent.

Things are much worse, Goldman estimates, for legislation that resembles what was considered and (to a certain extent) passed by the House of Representatives. This is, the firm deems, the "bear case" scenario -- in which earnings per share for the top five insurers would decline an estimated one percent from 2010 through 2019 and the variance with current valuation is projected to be negative 36 percent.

What the firm sees as the best path forward for the private insurance industry's bottom line is, to be blunt, inaction.

The study's authors advise that if no reform is passed, earnings per share would grow an estimated ten percent from 2010 through 2019, and the value of the stock would rise an estimated 59 percent during that time period.

The next best thing for the insurance industry would be if the legislation passed by the Senate Finance Committee is watered down significantly. Described as a "bull case" scenario -- in which there is "moderation of provisions in the current SFC plan" or "changes prior to the major implementation in 2013" -- earnings per share for the five biggest insurers would grow an estimated ten percent and the variance with current valuation would rise an estimated 47 percent.

The report, a Goldman official stressed, was analytic not advocacy-based. Their job was to provide a sober assessment of the market realities facing private insurers under various versions of health care reform.

"If no reform at all happens you would see the largest rise in EPS," a Goldman official acknowledged. "But what we are doing is just analyzing what the stocks would do under different scenarios."

The study does note on the front page that the firm "does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports." Those companies include Aetna, Wells Point and United Health.


goldman -

In the context of the current health care debate, the findings provide a small window into the concerns that have driven the private insurance industry's opposition to reform legislation. Simply put: health care reform is going to hurt their bottom line. No less a prestigious voice than Goldman Sachs is telling them so.

Some insurers, in the end, will be hit harder than others. CIGNA is the lowest of the big five, for instance, because it does little business providing insurance plans to Medicare patients, individuals and families buying health plans directly, or small employers that offer health plans to their workers.

In addition, some reforms are going to hurt the industry more than others. Regulatory changes -- such as prohibiting the prejudice against consumers with pre-existing conditions -- will have an impact across the board, as will the funding cuts to Medicare Advantage.

Overall, Goldman calculates the probability of reform passing Congress at 75 percent. Though the limitations of Goldman's political prognostications were on full display earlier in the document:

By mid-late October, we expect a cloture vote (60 votes) to bypass a potential filibuster followed by several weeks of debate over proposed amendments on the Senate floor (with a similar process under way in the House). If both the Senate and House are able to pass legislation (perhaps before the Thanksgiving recess), a House-Senate conference negotiation should produce combined legislation for final approval (perhaps by mid-December).
FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

A Goldman Sachs analysis of health care legislation has concluded that, as far as the bottom line for insurance companies is concerned, the best thing to do is nothing. A close second would be passing...
A Goldman Sachs analysis of health care legislation has concluded that, as far as the bottom line for insurance companies is concerned, the best thing to do is nothing. A close second would be passing...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 4,287
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (68 total)
08:14 PM on 11/19/2009
The dean of Harvard Medical School, Dr. Jeffrey Flier, has said the health care proposal pushed by obama, reid and pelosi gets "a failing grade" in his opinion. Here is his article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574539581994054014.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular
photo
ibsteve2u
Someone who cares - to his unending regret
04:36 PM on 11/16/2009
Goldman, through and through.

The American People should be sacrificed themselves in order to benefit stock prices and the market - and the teeny, tiny handful of people who will be further enriched.
Mildmannered
"Be excellent to each other"
02:02 AM on 11/15/2009
According to a recent report in The New England Journal of Medicine the bill just approved by the House and a bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee would implement or test many reforms that should help slow the rise in medical costs over the long term
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Chubbster
Partisanship is a mental illness
05:54 PM on 11/14/2009
It has always been a welfare plan and not a health plan. But hell, we all need welfare now.
photo
NHGranite
Killer Koala escapes diner, eats shoots & leaves
04:57 PM on 11/16/2009
neither. It's an acute care plan, Chubb insurance guy
11:35 AM on 11/14/2009
I would strongly support any movement or organization that aimed to strip Congress of their health benefits.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:42 AM on 11/15/2009
I think that would be quite popular!
10:53 AM on 11/14/2009
This is the exact reason for a single payer system. Health Insurance and health care should not be a for profit proposition. We all lose because the only thing that health providers care about is profit not health care.

If we are as a society are ever going to enjoy the safety of having health care without the worry that we won't be covered for any procedure we need for life sustaining care, that women won't be paying more for coverage, and we will not be dropped from health care..

Health insurance companies are the problem not the solution
05:54 AM on 11/14/2009
And what's wrong with declining profits in the health care industry? Wouldn't that be the point?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Artos
Down with Tyrants
08:41 PM on 11/13/2009
If they really want to protest and have it means something then they should go out and encourage as many people as possible to end their dealings with Goldman Sachs and all of their subsidiaries. Remove your funds and they will die on the vine as they should.
08:40 PM on 11/13/2009
Goldman Sucks
12:36 AM on 11/14/2009
That was helpful. What exactly is your problem with GS?
04:54 PM on 11/16/2009
Government Sachs.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:30 PM on 11/13/2009
Don't tell me this isn't REAL capitalism. This is as real as it gets. An economic model built upon wealth accumulation is doomed, because eventually the non-wealthy will have had enough of the disparity, and when that happens that will be all she wrote.
08:27 PM on 11/13/2009
Goldman sacks you reserved your place in H E double L already.
12:36 AM on 11/14/2009
What on earth are you talking about? GS has issued a report on what would financially benefit a certain industry. It's not a value judgment on the merits of a public health option.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Chubbster
Partisanship is a mental illness
05:46 PM on 11/14/2009
Your expectations of functioning brain-power in the local readership are overdone.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:08 PM on 11/13/2009
Ahh, Goldman Sachs...is there any part of the average US citizen's life that you're NOT happy $h!tting upon?
06:45 PM on 11/13/2009
"doing nothing"? "inaction"? I seriously doubt that. I have no doubt that the pharmac. companies are and have been behind a lot of negative ads and propaganda opposint the health care reform. Them being part of the health care reform is an obvious conflict of interest. By definition these companies make money off of "sick" people. If the bill is any "good", these companies will sooner or later oppose it. Let's hope for that and let's hope that legislators will pass a bill to benefit us not pharmac. companies.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:05 PM on 11/13/2009
What Goldman meant by 'inaction' was, I think, 'inaction' from the government in changing health care regulations. They're not saying that the health 'care' industry should do nothing, and you're right - after this report especially, the industry will double down its efforts to bribe and otherwise persuade the Senate to not pass any meaningful legislation.
gconners
A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall
05:34 PM on 11/13/2009
Before everyone gets all upset remember: "What's good for Goldman Sachs is what's good for...well, Goldman Sachs!" The hell with everyone else!
OpposingViewpoint
Sometimes you get and sometimes you get got
05:45 PM on 11/13/2009
What is good foe GS, is also good for the self-servers inside the self-enrichment zone in DC. From 1990 to 2008, GS "contributed" over $31 MILLION to members of this corrupt assemblage of self-enrichers. Over $20 MILLION went to democrats with another $11 MILLION or so to the republicans. During the 2008 election cycle alone, democrats eagerly took in almost $4.5 Million, chased by the republicans with just over $1.5 MILLION. All of this occurring while Main Street was being forced by our Congress to bail these parasites out with billlions of out tax dollars.
Does that seem right to you, or are you like me, thoroughly pi$$ed off with the same old same old in DC?

Data source: www.opensecrets.org
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
oldngrumpy
My micro-bio is no longer empty
06:12 PM on 11/13/2009
Be careful with stats that are not fully understood. We can often see evil where there is none. I am not a defender of corporate money in our election system, but the courts don't agree with me.

Anyone donating in excess of $200 must disclose the industry that they work in. The site you referenced (via a broken link) reports these contributions as if they were from the industry itself, not the individuals. This is explained in small print and another link on the site will take you to "corporate" contributions which include the people who can actually effect policy within the corporations. A dental assistant giving $200 would be classified as part of "health care providers" and one could discern that as some nefarious attempt at buying influence when it means nothing.
04:34 PM on 11/13/2009
For Goldman, like any corporation, money is their lifeblood. They figured out that more profits can be made by increasing suffering, sickness, and death. It's fairly simple. There needn't be any other qualifiers.

"Money is good; more money is better; the most money is best."