UnitedHealthcare to keep parts of health reforms regardless of court ruling

iStockphoto

(CBS News) The Supreme Court this month could overturn all or parts of President Obama's landmark 2010 health care overhaul -- but even so, at least one major health insurer plans to voluntarily keep in place some of the reforms.

UnitedHealthcare on Monday announced that regardless of the court's decision, it will continue to offer some consumer protections and services that the law mandated: Allowing children up to the age of 26 to remain on their parents' health plan, coverage of preventive health services without co-pays, the elimination of lifetime dollar limits on policies, the elimination of rescissions (or retroactive termination of coverage), and the implementation of a clear appeals process.

The decision will ensure that a large swath of consumers will continue to benefit from some of the more popular elements of Mr. Obama's controversial law -- UnitedHealthcare serves more than 38 million people, making it one of the nation's largest insurers.

It could also alter the political fallout from the high court's decision. Should the Supreme Court reject Mr. Obama's law, the president could point to UnitedHealthcare's announcement to validate his policy agenda. However, should the court strike down the law, the practical impact could be less clear to voters, making the issue less of a galvanizing force for the left.

The Supreme Court heard arguments over the law's constitutionality in March, and the court is expected to hand down its decision between now and June 28.

Supreme Court to rule soon on health care, immigration; what happens next?
Poll: Most want Supreme Court to overturn individual health care mandate
Poll: Most think politics will influence Supreme Court health care decision

Stephen Hemsley, president and CEO of UnitedHealth Group, said in a statement his company is keeping the provisions in place because they "are compatible with our mission."

"The protections we are voluntarily extending are good for people's health, promote broader access to quality care and contribute to helping control rising health care costs," he said. "These provisions make sense for the people we serve, and it is important to ensure they know these provisions will continue."

The court's rulings and the consequences are hard to know at this point. The one certainty is that the court's consideration of the case is putting Mr. Obama's controversial health care law back in the spotlight squarely in the middle of the 2012 presidential race -- a move sure to rekindle the partisan passion that in part drove Democratic voters in 2008 and Republican voters in 2010.

A CBS News/New York Times poll released last week reveals that nearly seven in 10 Americans want the Supreme Court to overturn either all or President Obama's health care law or strike down just the individual mandate.

While a plurality of Americans want the health care law to be overturned, a CBS News/ New York Times Poll conducted in March illustrated the popularity of some of the provisions that UnitedHealthcare is keeping in place: Nearly seven in ten supported children under 26 staying on their parents' health plan. Additionally, 85 percent said insurance companies should cover people with pre-existing conditions.

Currently, under the health care law, insurers are barred from discriminating against children with pre-existing conditions. That protection is slated to be extended to all Americans in 2014.

In its announcement today, UnitedHealthcare said it recognizes the value of coverage for children up to age 19 with pre-existing conditions. However, the company's release said, "One company acting alone cannot take that step, so UnitedHealthcare is committed to working with all other participants in the health care system to sustain that coverage."

While the provision to protect Americans from pre-existing conditions is among the most popular, the Obama administration argued that the element of the law is critically tied to the requirement for all Americans to purchase insurance-- one of the least popular elements of the law.

[davidd5063]

It's almost as if UnitedHealthcare CONFERRED with Roberts and Scalia on their soon to be announced "ruling".

[sjc_1]

MSNBC's take on this was that health care insurance companies are getting out front of the Supreme Court ruling that they anticipate will eliminate the mandate.

They want Congress to think that they will honor all the rest of the health care law, so Congress can repeal the whole thing, they will just do it out of the goodness of their hearts...right, when pigs fly.

[hillzhavays]

by ge556 June 11, 2012 5:47 PM EDT
The Affordable Care Act, with its mandatory coverage using private insurers, is a Republican plan. The Democratic version was single-payer/Medicare for all. The Dems compromised, but the Reps wanted, above all else, for Obama to fail.
_________________________________________

If this was true, Republicans would have voted for it, and would not be trying to appeal it.

Don't choke on your KoolAid. And in between sips, look around and notice there's no businesses hiring. Then look up why - Because Obamacare is going to cost them an arm and a leg in 2014, that's why. Republicans didn't put that in the bill because they knew something Obama didn't - it would freeze hiring for years until businesses could figure out what it would costt them to hire and what the competitive landscape looked like at the time.

[ThomasSense]

Our local trauma hospital is in financial trouble. Uninsured people are flown or driven in with death knocking on the door. Uninsured women that are in labor are brought in. The city and state have both reduced their funding because of budget problems. So, who pays for these uninsured people? So, how does the hospital react to survive?

[retmw1]

Thomas

The gop plan is let the hospital close and leave people dying in the streets.

[thefatcat2]

They are smart to do this.
What frost me is allowing things as sex change operations and things
like Hair Transplants in obama care.
The Feds to Keep Cost low - should Allow Each Company to go National
but cannot control more than 20% of the Health Care market.

[retmw1]

Companies can't go National, due to the states insurance commissions blocking that.

[unclebernies]

Of course the same 5 corporate facists that sit on the Supreme court are going to strike down this law. Truth is though that it could come back to haunt the republicans if a single payer system comes back on the rebound.

[banjosdad2003]

""""Should the Supreme Court reject Mr. Obama's law, the president could point to UnitedHealthcare's announcement to validate his policy agenda. However, should the court strike down the law,""""

So CBS knows that it will be struck down? Um? Huh?

[unclebernies]

If you don't think the 5 facists on the Supreme court aren't going to rule against the healthcare law then your a fool.

[SusanStoHelit]

It's my health insurance - and I'm glad to hear it - really enhances their credibility to me.

[retmw1]

And your rates will go up to keep those on your policy.

[sjc_1]

Susan,

United took more than $8 billion in profits out of our economic system last year denying care. If you think they are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts for you, you have my sympathies.

[hillzhavays]

by cntrygirl3 June 11, 2012 12:38 PM EDT
Most certainly the company is keeping these provisions ONLY because it it making money for them. There is no way they will sign on to pre-existing conditions for everyone without health insurance purchase mandate. Americans are such a whiny something for nothing lot. "I just wont purchase any health insurance because when I get really sick and need it they can't turn me down" What planet do these selfish jerks live on. This health care plan though not perfect by any means does the one thing conservatives have been screaming about for years, it forces people to step up and take individual responsibility. They are just mad because it was the democrats that had the nerve to do it.
__________________________________________

I don't think you've really researched the conservatives' position. They're contention has been we can't afford many of the provisions of the plan. The one actionable thing they have to combat it is the mandate. so they go after the mandate to shut down the whole thing. It's a strategy. That's all.

Obamacare is costly. In fact, just next year they are dropping one of the gimmicks that was supposed to reduce the deficit $70 billion, and also added $110 billion in additional spending to cover their subsidies to the insurance exchanges - that amounts to an additional $190 billion in Cost, that they hid from taxpayers when the bill passed.

You can also count on 30-50% of employers dropping employee healthcare in 2014. They can pay a $2000 penalty instead of covering $12-2- grand in employee healthcare per year. It's a business decision.


And you fail to note that the Republicans had several alternative options for the healthcare plan, all of which the Democratic Congress and Obama rejected outright.

But you are right about one thing - the 26 year olds is a money maker - that demographic uses the least amount of healthcare and would definitely bring more new policies as people switch from carriers that don't provide that - United is a first mover - the other companies will follow suit or risk losing policies as people with college age children switch over to protect themselves.

[hillzhavays]

$12-20 Grand I mean

[ge556]

The Affordable Care Act, with its mandatory coverage using private insurers, is a Republican plan. The Democratic version was single-payer/Medicare for all. The Dems compromised, but the Reps wanted, above all else, for Obama to fail.

[forumcomments]

I don't believe the items in the article are being considered by the courts. I believe the decision on constitutionality deal with requiring health care and paying a fee if they opt out of the healthcare offered by the gov. The items mentioned probably will still be required after the decision this month.

[mach1ponie]

why do they call him mr obama, was it mr bush?

[hillzhavays]

Actually, yes it was. Or don't you remember?

[ge556]

An old newspaper standard is to say President X the first time, and Mr./Mrs./Ms X after that.