Judge Blocks Aetnas $37 Billion Deal for Humana.

[elleng]

'A federal judge ruled on Monday that a $37 billion merger between the health insurance providers Aetna and Humana should not be consummated on antitrust grounds, siding with the Justice Department, which had been seeking to block the deal.

The court “mostly agrees” with the government’s argument that the deal would lessen competition for Medicare Advantage plans and health insurance sold on public exchanges, Judge John D. Bates of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia said in the ruling.

Judge Bates disagreed with the company’s rebuttal, arguing that regulation would be unable to prevent the combined firm from “raising prices or reducing benefits.” He said that neither new competitors nor divestitures would be enough to attenuate the concentration in the industry from such a deal.'>>>

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/business/dealbook/aetna-humana-deal-blocked.html?ref=business&_r=0

[Eugene]

1. U.S. judge finds that Aetna misled the public about its reasons for quitting Obamacare

Last edited Mon Jan 23, 2017, 10:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Los Angeles Times

U.S. judge finds that Aetna misled the public about its reasons for quitting Obamacare

By Michael Hiltzik
JANUARY 23, 2017, 12:00 PM

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.”

The judge’s conclusions about Aetna’s real reasons for pulling out of Obamacare — as opposed to the rationalization the company made in public — are crucial for the debate over the fate of the Affordable Care Act. That’s because the company’s withdrawal has been exploited by Republicans to justify repealing the act. Just last week, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) cited Aetna’s action on the “Charlie Rose” show, saying that it proved how shaky the exchanges were.

Bates found that this rationalization was largely untrue. ...

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-obamacare-20170123-story.html

___________________________________________________________________________

Related: United States of America v. Aetna ruling

EDIT: The judge's findings about the ACA exchanges start around page 134 of the ruling.