UnitedHealth faces a long and painful recovery
NEW YORK, May 13 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Even UnitedHealth (UNH.N), opens new tab will struggle to overcome parasitic medical costs that Warren Buffett once called a tapeworm eating away at U.S. economic competitiveness. The $300 billion healthcare conglomerate reinstalled, opens new tab Chairman Stephen Hemsley as CEO and yanked its financial guidance. After abruptly losing about half its market value, however, any potential recovery will be long and painful.
UnitedHealth stayed hardy for decades. From 2010 to 2020, its shares returned about 10 percentage points more per year than web search giant Alphabet. It capitalized on market power in insurance, growth in Medicare, the U.S. government program that covers medical costs for the elderly, and expansion into adjacent areas.
Such outperformance screeched to a halt, months after a senior UnitedHealth executive was assassinated, allegedly by a man outraged by insurer practices. The company's first-quarter profit fell considerably short of what analysts were expecting, sending the stock price reeling in April. It tumbled another 15% on Tuesday after the news that boss Andrew Witty was departing for personal reasons.
Hemsley, who served as CEO from 2006 to 2017, will be contending with new ailments. Although UnitedHealth is astoundingly profitable, evidenced by a 27% return on equity during the first three months of the year, both the company and the industry are in a much harsher spotlight. Intense public scrutiny makes it harder, opens new tab for insurers to restrain costs by, say, denying claims for care.
Medical expenditures also have returned to trend, growing faster than the U.S. economy. They increased 7.5% in 2023, according to official data. Proposed assistance from the Trump administration to double the increase in reimbursement rates, to 5%, for Medicare Advantage, the privately administered version of the government program, will go only so far.
It's also getting tougher to estimate costs for new Medicare Advantage patients. Part of the problem is that more than half of all Medicare participants have already enrolled. Insurers receive higher payments for sicker patients, but that incentivizes administrators to either select healthier customers or claim that they are ailing worse than they really are. The most profitable patients probably have been picked over.
Moreover, government largesse for private health insurers looks increasingly ripe for targeting. If Medicare Advantage reimbursements were cut to better reflect their risk, it would save the government more than $1 trillion, opens new tab by 2035, the Congressional Budget Office estimated. Helmsley may be forced to opt for radical surgery, which is always dangerous.
Follow @rob_cyran, opens new tab on X
CONTEXT NEWS
UnitedHealth said on May 13 that Chairman Stephen Hemsley would return as CEO, effective immediately, to replace Andrew Witty, who stepped down for personal reasons. Hemsley was previously in the role from 2006 to 2017.
The insurance company also suspended its 2025 guidance, blaming accelerating medical spending by patients and costs.
UnitedHealth shares were down 16%, to $318.93, at 1057 EDT.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
12 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Panic mounts as social security's cash shortfall date revealed
The US Social Security and Medicare programs for seniors will both run short of funds to pay full benefits in 2033. The go-broke dates the two trust funds have moved up due to rising health care costs and new legislation affecting Social Security benefits, according to an annual report released Wednesday. The yearly assessment found that Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund will be unable to fully cover costs beginning in 2033 — three years earlier than last year's estimate. Higher-than-forecast hospitalizations of Americans over 65 years old was a key factor. Social Security's combined trust funds, which support retirement and disability benefits to 70 million Americans, are also expected to be depleted in 2033. While the year was unchanged from last year's report, it was advanced by three calendar quarters within that year. The projections reflect higher-than-expected healthcare spending, along with recent legislation that increased Social Security benefits for some workers. Once the funds are exhausted, beneficiaries would still receive payments, but at reduced levels. Medicare would be able to cover just 89 percent of hospital costs, while Social Security could pay only about 81 percent of promised benefits. The trustees say the latest findings show the urgency of needed changes to the programs, which have faced dire financial projections for decades. But making changes to the programs has long been politically unpopular, and lawmakers have repeatedly kicked Social Security and Medicare´s troubling math to the next generation. President Donald Trump and other Republicans have vowed not to make any cuts to Medicare or Social Security, even as they seek to shrink the federal government´s expenditures. 'The financial status of the trust funds remains a top priority for the administration,' said Social Security Administration commissioner Frank Bisignano (pictured) in a statement. The new forecast adds urgency to a long-standing challenge facing Congress, which has repeatedly delayed making reforms due to political sensitivity around the issue. Lawmakers would need to act — either by raising taxes, reducing benefits, or both —to ensure long-term solvency. President Donald Trump and many Republican lawmakers have pledged not to cut Medicare or Social Security benefits, but critics say recent legislative changes have worsened the programs' financial outlook. One provision enacted in January—the Social Security Fairness Act—eliminated two rules that had reduced benefits for certain workers, effectively increasing payments and accelerating the trust fund's projected depletion. Romina Boccia (pictured), director of budget and entitlement policy at the CATO Institute, called the change 'a political giveaway masquerading as reform.' Instead of tackling Social Security´s structural imbalances, Congress chose to increase benefits for a vocal minority-accelerating trust fund insolvency.' About 68 million Americans are currently enrolled in Medicare, and more than 70 million receive Social Security benefits. Both programs are primarily funded through payroll taxes, but costs are projected to outpace revenues due to the country's aging population and rising healthcare expenses. Experts say failure to act soon could result in sudden benefit cuts and instability for millions of retirees and disabled Americans. 'Congress must act to protect and strengthen the Social Security that Americans have earned and paid into,' said AARP CEO Myechia Minter-Jordan (pictured). Several policy proposals have been floated in recent years, but none have gained significant momentum. The last major reform to Social Security came in 1983, when the eligibility age for full retirement benefits was raised from 65 to 67. Without further legislative changes, the federal programs that serve as the backbone of retirement security in the US could face significant challenges within the next decade. Last year, billionaire CEO Larry Fink (pictured) said Americans should work beyond the age of 65 to stop the Social Security system collapsing. Meanwhile, experts recently said Americans are making a big mistake by claiming their Social Security checks early, since delaying their claims could lead to higher payments. Every year you delay taking a Social Security payment after full retirement age you receive a significant increase in payments up to the age of 70.
Daily Mail
18 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Panic as Social Security bosses set date America will run out of cash
The US Social Security and Medicare programs for seniors will both run short of funds to pay full benefits in 2033. The go-broke dates the two trust funds have moved up due to rising health care costs and new legislation affecting Social Security benefits, according to an annual report released Wednesday. The yearly assessment found that Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund will be unable to fully cover costs beginning in 2033 — three years earlier than last year's estimate. Higher-than-forecast hospitalizations of Americans over 65 years old was a key factor. Social Security's combined trust funds, which support retirement and disability benefits to 70 million Americans, are also expected to be depleted in 2033. While the year was unchanged from last year's report, it was advanced by three calendar quarters within that year. The projections reflect higher-than-expected healthcare spending, along with recent legislation that increased Social Security benefits for some workers. Once the funds are exhausted, beneficiaries would still receive payments, but at reduced levels. Medicare would be able to cover just 89 percent of hospital costs, while Social Security could pay only about 81 percent of promised benefits. The trustees say the latest findings show the urgency of needed changes to the programs, which have faced dire financial projections for decades. But making changes to the programs has long been politically unpopular, and lawmakers have repeatedly kicked Social Security and Medicare´s troubling math to the next generation. President Donald Trump and other Republicans have vowed not to make any cuts to Medicare or Social Security, even as they seek to shrink the federal government´s expenditures. 'The financial status of the trust funds remains a top priority for the administration,' said Social Security Administration commissioner Frank Bisignano in a statement. The new forecast adds urgency to a long-standing challenge facing Congress, which has repeatedly delayed making reforms due to political sensitivity around the issue. Lawmakers would need to act — either by raising taxes, reducing benefits, or both —to ensure long-term solvency. President Donald Trump and many Republican lawmakers have pledged not to cut Medicare or Social Security benefits, but critics say recent legislative changes have worsened the programs' financial outlook. One provision enacted in January—the Social Security Fairness Act—eliminated two rules that had reduced benefits for certain workers, effectively increasing payments and accelerating the trust fund's projected depletion. Romina Boccia, director of budget and entitlement policy at the CATO Institute, called the change 'a political giveaway masquerading as reform.' Instead of tackling Social Security´s structural imbalances, Congress chose to increase benefits for a vocal minority-accelerating trust fund insolvency.' About 68 million Americans are currently enrolled in Medicare, and more than 70 million receive Social Security benefits. Both programs are primarily funded through payroll taxes, but costs are projected to outpace revenues due to the country's aging population and rising healthcare expenses. Experts say failure to act soon could result in sudden benefit cuts and instability for millions of retirees and disabled Americans. 'Congress must act to protect and strengthen the Social Security that Americans have earned and paid into,' said AARP CEO Myechia Minter-Jordan. Several policy proposals have been floated in recent years, but none have gained significant momentum. The last major reform to Social Security came in 1983, when the eligibility age for full retirement benefits was raised from 65 to 67. Without further legislative changes, the federal programs that serve as the backbone of retirement security in the US could face significant challenges within the next decade. Last year, billionaire CEO Larry Fink said Americans should work beyond the age of 65 to stop the Social Security system collapsing. Meanwhile, experts recently said Americans are making a big mistake by claiming their Social Security checks early, since delaying their claims could lead to higher payments. Every year you delay taking a Social Security payment after full retirement age you receive a significant increase in payments up to the age of 70.
Reuters
2 days ago
- Reuters
Breakingviews - How UBS and Switzerland can come to terms
LONDON, June 18 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Switzerland is at a crossroads. Two years ago, politicians bent over backwards to help UBS (UBSG.S), opens new tab buy Credit Suisse, partly on the grounds that a failure would imperil the Alpine nation's status as banking hub. In 2025, the same leaders are calling for an extra $24 billion of equity from the enlarged giant, which could erode Zurich's status in another way by prompting UBS to take its $1.5 trillion balance sheet elsewhere. Yet a compromise, to stop the twin extremes of UBS moving or a ruinous bank bailout, looks within reach. Finance Minister Karin Keller-Sutter in 2023 controversially gave UBS significant sweeteners for the Credit Suisse deal, including a government loss guarantee, which Chair Colm Kelleher ultimately didn't need. Now, she wants, opens new tab the bank to fully deduct the value of foreign subsidiaries from the parent bank's common equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital. Keller-Sutter has grounds to insist on unusually high capital ratios. UBS's assets dwarf Switzerland's $950 billion GDP. It also has a large U.S. business, which arguably makes it prudent to have enough equity to withstand any writedowns to overseas operations. The current rules, along with other more bank-specific carveouts, meant that Credit Suisse's capital ratios were more fragile than they seemed in the runup to its rescue, undermining its ability to sort out a perennially loss-making investment bank. It's possible, at least in theory, that something similar could happen to UBS one day. Still, Kelleher and his CEO Sergio Ermotti can legitimately say that the new rules make their bank much less appealing to investors. The government's wider package of measures will by 2030 create a de facto 17.2% minimum CET1 ratio for the listed holding company, compared with 14% absent the planned changes, using UBS's estimates. That erodes returns. In May, before the government released its proposals, analysts expected $11.9 billion of annual earnings and $76 billion of regulatory capital by the end of 2027, implying a 15.7% return on CET1. Raising the capital level to 17.2% would shrink the result to 13.7%. Morgan Stanley's (MS.N), opens new tab equivalent return that year will exceed 19%, according to Breakingviews calculations using Visible Alpha data. What happens next is down to lawmakers in Switzerland's parliament, who will decide whether to approve the rules, or water them down. That process runs slowly. UBS may not decisively know their thinking until the end of 2026. One consideration is whether the bank is exaggerating the pain of the hit. Stock analysts reckon there are several billion dollars of spare capital in UBS's foreign subsidiaries. Keller-Sutter's number crunchers say the bank can shrink the de facto CET1 minimum below 15% through measures such as so-called repatriation, which involves pulling money out of the overseas units to shrink the capital required to back them. That lower number is close to Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan's (JPM.N), opens new tab CET1 levels, the government points out. Another possibility doing the rounds in Zurich is that UBS could use more leverage at its listed holding company to offset the capital trapped lower down in the corporate hierarchy. Finally, a six-to-eight-year transition period dilutes the intensity of the capital pain now. Ermotti and Kelleher have some strong possible counter-arguments, though. It would be perverse to partially solve a leverage issue at one set of subsidiaries by borrowing more at another level. Moreover, the government's international comparison mixes apples and oranges. Keller-Sutter's team benchmarks UBS's requirements against the 15% to 16% levels of Morgan Stanley and other American rivals, which are tangibly higher than what U.S. regulators order them to hold. Morgan Stanley's actual regulatory minimum is 13.5%. The basic fact is that UBS could have a meaningfully lower minimum equity ratio, and therefore higher returns and even share price, if it was based elsewhere. Those numbers add weight to an implicit threat: UBS could move its headquarters to New York or London if parliament sides with the government. The bank's growth opportunities are predominantly outside Switzerland. The planned rules make U.S. expansion costly, in capital terms. It's not a stretch to imagine that Kelleher, a former Morgan Stanley executive, would prioritise global expansion over local loyalties. If his old shop or JPMorgan lobbed in a bid, offering another way to switch domicile, he might listen. Switching HQ could create a meaningful tax bill under local laws and raise questions about whether UBS's additional Tier 1 (AT1) debt would be eligible under U.S. regulations. The bank also could lose any clients who like the fact that UBS is neither American nor British. Yet the conservative lawmakers, which currently constitute the biggest grouping in parliament, will also be acutely aware of the risk of going from having two globally relevant banks a few years ago to none. That could represent a big blow in a country where banking accounts, opens new tab for 5% of GDP. Yet the biggest reason a compromise is possible is that there are ways to fudge the Keller-Sutter plan while retaining its essence. Allowing UBS to cover the foreign subsidiaries' value with AT1 capital as well as CET1, for example, would still arguably protect the parent bank's equity. Letting all outstanding AT1s count for these purposes could cut the CET1 ask to just $5 billion rather than $24 billion, JPMorgan analysts have calculated. That might be too small for comfort, but lawmakers could in theory split the difference by saying that AT1s can cover 20% of the capital, with CET1 accounting for the rest. Doing so would imply $15 billion of extra CET1, or about two-thirds of the current ask, and imply a 15% de facto minimum requirement according to Breakingviews calculations. It might not be a satisfying outcome for capital purists, particularly after the controversial Credit Suisse AT1 writedown tainted the funky hybrid securities, but Swiss supervisors are already working to make those securities absorb losses more readily in a crisis. Kelleher and Ermotti have some leverage by virtue of the possible HQ move, but time is not on their side. UBS faces 18 months or more of capital uncertainty and its shares, off 20% since late January, could fall further if investors get jittery. Lawmakers preoccupied with avoiding a future bank failure, in contrast, will want to take their time. Yet they should remember that while Credit Suisse's rickety capital structure didn't help, it ultimately went bust because wealthy clients mistrusted its ropey business model. As such, hitting UBS's returns carries risks as well as rewards. Follow Liam Proud on Bluesky, opens new tab and LinkedIn, opens new tab.
