|
|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
| |||||||||
UNH » Topics » If we fail to comply with federal and state regulations, or fail to respond quickly and appropriately to health care reforms and frequent changes in federal and state regulations, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materiThis excerpt taken from the UNH 10-K filed Feb 11, 2009. If we fail to comply with federal and state regulations, or fail to respond quickly and appropriately to health care reforms and frequent changes in federal and state regulations, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. Our business is regulated at the federal, state, local and international levels. The laws and rules governing our business and interpretations of those laws and rules are subject to frequent change. The broad latitude that is given to the agencies administering those regulations, as well as future laws and rules, could force us to change how we do business, restrict revenue and enrollment growth, increase our health care and administrative costs and capital requirements, and increase our liability in federal and state courts for coverage determinations, contract interpretation and other actions. See Item 1, Business Government Regulation for a discussion of various federal and state laws and regulations governing our businesses. We must obtain and maintain regulatory approvals to market many of our products, to increase prices for certain regulated products and to complete certain acquisitions and dispositions, including integration of certain acquisitions. Delays in obtaining approvals or our failure to obtain or maintain these approvals could reduce our revenue or increase our costs. Legislative proposals that would reform the health care system have been advanced by Congress and state legislatures and are currently pending at the state and federal levels. These changes include policy changes that
15
Table of Contentswould fundamentally change the dynamics of our industry, such as having the federal or one or more state governments assume a larger role in the health care industry or a fundamental restructuring of the Medicare or Medicaid programs. These proposals may also affect certain aspects of our business, including contracting with physicians, hospitals and/or other health care professionals; physician reimbursement methods and payment rates; coverage determinations; mandated benefits; minimum medical expenditures; claim payments and processing; drug utilization and patient safety efforts; collection, use, disclosure, maintenance and disposal of individually identifiable health information; personal health records; consumer-driven health plans and health savings accounts and insurance market reforms; and government-sponsored programs. For example, the new administration and various congressional leaders have signaled their interest in reducing payments to private plans offering Medicare Advantage. Depending on the extent and phasing of these potential reductions, the number of seniors participating in Medicare Advantage and the industry-wide earnings derived from these plans may fall. In addition, Massachusetts has enacted comprehensive reform, including an individual health coverage mandate coupled with an employer mandate and a new state connector authority. A number of other state legislatures, including California, Colorado, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania, have contemplated but have not enacted significant reform of their health insurance markets. Other states are expected to consider these types of reforms as well as more modest reforms aimed at expanding Medicaid and/or SCHIP eligibility as well as new coverage options for those not eligible for government programs. These proposals include provisions affecting both public programs and privately financed health insurance arrangements. States also are considering proposals that would reform the underwriting and marketing practices of individual and group health insurance products by, for example, placing restrictions on rating and pricing and mandating minimum medical benefit cost ratios. In addition, from time to time, Congress has considered various forms of managed care reform legislation which if adopted, could fundamentally alter the treatment of coverage decisions under ERISA. Additionally, there is legislative interest in modifying ERISAs preemptive effect on state laws. If adopted, such limitations could increase our liability exposure and could permit greater state regulation of our operations. We cannot predict if any of these initiatives will ultimately become law, or, if enacted, what their terms or the regulations promulgated pursuant to such laws will be, but their enactment could increase our costs, expose us to expanded liability and require us to revise the ways in which we conduct business or put us at risk for loss of business. In addition, our operating results could be adversely affected by such changes even if we correctly predict their occurrence. In addition, the health care industry is subject to negative publicity. Negative publicity may result in increased regulation and legislative review of industry practices, which may further increase our costs of doing business and adversely affect our profitability by: adversely affecting our ability to market our products and services; requiring us to change our products and services; or increasing the regulatory burdens under which we operate. In August 2007, we entered into a multi-state national agreement with regulatory offices in 39 states and the District of Columbia relating to the legacy UnitedHealthcare fully insured commercial business. The agreement covers several key areas of review of our business operations, including claims payment accuracy and timeliness, appeals and grievances resolution timeliness, health care professional network/service, utilization review, explanation of benefits accuracy, and oversight and due diligence of contracted entities and vendor performance. The agreement addressed and resolved past regulatory matters related to the areas of review prior to August 2007 and establishes a transparent framework for evaluating and regulating performance through December 2010. On a prospective basis, the agreement is similar to a customer performance guarantee, whereby we will self report quarterly and annually our operational performance on a set of national performance standards agreed to by the participating states. We must perform to the standards set forth in the agreement, or be subject to fines and penalties. We are also involved in various governmental investigations, audits and reviews. These regulatory activities include routine, regular and special investigations, audits and reviews by CMS, state insurance and health and
16
Table of Contentswelfare departments and state attorneys general, the Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Personnel Management, the Office of Civil Rights, the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys, the SEC, the IRS, the U.S. Department of Labor and other governmental authorities. For example, in 2007, the California Department of Insurance examined the Companys PacifiCare health insurance plan in California. The examination findings related to claims processing accuracy and timeliness, accurate and timely interest payments, timely implementation of provider contracts, timely, accurate provider dispute resolution, and other related matters. To date, the California Department of Insurance has not levied a financial penalty related to its findings. The Company is working closely with the department to resolve any outstanding issues arising from the findings of its examination. In addition, the U.S. Department of Labor is conducting an investigation of our administration of our employee benefit plans with respect to ERISA compliance. Reviews and investigations of this sort can lead to government actions, which can result in the assessment of damages, civil or criminal fines or penalties, or other sanctions, including restrictions or changes in the way we conduct business, loss of licensure or exclusion from participation in government programs, and could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial results. In addition, public perception or publicity surrounding routine governmental investigations may adversely affect our stock price, damage our reputation in various markets or make it more difficult for us to sell products and services. |
| |||||||