Plan B Forum

Americans will have just three big companies to choose their health insurance from rather than five if the latest deals get the go ahead.

US healthcare firm Anthem said it would pay $54bn (£35bn) to buy smaller rival Cigna in a move aimed at slashing costs.

The biggest healthcare insurer in the US will be created by the historic deal, the largest in the sector.

The tie-up comes weeks after Aetna said it would buy rival Humana for $37bn.

If they are approved by regulators, the two mega-deals would transform the US healthcare industry, consolidating the country's five biggest health insurers to just three, including UnitedHealth.

Forrester analyst Alex Cullen said the deals are being driven by the "huge pressure" on healthcare firms to reduce costs.

"The landscape has changed completely. Firms are now competing to be the 'Amazon' of the healthcare sector. It's a much more consumer-orientated landscape, " he said.

The deal frenzy comes in the wake of rapid change, largely linked to "Obamacare" - President Obama's Affordable Care Act.

The 2010 law was aimed at extending health insurance care to all Americans, including those not covered by their employers, as well as the poor and the elderly.

But the conditions it has imposed on insurance firms, such as banning them from denying health coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions and allowing young people to remain on their parents' plans until the age of 26, is forcing them to become more efficient.

The law has also resulted in marketplaces - with websites akin to online travel and shopping sites - where individuals can compare prices as they shop for coverage, which have also added to pressure to minimise costs.

Merging will give the firms better negotiating powers with drug companies, but critics say the smaller number of providers mean that consumers could end up paying more.

"The business motives are relatively obvious, but we don't know yet if it's good for consumers," said Mr Cullen.

The US spent $2.5 trillion - or 17.4% of GDP - on health care in 2013, according to official figures. Per capita the figure has risen from $4,129 in 2000 to $7,826 in 2013.

Gob wrote:
"The business motives are relatively obvious, but we don't know yet if it's good for consumers," said Mr Cullen.

"The landscape has changed completely. Firms are now competing to be the 'Amazon' of the healthcare sector. It's a much more consumer-orientated landscape, " he said.

But customers will likly get a larger choice of healthcare providers.

oldr_n_wsr wrote:

But customers will likly get a larger choice of healthcare providers.

Maybe it's me but please explain how the consolidation of insurance providers (aka fewer providers) leads to a larger choice of healthcare providers?

Sue U wrote:"Insurers" are not "providers." "Providers" means doctors, dentists and other licensed healthcare professionals.

MajGenl.Meade wrote:Here's how that can work. In early May it was decided by my PCP (stupid initials) that I needed to consult a surgeon to get these knees replaced. The insurance provider's network has a #1 knee guy - and apparently just the one - and I can't get to see him until Sept 3. That's almost four months just to get a consult.

If my insurance provider had more health care providers on its list, then maybe I could have found one who was available in two months or (shock, horror) one.

In the meantime, I'm losing the use of both arms due to the long-term effects of having to haul my heavy ass out of chairs and onto and off toilets that are all too f-ing low. True, I now have a raised toilet seat extension and an elevating chair to stand up. But it's too late - the arms are killing me because I end up sleeping on one or the other or both sides for 105 minutes at a time and wake up with real trouble in elbows, shoulders, wrists and fingers.

I want a doctor! Ready for single payer/single provider.

Single payer would mean rationing just like this and it's perfectly acceptable.