Do Health Plans Have A Heart After All?

United Healthcare, Aetna, and Humana all stated they would continue with some of the provisions required in the Affordable Care Act regardless of what the Supreme Court decides about the constitutionality of the law itself. United Healthcare specifically said they would continue to allow children to stay on their parent’s plans until the age of 26, eliminate all lifetime limits for health care expenses, streamline appeals and complaints, and not allow the cancellation of health insurance after-the-fact (rescissions).

United Healthcare CEO Stephen Hemsley said in a statement, “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.”

Do health insurance companies have a heart after all?

Make no mistake, they are making these decisions for business reasons not for the general welfare of the population. If the Supreme Court strikes down the law (or portions of it) taking these provisions away would be a public relations nightmare. Health plans don’t need any more negative p.r. And don’t think paying for them will be free- we will all be paying the cost.

While this is a smart business strategy I am left to wonder. If these protections are good for people’s health, promotes broader access to quality care, and contributes to helping control rising health care costs, why weren’t they providing them before?

Maybe the “free market” needs some help and guidance after all.