Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Do the Math

Recs

5

February 29, 2012 – Comments (5) | RELATED TICKERS: UNH , WLP

Bayer, which acquired Berlex as part of a deal in 2006, now markets Yasmin. Last year, Yasmin had sales of about $382 million, or about 11 percent of the United States market, according to IMS Health.

Yasmin is a contraceptive. It says the entire market for contraceptives in the USA is 3.4 billion. Nice money if you can get it.

The top three insurers in the USA, UNH, Wellpoint and Kaiser account for 30%. of the private insurance industry and by extension 30% of those bills. That means thy are paying for 1.1billion in contraceptives each year or $350,000,000 each.

$175,000,000 each if half their customers are against providing contraceptive services on moral grounds.

Year one insurers give half their savings back to employers/customers and the employer thinks he saved a buck. Year two prices go up and it all goes to the insurer.

You divide $90,000,000 among the 1 billion shares outstanding, use $10,000,000 to fund some choice political campaigns and split $75,000,000 between executives and board members for their stewardship of the customers.

Best wishes,

Steven

 

 

5 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On March 01, 2012 at 1:44 PM, PeteysTired (< 20) wrote:

I don't understand what you wrote, but I am slow :)

Report this comment
#2) On March 01, 2012 at 6:00 PM, devoish (99.06) wrote:

I'm saying it is free money to the health insurers if they can provide fewer services, and not lowere rates, or not pass the entire savings on to their customers.

Like I've said before, when a politician says freedom, hold tight to your wallet, because its going to cost you cash. In this case an amount exactly equal to or higher than what your insurer pays out for birth control. Because you do not have the negotiating power of UNH, probably more.

Especially watch out if that politician is shouting from an expensive advertising platform. 

Best wishes,

Steven 

Report this comment
#3) On March 01, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Dave4286 (< 20) wrote:

Wait.  What do you mean "they are paying 175k each if half their customers are against providing ..."  I don't get that. Where does the other 175k come from then?

Report this comment
#4) On March 01, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Dave4286 (< 20) wrote:

Because (sorry) I thought the HHS mandate was intended to get the insurance companies to eat the cost of the contraception.  if so, how does that reduce their cost to 175k?

Report this comment
#5) On March 02, 2012 at 6:59 AM, devoish (99.06) wrote:

Ok. I was completely confused on one essential point. I thought this whole issue was about trying to get out of covering birth control that was already being covered, with the above mentioned savings.

I completely misunderstood that a law change was mandating coverage where it does not currently exist.

Best wishes

Steven 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement