A small clause in most company health plans allows them the right to recoup the medical expenses it paid for someone's treatment if the person also collects damages in an injury suit.
CFOs and the finance organizations they head are under intense pressure from the capital markets and activist investors to keep pace with a rapidly changing global market--to go beyond merely crunching numbers and create value on their own.
Some employer and labor groups welcomed a federal decision allowing employers to offer different health benefits to retirees under 65 and those 65 and over. The ruling this week by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, they said, will allow employers to maintain benefits for younger retirees who aren't yet eligible for Medicare. Supporters of the EEOC's decision say a ruling that would have made it illegal to offer lower benefits to older retirees could have led employers to cut retiree health benefits altogether.
A federal judge put the $420 million settlement reached between UnitedHealth Group Inc. and ousted Chief Executive William McGuire temporarily on hold to ask how broadly Minnesota state law allows him to review the deal. U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum said he would keep the injunction in place while he awaits clarification from the Minnesota Supreme Court on whether he has the power to examine the merits of the settlement. Late last year, McGuire was forced to leave the company after an internal probe concluded that stock options granted to UnitedHealth executives were likely backdated on his watch.
Aetna is the latest insurer to clamp down on the use of a powerful anesthetic during an increasingly common form of colon cancer screening. The company will send a letter to doctors, saying that it plans to classify the drug as "medically unnecessary" for most such procedures. As of April 1, Aetna plans to stop paying for its use in those cases. The change by Aetna comes on the heels of similar moves last year by WellPoint and six months ago by Humana. Other insurers say they have no plans to follow their lead, including UnitedHealthcare.
The question about who will build the proposed Madison hospital could be answered in less than three weeks. But a lawsuit challenging a state panel's approval of the hospital threatens the $90 million-plus project's hopes for a 2008 groundbreaking.