Aetna announced Tuesday that it will be withdrawing from the Obamacare exchanges in about two-thirds of the 778 counties it's now participating in. This, Mark T. Bertolini, the chairman and chief executive, says is because too many people "in need of high-cost care" have signed up. That in spite of the fact that the company's market cap has increased since Obamacare was signed into law from $15 billion to $42 billion.
That market cap doesn't necessarily mean Aetna should have seen a three-fold increase in it's operating margin, but still the argument that the law is just too expensive isn't flying with everyone, like with the Obama administration and supporters who see retaliation as a possible motive.
Obama administration officials reacted angrily to Aetna's announcement. They suggested that Aetna was retaliating against the administration because the Justice Department filed suit last month to block Aetna's proposed acquisition of Humana. Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch said that transaction would reduce competition in violation of federal antitrust law. […]
Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, said she saw a possible connection between the antitrust case against Aetna and its decision to reconsider participating in the exchanges.
"Aetna may not like the Justice Department's decision to challenge its merger, and it has every right to fight that decision in court," Ms. Warren said in a Facebook post last week. But, she said, "the health of the American people should not be used as bargaining chips to force the government to bend to one giant company's will."
Aetna could most certainly be trying to get the administration to back down on its merger attempt. The company saw a sharp increase in profits in the final quarter of 2015—38 percent—and said it was "encouraged by growth so far in 2016 back in April, even with some Obamacare concerns. What changed between then and now? That DoJ lawsuit.