Molina Healthcare lowers annual profit forecast again on rising medical costs
Health insurers offering government-backed health plans, including Medicare for older adults and Medicaid for the low-income population, have faced higher-than-expected medical claims over the past two years, increasing their costs.
The elevated costs were driven by increased demand for healthcare among older adults covered under Medicare, as well as changes in Medicaid eligibility, which have resulted in insurers handling a higher number of sick patients requiring more medical services.
The latest forecast cut is "disproportionately attributed" to Molina's health insurance plans under the federal Obamacare marketplace and reflects medical cost trend assumptions for the second half of the year, the company said.
Earlier this month, Molina and larger peer Elevance Health (ELV.N), opens new tab cut their annual profit forecasts due to persistently high medical costs, while Centene (CNC.N), opens new tab withdrew its 2025 forecast following a significant decline in expected revenue from marketplace health insurance plans.
Shares of Elevance Health and Centene dropped over 1% in after-hours trading.
Molina now expects adjusted full-year profit to be at least $19.00 per share, compared to its previous range of $21.50 to $22.50 per share.
The health insurer projected a full-year medical cost ratio, the percentage of premiums spent on medical services, of 90.2%, higher than analysts' expectations of 88.83%.
For the second quarter, Molina reported a medical cost ratio of 90.4%, exceeding estimates of 88.65%.
Adjusted earnings for the quarter stood at $5.48 per share, falling short of analysts' average estimate of $5.79 per share, according to data compiled by LSEG.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Harvard study casts new light on why some couples conceive all girls or boys
Harvard study casts new light on why some couples conceive all girls or boys A Harvard study has revealed a link between a woman's age and the likelihood of giving birth to multiple children of the same sex. Siwen Wang, a PhD student in nutritional epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, began researching the topic after noticing a trend in her own family. Her mother was one of three sisters and a younger brother, while her father had two brothers and no sisters. 'I was wondering whether it's just pure chance or if there was some special biology underlying this phenomenon,' she told the Boston Globe. Her questions led to a study published July 18 in Science Advances by her and seven others. The researchers analyzed 146,064 pregnancies from 58,000 US nurses across nearly six decades and discovered that in some families the odds are not so random. The NIH-funded Nurses' Health Study studied the subjects between 1956 and 2015 and found that some families were more likely to have children of the same sex. Researchers found that maternal age played a key role in the sex of the baby. A Harvard study has revealed a link between a woman's age and the likelihood of giving birth to children of the same sex Siwen Wang (pictured), a PhD student at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, began researching the topic after noticing a trend in her own family. Her mother was one of three sisters and a younger brother, while her father had two brothers and no sisters The research found that women who had their first child at age 29 or older were significantly more likely to have multiple children of the same sex. 'It's like moving the needle from 50 to 60 percent,' Dr. Bernard Rosner, a co-author of the study told the outlet. 'I don't think you could use any of this information to definitively predict whether a specific person will have a male or female offspring, but ... it's not necessarily random probability.' The findings also showed that women who already had three children of the same sex were more likely to have a fourth of the same gender. The study showed a 61 percent likelihood for boys and 58 percent for girls. 'If you've had two girls or three girls and you're trying for a boy, you should know your odds are not 50-50,' Jorge Chavarro, professor of nutrition and epidemiology and author of the study, told the Washington Post. The research found that women who had their first child at age 29 or older were significantly more likely to have multiple children of the same sex 'You're more likely than not to have another girl.' 'We don't know why these genes would be associated with sex at birth, but they are, and that opens up new questions,' Chavarro added. Paternal influences on the child's sex were not entirely explored in the study. Researchers did not include detailed data on fathers so they couldn't analyze how paternal factors might influence the sex of children. Despite, the lack of research on the paternal side, Wang did mention that older maternal age is most highly correlated with older paternal age.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Boeing's St. Louis union workers reject latest offer and will strike on Monday
Aug 3 (Reuters) - Unionized workers who assemble Boeing's (BA.N), opens new tab fighter jets in the St. Louis area rejected Boeing's latest offer on Sunday and will strike at midnight on Monday, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers union said.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Trump dubbed himself the ‘father of IVF' on the campaign trail. But his pledge to mandate insurance cover has disappeared
Donald Trump's vow to expand in vitro fertilization (IVF) access to millions of Americans is on hold, with White House officials backing away from plans to require Obamacare health plans to include the service as an essential health benefit, the Washington Post reported on Sunday. The Post reported that White House officials have privately moved away from the prospect of pushing for legislation to address the issue despite it being one of Trump's signature campaign promises, citing two persons with knowledge of internal discussions in Trumpworld. A senior administration official also acknowledged to the newspaper that changing Obamacare to force insurers to cover new services would require congressional action, not an executive order. The president has governed largely by executive fiat in his second term as he grapples with a closely-divded Congress and an unruly GOP majority in the House of Representatives. He's used those executive orders to dismantle whole parts of the federal government, including USAID and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The president even tried to take an axe to the Department of Education, though that battle is still being waged in the courts. The Supreme Court recently cleared the way for Trump to cut roughly a quarter of the agency's staff. But many of Trump's campaign promises lie outside of his ability to influence via the hiring or firing of people and redirection of agency resources or agendas. In 2024, he laid out no direct path for his goal to expand IVF access, only telling voters that insurance companies would be forced to cover it. Still, he proclaimed himself the 'father of IVF' at at Fox News town hall, and promised during an NBC News interview: 'We are going to be, under the Trump administration, we are going to be paying for that treatment. We're going to be mandating that the insurance company pay.' At the time, there was little to no acknowledgment of the fact that many if not most conservatives still oppose the Affordable Care Act and the same healthcare exchanges which Trump was now promising to utilize as he sought to use the power of the federal government to expand healthcare coverage. Now, with the passage of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' without any provisions expanding IVF access, and with the prospect of further policy gains before the midterms growing dimmer, it's unclear when the White House would have another chance to press the issue in Congress. In February, the president signed an executive order directing his advisers to 'submit to the President a list of policy recommendations on protecting IVF access and aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment.' It's been crickets on the issue since then. In 2024, many of Trump's critics and the media pointed out that the policy would essentially amount to a reversal or at the very least coming in sharp contrast to the first Trump administration's efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which ended in failure, and a contradiction of the conservative view that government should not exercise that level of control over Americans' health care decisions. The president's promise thrilled his party's natalists, embodied by Vice President JD Vance and an army of right-wing immigration hawks who fear the changing American demographics brought on as a result of falling birth rates and high levels of migration. It also wowed some of his Democratic and left-leaning critics, who see the policy as a means of furthering their goal of expanding access to healthcare for poorer Americans. For Vance, the issue of declining U.S. birth rates predates his MAGA heel-turn. In 2019, he told a gathering of conservatives in Washington: 'Our people aren't having enough children to replace themselves. That should bother us.' 'We want babies not just because they are economically useful. We want more babies because children are good. And we believe children are good, because we are not sociopaths,' the future vice president added at the time. Two years later, he'd tell a right-leaning podcast: 'I think we have to go to war against the anti-child ideology that exists in our country.' During the 2024 campaign, those views emerged again as Vance attacked Democrats as 'childless cat ladies' and leaned heavily into attacking the left for supposedly being anti-family. Progressives fought back, pointing to efforts to expand the child tax credit and other benefits that aid young families under Joe Biden and other Democratic administrations, including the passage of Barack Obama's signature law: the Affordable Care Act.
