As a former employee I felt Bertolini always had an exceptionally clear vision of the future of health care and where Aetna should be headed, even as those directions shifted dramatically during his tenure.
On the debit side, although relations with those on the front lines were always cordial, there was a sense of privilege separating the top brass; possibly explicit, possibly as a result of the hierarchical authoritarianism baked into company structure since its founding as, after all, a nineteenth century insurance company.
Despite Bertolini's advocacy of reduced stress and improved work-life balance as a major driver of improved health for Aetna clients including Aetna employees, by the time the message had trickled down to the lower ranks it had been demoted to meaningless by the need to meet demands of superfluous levels of middle management, whose careers depended on making arbitrary decisions and monomaniacally pursuing them come Hell or high water. The evidence of this ordering of priorities was in any discussion with HR, who had no authority to intervene on behalf of an employee, and whose advice was invariably to bite the bullet and keep one's superiors happy.
As a result, company culture was one where people bragged of never having had a day off for years, weekends included, and burnout was the most frequent cause of departure; and both work quality and employee health suffered.
3
From what I have read so far, CVS plans to keep Aetna's headquarters in Hartford and will not move the Aetna HQ to NYC. (This came as a big relief to the politicians in Hartford).
“Aetna Chairman and CEO Mark Bertolini received $41 million in compensation last year, with $38.2 million of the package due to gains in value on restricted stock granted from 2013 to 2015 and on stock options he was awarded 10 years earlier and exercised during 2016. The total was up from $27.9 million in 2015.”
That’s from The Hartford Courant in April, 2017.
It is utterly tone-deaf of the Gray Lady to glowingly profile a multi-millionaire CEO of a corporation that literally profits off of denying healthcare to tens of thousands of people.
If I were cynical, I‘d wonder whether this puff piece were an effort by the corporate-friendly NYT to assist in rehabilitating the reputations of CEO’s and health insurance companies — both of which have been deservedly raked over the coals by more independent media outlets for their absurdly gargantuan pay packages and morally bankrupt business models, respectively.
Thank God I’m not a cynical person.
4
Great Article and success story. To bad Aetna hasn't decided to cover yoga as a preventive service. That would go a long way to reducing illness and increasing well being in the society without drugs
4
@Tony. You are among the millions of Americans that incorrectly think it's the "insurance companies" who decide what things to cover and what not to cover. The states regulate what you must cover in an insurance plan. And if you work for a company, your employer decides if they want to provide benefits that are richer than what the law requires. Of course, the richer the plan, the higher the cost.
1
This is interesting, though haggling for years with Aetna over basic health coverage dimmed my enthusiasm. I read until the yoga-for-girls business.
4
Hmm. so American health insurance executive claims Western medicine didn't help him recover. Were his broken bones not fixed by Western medicine? And does his company provide yoga, craniosacral therapy and meditation to accident victims who need that extra something to fully heal?
I don't suppose so. 'Healthcare' executives are in the business of making shareholders happy, not taking care of patients. America will have to wait another eight years before a Democrat can tinker with Republican-trashed healthcare system again....
11
@S North and he certainly didn't make maintaining the employees benefits a part of the sale. He asked. That's all. Sounds like he's selling the front line employees up the river.
Great interview, interesting man. I sure wish his philosophy would spread. We'd have a lot healthier and happier planet if we'd put people and their needs before corporate profit. Money has replaced God and as a result, the world is a mess.
Sad that they're merging with CVS. I'll bet they'll revert back to the old way of making all Aetna's employees miserable and unhappy again. Jury's out - let's wait and see.
10
Single payer now. In the 1990s I became disabled and nearly died because a pre-existing condition prevented me from being able to buy health insurance for over 20 yrs.
Corporate America must change so people aren't dying because of the whims of C.E.O.s and shareholders.
This is a great country but problems like this have left us operating with a 3rd world conscience.
P.S. Thanks to Barack Obama for saving my life.....
30
Enjoyable read with some pearls of business wisdom. These are the kinds of stories that need to be shared with community college business students and others hungry and hustling to start a business. Bad things happen(some self inflicted), good things happen, but you can do a lot to make it happen.
6
He’s going to get a huge payout and ride off into the sunset...not so with his rank and file employees. Doesn’t sound like a true “yogi” to me.
7
The decision to sell Aetna to CVS was out of Bertolini’s hands. Because Aetna was a publicly owned and traded company, Bertolini and the Board of Directors had to present to the stockholders any valid and reasonable offers they receive to sell the company by law which is what they did with CVS. I was an Aetna stockholder with just over 100 shares, and I voted my shares regarding the Aetna\CVS deal.
Bertolini and the fat cat Aetna executives did not sell Aetna to CVS as they did not have the legal authority to do so. Only the stockholders, including 100s of thousands of ordinary joes like me sold Aetna to CVS by voting their shares.
Therefore, Bertolini is being somewhat disingenuous that he somehow was looking out for the rank and file Aetna employees and implying that was part of the CVS deal. This article was in part his statement to all those employees he left that he tried to do the best he could for them, but in reality the welfare of Aetna employees under CVS was not part of the deal, and Bertolini knows it.
4
Prior to the agreement with CVS, several years ago Aetna suncontracted its pharmacy management operations to CVS; at which point it became clear that CVS was the very large dog in the relationship and Aetna the vestigial tail, to the detriment of service to Aetna policyholders. Aetna may survive the merger as a brand name and/or localized centers of particular operations, but the eventual success of the merger will require that Aetna dissolve into CVS rather than attempt to maintain any remnant of its current specific identity.
Sounds like this is one more person who has had a period of what I call "enforced downtime" which has made him into someone better than he once was. Seems that this is a recurring theme. Think FDR and Polio. Think Bob Dole and his time recovering from war wounds. Think Malcom X in prison. Think Mandela in prison. When you look at people who have made big and important contributions it is amazing how many have had such a period of enforced downtime. I guess that time makes you think deep and hard about what is important.
13
Wow, this is infuriating. Aetna is my insurance company and like all health insurance they strongly prefer I do not get the care I need. So good job NYT for painting this nice human portrait of the guy presiding over a firm that makes money by finding clever ways to commit mass murder passively. His working class childhood and interest in eastern philosophy hardly mitigates that.
25
This man literally profits from killing poor people.
4
No he doesn't.
Single payer now.
It’s not a moral act to profit off of health care.
32
@JB
Agree! Aetna and the other private health insurance companies do not provide health care and represent a parasitic and dangerous waste in our system. If they were eliminated from the equation and the price of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment were negotiated with the federal government, we as a nation could provide comprehensive health care to all (including long term care, dental, hearing aids, eyeglasses) with no out of pocket costs. Financing would be progressive, meaning those who earn more would pay more in taxes (and could afford to). The overhead for traditional Medicare is about 2 %, so most of the revenue for health care would be used to pay for health care. HR 676--"Expanded and Improved Medicare for All"--with 123 cosponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives, is a blueprint for us to follow.
10
Many have attempted to derive a way in which the health of the client, rather than illness, was profitable to the vendor of medical services, pharmaceuticals, etc.; but none have succeeded. The inescapable relationship is that better health means fewer services required, which means declining income in a normal for-profit marketplace.
The closest we've come is insurers, whose income depends on fewer services *provided*; which is in the right direction but way off the mark.
Modern medical "insurance" actually comprises two separate functions; "risk", the purely financial function of paying medical costs from premiums collected, and administration, including paperwork such as sending bills and payment as well as medical management: vaccination reminders, arranging homecare after hospital discharge etc.
In fact, although invisible to policyholders most large employers currently "self-insure", bearing risk themselves and merely contracting with the "insurer" for administration.
In the formative days of what was to become "Obamacare", Bertolini publicly noted that employer-provided insurance was steadily shrinking, and the future was for the government to self-insure similarly, i.e. cover the risk for the general public and for "health insurers" to compete to sell only administrative services to the public, who could then choose on the basis of regular consumer values such as administrative cost, better service, etc. This would eliminate the death spiral inevitable to selling actual insurance to individuals; where healthy people choose to not buy insurance, leading to a sicker insured population, leading to higher costs, leading to higher prices, leading to more healthy individuals deciding to forego insurance, and so on.
Since administrative cost doesn't increase for sick people, having the government handle financial risk for everyone and letting insurers charge only for administration would break this loop and stabilize costs.
Congress disagreed
1
As a Catholic who also practices yoga I disagree with how he responded to the inexcusable catastrophe in the RCC but respect and believe that each Catholic has to follow his or her own path. I understand walking away.
As for how he NOW treats the front line employees at AETNA, I applaud him. However, it is clear he'll have no power to help them once the merger goes through. Why did he pursue the merger in the first place if he really cares about leading the charge to change the corporate climate?
13
Fascinating interview. However, I’m sure he took very good care of himself and his top executive team with the sale of his company. I wonder how long CVS will maintain higher base pay and nice benefits for the workers. Oh yes, and the company yoga team.
I doubt very long. Intentions only go so far.
19
“Well, Jerry’s never going to do anything more than he’s doing now. He’s got a wife and a daughter. I’m helping him support his family. You’re 14 years old, you’ve got a home, you’ve got food, you’re going to get an education, and you’re going to do better than Jerry’s going to ever do. Do you get it?” I said, “Yeah.”
I know this is an interview and the interviewee is telling his story. However, is this part of the excuse we use to pay women less? What if the father had said "Jerry has worked here many years and is a loyal employee" or "Jerry is a full time employee and you are a part time employee." What if another employee was not as vocal about family needs-- an ill parent or child with special needs? What if the needs of another employee were perceived to be less?
A business should treat all of its employees fairly based on job responsibilities, seniority, and skill level, not perceived need.
21
It is interesting that Aetna provides these service for their employees but not for the patients in their network. We have tried to get Aetna to support for our pediatric pain and palliative care program based in their home city. I’ll be much more impressed with mr bertolini’s accomplishments if he worked to disseminate these practices.
22
@William Zempsky MD. This is rich!. For an M.D. you must know that what is covered under an employer sponsored plan is regulated by the states if insured. And anything above and beyond that coverage the employer has to decide if they want to add to their costs for richer coverage. Blaming insurance companies for not covering services your practice offers fails to understand or care about who pays for it.