Strib's subheadline tells it all, "Tim Noel joined the company in 2007 and most recently ran the business for Medicare health plans."
Not going outside to leaven the culture, staying inside, and gender determined.
..........................................
He probably has a track record. Presumably his branch of the business was run at a profit suitable to Witty, the man who heads the entire thing. Witty and the board.
If not turning a sizable profit, would you guess they'd look elsewhere?
Strib's report does not mention how profitable Noel's leadership of a branch of UH was. But be real. The entire venture has a track record, claim denials above industry norms.
If there is not a record of turning a large profit on the ship he piloted, would the man have been considered?
If UH does care to dispel a perception of extreme greed running and being a part of the venture, they should publicly discuss the profitability=advancement question. With data, not declarations. Then, gender bias seems a factor to explore next.
Silence about the profit potential of Mr. Noel's leadership is circumstantial evidence, when there is cause and capability to be specific, and we can draw our inferences accordingly.
My guess, clearly: He rang the profits over other aims bell, that is my circumstantial inference, and further evidence to the contrary would be welcome. It is an open minded guess, that way, but the company decided what it would, and would not, say.
I bet I am correct. But happy if the company comes forward with real evidence that my guess is in error. Strib's item noted -
“As a business leader, Tim views the path to success through a simple prism: Listen to employees and customers, focus on what they say matters most, then consistently and reliably deliver on those expectations. Every time. No exceptions,” Andrew Witty, UnitedHealth Group CEO, wrote in a message to employees obtained by the Minnesota Star Tribune.
“As a leader of teams and of people, Tim is a consummate collaborator,” Witty wrote. “He’s the first to tilt the spotlight onto others. He channels his energies into developing the people around him.”
If that is not blowing smoke, what is it? The firm is in litigation with former customers. Going to court suggests grievances. Without examining complaints the guess is coverage decision making and cost to customer are at issue.
Being sued does not necessarily stand in contradiction to, delivering "consistently and reliably" on what customers want and expect. But, give me numbers. Surely the ratio of non-suing customers vs. those willing to take things to court is greater than 1:1, but there is a threshold to being aggrieved enough to go to a lawyer.
If the company has released data on litigation prevalence for the company vs health insurance industry-wide litigation levels Crabgrass has not seen any such data, and again, the company has it and can publicize or hide it, as they see fit.
But delivering "Every time. No exceptions," means no lawsuits, and it appears that's not the case.
Prove me wrong.
And then, gender of the bosses? All the bosses?
UPDATE: Quality of care is NOT the issue. Providers and insurers are separate groups. Cost of care is questionable. My guess, single payer Medicare for All would cost less than private for-profit insurance, with no major change of the provider group.
Currently being provided clinic care by the Health Partners - Park Nicollet merged entity, I am very happy to have a top-quality doctor attending to my needs. Under Medicare.
It's comforting having that.
Medicare has been good on claim coverage, with reasonable co-pays, so far. With that in mind, Medicare for All is advocated, since I am no more deserving of high quality care others also might need, beyond qualification now - by age.
Age is an arbitrary criterion, but it's there. All ages, having the same reliability, evenly, seems only fair. After all, in truth, healthcare is a right. One all deserve, by being human citizens deserving their rights in the wealthiest nation the world has ever seen.