Humana Inc.

On June 13, 2023, one of Humana’s primary competitors, UnitedHeath Group Inc. (“UnitedHealth”) revealed that it was seeing “higher levels” of outpatient care activity due, potentially, to “pent-up demand or delayed demand being satisfied.” On this news, Humana’s stock price fell $57.63, or 11.2%, to close at $455.00 per share on June 14, 2023, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on June 16, 2923, Humana confirmed that it was also experiencing “higher than anticipated non-inpatient utilization trends, predominately in the categories of emergency room, outpatient surgeries, and dental services, as well as inpatient trends that have been stronger than anticipated in recent weeks, diverging from historical seasonality patterns.” The Company further warned that it now expected reduced profitability and “assume[d] it will continue to experience moderately higher-than-expected trends for the remainder of the year.” On this news, Humana’s stock price fell $18.20, or 3.9%, to close at $445.65 per share on June 16, 2023.

Then, on January 18, 2024, Humana released its fourth quarter and full year 2023 preliminary financial results, revealing that its benefits expense ratio had increased to approximately 91.4% for the fourth quarter of 2023 and approximately 88% for the full year 2023. As a result, the Company’s 2023 adjusted EPS were more than $2 per share less than what the Company had previously predicted. On this news, Humana’s stock price fell $35.78, or 8%, to close at $411.98 per share on January 18, 2024.

Then, on January 25, 2024, Humana disclosed that it expected higher levels of medical costs for all of 2024, and, as a result, the Company expected 2024 adjusted EPS of $16 per share -- $10 less than the previous year and $13 below analysts’ expectations. On this news, Humana’s stock price fell $47.04, or 11.7%, to close at $355.36 per share on January 25, 2024, thereby injuring investors further.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants: (1) downplayed pressures on the Company’s adjusted EPS resulting from increased medical costs associated with pent-up demand for healthcare procedures (especially as COVID concerns abated) which, contrary to the Company’s assurances, resulted in increased utilization rates and costs; and (2) as a result, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.