Aetna’s Corporate Governance Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) provide the framework for the governance of Aetna. The governance rules for companies listed on the NYSE and those contained in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 are reflected in the Guidelines. The Guidelines address the role of the Board (including advising on key strategic, financial and business objectives); the composition of the Board and selection of Directors; the functioning of the Board (including its annual self-evaluation); the Committees of the Board; the compensation of Directors; and the conduct and ethics standards for Directors, including a prohibition against any nonmanagement Director having a direct or indirect material relationship with Aetna and its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”) except as authorized by the Board or the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee (the “Nominating Committee”), and a prohibition against

Company loans to, or guarantees of obligations of, Directors and their family members. The Guidelines are available at www.aetna.com/governance.

As a complement to our annual Board and Committee self-evaluations and as part of the Board’s desire for continuous self-improvement, the Board has engaged an independent third-party facilitator to conduct individual director interviews during 2015. This interview process is designed to provide Directors an additional opportunity to share valuable feedback with each other with the goal of maximizing individual effectiveness.

The Board reviews the Company’s corporate governance practices annually. These reviews include a comparison of our current practices to those suggested by various groups or authorities active in corporate governance and to those of other public companies.

Aetna’s business and affairs are managed under the direction of the Board. Under Aetna’s By-Laws, the size of the Board may range from 3 to 21 members, with any change to the size of the Board to be designated from time to time by the Board. The Board currently consists of 13 individuals. The Board appoints Aetna’s officers, who serve at the discretion of the Board.

Under Aetna’s Articles of Incorporation, at each annual meeting of shareholders, all of the Directors are elected to hold office for a term of one year and until their successors are elected and qualified.

Aetna’s Articles of Incorporation provide for majority voting in uncontested elections of Directors. Under the Articles of Incorporation, a Director nominee will be elected if the number of votes cast “for” the nominee exceeds the number of votes cast “against” the nominee. An abstention will not have any effect on the outcome of the election. In contested elections, those in which there are more candidates for election than the number of Directors to be elected and one or more candidates have been properly proposed by shareholders, the voting standard will be a plurality of votes cast. Under Pennsylvania law, if an incumbent Director nominee does not receive a majority of the votes cast in an uncontested election, the incumbent Director will continue to serve on the Board until his or her

successor is elected and qualified. To address this situation, the Guidelines require any incumbent nominee for Director in an uncontested election who receives more “against” votes than “for” votes to promptly submit his or her resignation for consideration by the Nominating Committee. The Nominating Committee is then required to recommend to the Board the action to be taken with respect to the resignation, and the Board is required to act on the resignation, in each case within a reasonable period of time. Aetna will disclose promptly to the public each such resignation and decision by the Board. New nominees not already serving on the Board who fail to receive a majority of votes cast in an uncontested election will not be elected to the Board in the first instance.

The Nominating Committee regularly assesses the appropriate size and composition of the Board and, among other matters, whether any vacancies on the Board are expected due to retirement or otherwise. The current

Director retirement age is 76. Each year, the Nominating Committee considers the characteristics and performance of each individual Director candidate as part of its nomination process, regardless of the candidate’s age.

Aetna’s nonmanagement Directors meet in regularly scheduled executive sessions without management present at every regular Aetna Board meeting. During 2014, the nonmanagement Directors, each of whom is independent other than Dr. Coye, met eight times to discuss certain Board policies, processes and practices, the performance and proposed performance-based compensation of the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, management

succession and other matters relating to the Company and the functioning of the Board. In addition, Aetna’s independent Directors met once in executive session during 2014 without management present. Dr. Coye was an independent Director until September 2010, when she joined UCLA Health System; UCLA Health System provides hospital services to our members as explained on page 5.

The Board, assisted by the Nominating Committee, regularly reviews the leadership structure of the Company, including whether the position of Chairman should be held by an independent Director. The Board believes that the decision to combine or separate the positions of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer is highly dependent on the strengths and personalities of the personnel involved and must take into account current business conditions and the environment in which the Company operates. The Board also strongly believes Mr. Bertolini, who continues to serve as Chief Executive Officer, is a successful leader of the Board and an effective bridge between the Directors and Company management. While the Board has decided to

keep the roles of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer combined at this time, the Board also has taken steps to ensure that it effectively carries out its responsibility for independent oversight of management. These steps include the election of a Lead Director (with comprehensive and clearly delineated duties); the scheduling at every regular Board meeting of an executive session of the nonmanagement Directors (without Mr. Bertolini or other management attendees present); and assuring that substantially all of the nonmanagement Directors are independent. In addition, each Board Committee meets regularly in executive session without management attendees.

Communications sent to Aetna’s Chairman will be delivered directly to him. All communications to the Lead Director or addressed to the nonmanagement Directors will be kept confidential and forwarded directly to the Lead Director.

Items that are unrelated to a Director’s duties and responsibilities as a Board member, such as junk mail, may be excluded by the Corporate Secretary.

The Board has established guidelines (“Director Independence Standards”) to assist it in determining Director independence. In accordance with the Director

Independence Standards, the Board must determine that each independent Director has no material relationship with the Company other than as a Director and/or a shareholder

of the Company. Consistent with the NYSE listing standards, the Director Independence Standards specify the criteria by which the independence of our Directors will be determined, including guidelines for Directors and their immediate family members with respect to past employment or affiliation with the Company or its external auditor. The Director Independence Standards are available at www.aetna.com/about-us/corporate-governance.html.

Pursuant to the Director Independence Standards, the Board undertook its annual review of Director independence in February 2015. The purpose of this review was to determine whether any nonmanagement Director’s relationships or transactions are inconsistent with a determination that the Director is independent. During this review, the Board considered transactions and relationships between each Director or any member of his or her immediate family (or any entity of which a Director or an immediate family member is a partner, major shareholder or officer) and the Company. The Board also considered whether there were any transactions or relationships between Directors or any member of their immediate family with members of the Company’s senior management or their affiliates.

As a result of this review, the Board affirmatively determined in its business judgment that each of Fernando Aguirre, Frank M. Clark, Betsy Z. Cohen, Roger N. Farah, Barbara Hackman Franklin, Jeffrey E. Garten, Ellen M. Hancock, Richard J. Harrington, Edward J. Ludwig, Joseph P. Newhouse and Olympia J. Snowe, each of whom also is standing for election at the Annual Meeting, is independent as defined in the NYSE listing standards and under Aetna’s

Director Independence Standards and that any relationship with the Company (either directly or as a partner, major shareholder or officer of any organization that has a relationship with the Company) is not material under the independence thresholds contained in the NYSE listing standards and under Aetna’s Director Independence Standards. The Board has determined that Molly J. Coye, M.D., is not independent under the NYSE listing standards and under Aetna’s Director Independence Standards due to the Company’s business relationship with her employer. Dr. Coye is not involved in that relationship.

In determining that each of the nonmanagement Directors other than Dr. Coye is independent, the Board considered that the Company in the ordinary course of business sells products and services to, purchases products and services from, and/or makes charitable contributions to companies and other entities at which some of our Directors or their immediate family members are or have been officers and/or significant equity holders or have certain other relationships. Specifically, the Board considered the existence of and approved the transactions described below, all of which were made in the ordinary course of business, on terms and conditions substantially similar to those with unrelated third parties, and which the Board believes were in, or not inconsistent with, the best interests of the Company. The aggregate amounts paid to or received from these companies or other entities in each of the last three years did not exceed the threshold in the Director Independence Standards (i.e., the greater of $1 million or 2% of the other company’s consolidated gross revenues) for 2014, except in the case of Dr. Coye.

In addition to the transactions in the table above on this page, the Company also may, in the ordinary course of its business, hold as investments equity and/or debt securities in corporations or organizations with which Directors are or were affiliated. The amount of each such holding is below the 5% threshold amount in the Director Independence Standards. Further, in 2014, the Company donated $500,000 to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation, a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization. The spouse of Senator Snowe formerly was the President of the U.S. Chamber of

Commerce Foundation. The Board determined that none of these relationships or contributions was material or impaired the independence of any Director.

All members of the Audit Committee, the Committee on Compensation and Talent Management (the “Compensation Committee”) and the Nominating Committee are, in the business judgment of the Board, independent Directors as defined in the NYSE listing standards and in Aetna’s Director Independence Standards.

The Board and its Committees meet throughout the year on a set schedule and also hold special meetings from time to time, as appropriate. During 2014, the Board met eleven times. The average attendance of Directors at all meetings during the year was 92.8%, and no Director attended fewer than 75% of the aggregate number of Board and

Committee meetings that he or she was eligible to attend. It is the policy of the Board that all Directors should be present at Aetna’s Annual Meeting of Shareholders. Eleven of the twelve Directors then in office and standing for election attended Aetna’s 2014 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

Aetna’s Code of Conduct applies to every Aetna employee and to every member of the Board and is available at www.aetna.com/governance. The Code of Conduct is designed to ensure that Aetna’s business is conducted in a consistently legal and ethical manner. The Code of Conduct includes policies on employee conduct, conflicts of interest and the protection of confidential information and requires compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Aetna will

disclose any amendments to the Code of Conduct or waivers of the Code of Conduct relating to Aetna’s Directors, executive officers and principal financial and accounting officers or persons performing similar functions on its website at www.aetna.com/governance within four business days following the date of any such amendment or waiver. To date, no such waivers have been requested or granted.

Under Aetna’s Code of Conduct, the Board or an independent Committee reviews any potential conflicts between the Company and any Director. In addition, the Board has adopted a written Related Party Transaction Policy (the “Policy”) which applies to Directors, executive officers, significant shareholders and their immediate family members (each a “Related Person”). Under the Policy, all transactions involving the Company in which a Related Person has a direct or indirect material interest must be reviewed and approved (1) by the Board or the Nominating Committee if involving a Director, (2) by the Board or the Audit Committee if involving an executive officer or (3) by the Board if involving a significant shareholder. The Board or appropriate Committee considers relevant facts and

circumstances, which may include, without limitation, the commercial reasonableness of the terms, the benefit to the Company, opportunity costs of alternate transactions, the materiality and character of the Related Person’s direct or indirect interest, and the actual or apparent conflict of interest of the Related Person. A transaction may be approved if it is determined, in the Board’s or appropriate Committee’s reasonable business judgment, that the transaction is in, or not inconsistent with, the best interests of the Company and its shareholders, and considering the interests of other relevant constituents, when deemed appropriate. Determinations of materiality are made by the Board or appropriate Committee, as applicable.

Aetna’s Board oversees and guides the Company’s management and its business. Committees support the role of the Board on issues that are better addressed by smaller, more focused subsets of Directors.

The following table presents, as of March 13, 2015, the key standing Committees of the Board, the membership of such

Committees and the number of times each such Committee met in 2014. Charters adopted by the Board for each of the six Committees listed below are available at www.aetna.com/investors-aetna/governance/committees.html.

Corporate Secretary

Aetna Inc.

151 Farmington Avenue, RW61

Hartford, CT 06156

In addition, Aetna’s By-Laws permit shareholders to nominate Directors for consideration at a meeting of shareholders at which one or more Directors are to be elected. For a description of the process for nominating Directors in accordance with Aetna’s By-Laws, see “Can I Propose Actions for Consideration at Next Year’s Annual Meeting of Shareholders or Nominate Individuals to Serve as Directors?” on page 69.

The specific experiences, qualifications, attributes and skills that the Nominating Committee and the Board believe each Nominee possesses are set forth below each Nominee’s biography beginning on page 12.

The Board and the Nominating Committee each considered the characteristics and performance of the individual Directors standing for election to the Board at the Annual Meeting against the foregoing criteria, and, to the extent applicable, reviewed the impact of any change in the principal occupations of all Directors during the last year. Upon completion of its review process, the Nominating Committee reported to the Board its conclusions and recommendations for nominations to the Board, and the Board nominated the 13 Director nominees named in this Proxy Statement based on those recommendations.

In 2014, the Nominating Committee engaged and paid the fees of a professional search firm to assist the Nominating Committee in identifying and evaluating potential nominees.

This year, Aetna will nominate 13 individuals for election as Directors at the Annual Meeting (the “Nominees”) to replace the current Board. The terms of office for the Directors elected at the Annual Meeting will run until the next annual meeting and until their successors are duly elected and qualified. The Nominating Committee recommended the 13 Nominees for nomination by the Board. Based on that recommendation, the Board nominated each of the Nominees for election at the Annual Meeting.

All Nominees are currently Directors of Aetna. The following pages list the names and ages of the Nominees as of the date of the Annual Meeting, the year each first became a Director of Aetna or one of its predecessors, the principal occupation of each Nominee as of March 13, 2015, the publicly traded company directorships and certain other directorships held by each Nominee for the past five years, a brief description of the business experience of each Nominee for at least the last five years, and the specific experience, qualifications, attributes and skills that each Nominee possesses. The specific experience, qualifications, attributes and skills listed below for each Nominee are in addition to the individual qualifications required for all nominees as outlined under “Consideration of Director Nominees-Director Qualifications” on page 11.

Each of the 13 individuals listed below (or such lesser number if the Board has reduced the number of Directors to be elected at the Annual Meeting as described on page 68 under “What If a Director Nominee Is Unwilling or Unable to Serve?”) who receives more “for” votes than “against” votes cast at the Annual Meeting will be elected a Director. In addition, as described in more detail on page 2 under “Director Elections — Majority Voting Standard,” Aetna’s Corporate Governance Guidelines require any incumbent nominee for Director in an uncontested election who receives more “against” votes than “for” votes to promptly submit his or her resignation for consideration by the Nominating Committee. The Nominating Committee and the Board are then required to act on the resignation, in each case within a reasonable period of time.

The Board recommends a vote FOR each of the 13 Nominees. If you complete the enclosed proxy card, unless you direct to the contrary on that card, the shares represented by that proxy card will be voted FOR the election of all 13 Nominees.

Each year, the Nominating Committee reviews compensation for nonmanagement Directors and makes recommendations regarding the prospective level and composition of Director compensation to the Board for its approval.

The Nominating Committee’s goal is to develop a compensation program that:

As part of their review, the Nominating Committee and the Board consider, among other factors, the Director compensation practices at a comparative group of public companies (the “comparative group”), based on market comparison studies prepared by Meridian, an outside consultant.

The primary elements of Aetna’s Director compensation program are annual cash retainer fees and annual restricted stock unit (“RSU”) awards. Directors also receive certain benefits. Directors who are officers of Aetna receive no additional compensation for membership on the Board or any of its Committees.

The Board has established Director Stock Ownership Guidelines under which each nonmanagement Director is required to own, within five years of joining the Board, a specified dollar value of Aetna common shares, par value $.01 per share (“Common Stock”), or stock units. In September 2014, the Board reviewed the Director Stock Ownership Guidelines and revised the ownership requirement to $500,000 from $400,000 effective

January 1, 2015. At March 13, 2015, all of Aetna’s nonmanagement Directors were in compliance with these guidelines.

Aetna’s Code of Conduct prohibits Directors from engaging in hedging strategies using puts, calls or other types of derivative securities based on the value of the Common Stock.

On September 26, 2013, the Nominating Committee and Frederic W. Cook & Co., Inc. (“Cook”), the compensation consultant engaged at that time) reviewed a director compensation study prepared by Cook, and on December 6, 2013, the Board voted to approve the Director compensation package for nonmanagement Directors for 2014. The Board set the total value of target compensation for 2014 at approximately $266,664 consisting of stock-based compensation, cash and benefits and excluding the estimated cost of the Charitable Award Program. The annual Board retainer was increased from $75,000 to $85,000 for 2014. In addition, for 2014, the retainer for the Chair of the Audit Committee was increased from $15,000 to $20,000, and the retainer for each Audit Committee member was raised from $7,500 to $10,000 in light of the demands of service on this Committee. Chair retainers remain at $15,000 for the Compensation Committee, $8,000 for the Investment and Finance Committee, $8,000 for the Medical Affairs Committee and $10,000 for the Nominating Committee. Committee member retainers remain at $4,000 for the Executive Committee, the Investment and Finance Committee and the Medical Affairs Committee; $5,000 for the Nominating Committee; and

$7,500 for the Compensation Committee. The annual retainer for the Lead Director also was increased from $15,000 to $25,000.

In addition, Cook utilized a nationally recognized survey source to gauge competitive levels for non-employee director compensation, the NACD 2012/2013 Director Compensation Report for companies with revenues greater than $10 billion. NACD data indicates that on a per director basis, compared to all industries, Aetna’s total Director compensation was positioned between the median and the 75^th percentile of the top 200 companies and above the median of the twelve health-industry specific companies.

Details regarding retainer fees for Board and Committee service are set forth in footnote 2 to the 2014 Director Compensation table.

The 2014 Director Compensation table sets forth for 2014 the total compensation of each of the nonmanagement Directors. Actual compensation for any Director, and amounts shown in the 2014 Director Compensation table, may vary by Director due to the Committees on which a Director serves and other factors described in footnote 4 to the 2014 Director Compensation table.

The amounts shown in the “Fees Earned or Paid in Cash” and “Stock Awards” columns of the 2014 Director Compensation table include amounts that were deferred by Directors during 2014 under the Director Plan. Under the Director Plan, nonmanagement Directors may defer payment of some or all of their annual retainer fees, vested RSUs and dividend equivalents paid on stock units to an unfunded stock unit account or unfunded interest account until after they have resigned or retired (as defined in the Director Plan) from the Board or elect to diversify their stock unit holdings as described below.

During the period of deferral, amounts deferred to the stock unit account track the value of the Common Stock and earn dividend equivalents. During the period of deferral, amounts

deferred to the interest account accrue interest pursuant to a formula equal to the rate of interest paid from time to time under the fixed interest rate fund option of the Aetna 401(k) Plan, which was 1.90% for the period January to March 2014; 1.95% for the period April to June 2014; and 2.05% for the period July to September 2014 and for the period October to December 2014.

Under the Director Plan, beginning at age 68, Directors are allowed to make an annual election to diversify up to 100% of their voluntary deferrals into the stock unit account out of stock units and into an interest account. During 2014, no Director made such a diversification election. Directors who make a diversification election remain subject to the Board’s Director Stock Ownership Guidelines.

On May 30, 2014, Aetna granted each nonmanagement Director then in office 2,064 RSUs under the Director Plan. The full grant date fair value of the RSUs granted to each nonmanagement Director was $160,063. The RSUs vest in quarterly increments over a one-year period beginning May 30, 2014, and are payable at the end of the one-year period in shares of Common Stock or can be deferred under the Director Plan to a stock unit account or an interest account as described above. The RSUs granted to

a nonmanagement Director will vest immediately if the Director ceases to be a Director because of death, disability, retirement or acceptance of a position in government service. All RSUs granted to nonmanagement Directors also will vest upon a change in control of Aetna (as defined in the Director Plan). The unvested RSUs granted to nonmanagement Directors do not earn dividend equivalents, have no voting rights and are not transferable.

Prior to 2012, nonmanagement Directors, upon their initial election to the Board, received a one-time grant of Initial Units convertible upon retirement from Board service into 6,000 shares of Common Stock. Generally, to become fully vested in the Initial Units, a Director had to complete three years of service following the grant. If service was terminated sooner by reason of death, disability, retirement or acceptance of a position in government service, a Director was entitled to receive the full grant if the Director had completed a minimum of six consecutive months of service as a Director from the date of grant.

A Director’s right with respect to unvested Initial Units also would have vested upon a change in control of Aetna (as defined in the Director Plan). If a Director terminated Board service prior to completion of three years of service from the grant date of any Initial Units that had not otherwise vested under the terms of the Director Plan, the Director would have been entitled to receive a pro rata portion of the award. Although Directors received dividend equivalents on the Initial Units, they had no voting rights with respect to the Initial Units granted. The Initial Units granted were not transferable. All of the current nonmanagement Directors other than Senator Snowe received Initial Units.

Prior to January 26, 2008, Aetna maintained a Director Charitable Award Program (the “Program”) for nonmanagement Directors serving on the Board. After a review of the Program and competitive practices, the Board decided to close the Program, and any Director who first joins the Board after January 25, 2008 will not be eligible to participate. However, to recognize pre-existing commitments, the Program remains in place for Directors serving prior to that date. Under the Program, Aetna will make a charitable contribution of $1 million in ten equal annual installments allocated among up to five charitable organizations recommended by a participating Director once he or she reaches age 72. For Mr. Farah, who joined the Board in 2007, contributions would occur once he reaches age 75. The Program may be funded indirectly by life insurance on the lives of the participating Directors. Messrs. Harrington and Aguirre and Senator Snowe are not eligible to participate in the Program because they joined the Board after the Program closed to new Directors.

Beneficiary organizations recommended by Directors must be, among other things, tax exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the

“Code”). Donations Aetna ultimately makes are expected to be deductible from Aetna’s taxable income for purposes of U.S. federal and other income taxes. Directors derive no personal financial or tax benefit from the Program, since all insurance proceeds and charitable deductions accrue solely to Aetna.

The Program values included in footnote 4 to the 2014 Director Compensation table represent an estimate of the present value of the total annual economic net cost of the Program, pre-tax, for current and former Directors, allocated equally among the Directors still participating in the Program. The present value calculation considers estimates of (a) premiums paid on whole life insurance policies purchased with respect to certain of the Directors to fund part of the Program; (b) the expected future charitable contributions to be paid by Aetna on behalf of current and former Directors; (c) expenses associated with administering the Program; and (d) the expected future proceeds from such whole life insurance policies which are, in turn, based on expected mortality, as well as assumptions related to future investment returns of the policies.

Aetna provides $150,000 of group life insurance and $100,000 of business travel accident insurance (which includes accidental death and dismemberment coverage) for its nonmanagement Directors. Optional medical, dental and long-term care coverage for nonmanagement Directors and their eligible dependents also is available to Directors at a cost similar to that charged to Aetna employees and may be continued into retirement by eligible Directors.

Aetna also reimburses nonmanagement Directors for the out-of-pocket expenses they incur that pertain to Board

membership, including travel expenses incurred in connection with attending Board, Committee and shareholder meetings, and for other Aetna business-related expenses (including the business-related travel expenses of spouses if they are specifically invited to attend an event).

From time to time, Aetna also may transport Directors to and from Board meetings or Directors and their guests to and from other Aetna business functions on Company aircraft.

On September 18, 2014, the Nominating Committee and Meridian reviewed a director compensation study prepared by Meridian, and on November 20, 2014, the Board voted to approve the Director compensation package for nonmanagement Directors for 2015. The Board set the total value of target compensation for 2015 at approximately

$267,110, consisting of stock-based compensation, cash and benefits and excluding the estimated cost of the Charitable Award Program. The annual Board retainer and Lead Director, Chair and Committee retainers for 2015 were set at 2014 levels.

The following table presents, as of March 13, 2015, the beneficial ownership of, and other interests in, shares of our Common Stock of each current Director, each Nominee, each executive officer named in the 2014 Summary

Compensation Table on page 39 and Aetna’s Directors and executive officers as a group. The information set forth in the table below and in the related footnotes has been furnished by the respective persons.

The Company’s financial performance in 2014 was strong and continued to reflect the Company’s attention to capital deployment, a balanced business mix and effective execution of our strategy. During 2014, the Company delivered:

Competitors include: Cigna Corporation, Humana Inc., UnitedHealth Group Incorporated and Anthem, Inc. (formerly WellPoint, Inc.)

* Projected. Declaration and payment of future dividends are at the discretion of the Board and may be adjusted as business needs or market conditions change.

Operating earnings per share and pre-tax operating margin are non-GAAP financial measures. Refer to Annex A to this Proxy Statement for a reconciliation of these and other non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures.

The Company’s executive pay decisions reflect the alignment between executive compensation and Company performance:

At our 2014 annual meeting, 88.41% of the votes cast at the meeting voted to approve, on a non-binding advisory basis, the Company’s 2013 Named Executive Officer (“NEO”) compensation, reflecting strong concurrence with the Company’s executive compensation program. Despite this solid shareholder vote in favor of our executive compensation programs, the Compensation Committee continues to refine the Company’s programs to improve their alignment with the interests of our shareholders and to respond to shareholder feedback. During 2014, with the assistance of its independent compensation consultant, Meridian, the Compensation Committee reviewed the Company’s executive compensation programs. As a result of this review and reflecting conversations the Company has had with certain of its largest shareholders, the Company adopted the following compensation program changes for 2014 and 2015:

2014 Changes

2015 Changes

An understanding of our executive compensation program begins with the program objectives. Although we have made changes to our program in recent years, our objectives remain the same. These include:

We continue to believe that a significant portion of executive compensation should be variable and based on stock price change and meeting or exceeding defined performance goals (i.e., “at risk”). Our program meets this goal by delivering compensation in the form of equity and other performance-based awards.

How are the total cash and equity compensation amounts determined?

Our compensation program is generally designed to set total cash and equity compensation opportunity (considered as base salary, performance-based annual bonus and long-term incentive equity awards) for senior executives at an amount that is competitively reasonable and appropriate for our business needs and circumstances. For the Named Executive Officers, the Compensation Committee reviews the cash and equity compensation opportunities available to similarly positioned executives of companies in the Comparison Groups. The Compensation Committee also reviews third-party compensation surveys. The companies that make up each Comparison Group and the reasons they were selected are listed on page 38. The third-party compensation surveys are purchased from outside compensation vendors selected by our human resources department, and the data provided by the vendors is

reviewed by the Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultant. The data presented to the Compensation Committee includes a regression analysis (market compensation data adjusted to account for company size based on revenue) where available. The compensation of our Named Executive Officers is compared across the Named Executive Officer group and with the compensation of other senior executives of the Company for internal pay relativity purposes. The Compensation Committee, however, has not established a specific pay relativity percentage.

Our compensation program is generally designed to deliver above-median total compensation for above-median performance and below-median total compensation for below-median performance. For executives with compensation opportunities that are more highly variable, including the Named Executive Officers, total cash and equity compensation opportunity may be above the

median, but “at risk” amounts are paid only if performance goals are achieved or exceeded. In addition, the value of the equity awards is directly subject to stock price change. In setting total compensation opportunity, the Compensation Committee does not, on a formulaic basis, set target compensation opportunity at the precise median of the Comparison Groups. Instead, the Compensation Committee uses Comparison Group information as a reference point to make what is ultimately a subjective decision that balances (i) a competitive level of compensation for a position; (ii) executive experience and scope of responsibility; (iii) individual performance; (iv) percent of pay “at risk”; and (v) retention. There is no pre-defined formula that determines which of these factors is more or less important, and the emphasis placed on a specific factor may vary among executive officers and will reflect market conditions and business needs at the time the pay decision is made.

How are base salaries for executive officers determined?

In making annual base salary determinations, the Compensation Committee considers:

Base salary, as a percent of total compensation, also differs based on the executive’s position and function. Although the Compensation Committee has not established a

specific ratio of base salary to total compensation, in general, executives with the highest level and broadest scope of responsibility have the lowest percentage of their compensation fixed as salary and have the highest percentage of their compensation subject to performance-based standards (performance-based annual bonus and long-term incentives). None of the Named Executive Officers received a base salary increase for 2014 as their base salary levels were deemed appropriate in the context of their total direct compensation.

How are annual performance-based bonuses determined?

Except for a portion of Mr. Bertolini’s bonus (described on page 32), the 2014 annual bonuses were paid in cash. All executive officers and managers are eligible to participate in the ABP. The Compensation Committee, after consulting with the Board, establishes specific financial and operational goals at the beginning of each performance year. Annual bonus funding is linked directly to the achievement of these annual goals. Following the completion of the performance year, the Compensation Committee assesses performance against the pre-established performance goals to determine bonus funding for the year. The ABP goals, described in more detail below, are directly derived from our strategic and business operating plan approved by the Board. These goals, which measure annual results, were selected to balance the delivery of financial results with the achievement of internal and external constituent goals. The Company believes it is important to consider these non-financial constituent goals, which for 2014 have a 20% ABP weighting, because they help keep a focus on our longer-term success and the quality of our brand and reputation, rather than purely annual financial results.

Under the ABP, if all of the goals are met at the target level in the aggregate, then up to 100% of the target bonus pool is funded. If the goals are exceeded in the aggregate, by a sufficient margin, then up to a maximum of 200% of the target bonus pool is funded. At the threshold performance level, 25% of the target bonus pool is funded.

After applying the weightings noted above, the Compensation Committee set the Company-wide 2014 ABP bonus pool funding at 133.4% of target. Within this pool funding, the Compensation Committee set actual bonus amounts after conducting a subjective review of each Named Executive Officer’s individual performance for the year against the business unit and qualitative performance

goals established at the start of the year and considering Mr. Bertolini’s recommendations (as to executives other than himself). In determining the annual bonus for Mr. Bertolini, the Compensation Committee consulted with the non-management members of the Board. The factors considered in determining individual bonus amounts for the Named Executive Officers are set forth below.

How are long-term incentive equity awards (SARs and PSUs) determined?

The Company’s 2014 long-term incentive equity award program was delivered in the form of SARs (70%) and PSUs (30%). The objective of the SAR and PSU awards is to advance the longer-term interests of the Company and our shareholders by directly aligning executive compensation with increases in our stock price and providing incentives for executives to meet the specified PSU performance goal. These awards complement cash incentives tied to annual performance as they motivate executives to increase earnings and shareholder value over time.

The 70% allocation to SARs aligns the majority of the long-term incentive value directly with shareholder interest in increasing our stock price; the award has no value if the stock price declines after the award is granted. The remaining 30% of the long-term incentive value is also tied to the value of our stock and the attainment of specific financial operating goals. The SARs granted in 2014 to the Named Executive Officers vest in substantially equal annual installments over a 36-month period. The PSUs granted in 2014 vest in a single installment at the end of a 36-month period based on the Company’s attainment of the two-year performance goal. The SAR and PSU awards are settled in Common Stock, net of applicable withholding taxes, in

order to reduce shareholder dilution resulting from the awards. The Company currently does not pay dividend equivalents on unvested equity awards.

What is the PSU performance goal?

The PSUs granted in 2014 were designed to vest at 100% if the Company attains a two-year adjusted operating earnings per share compound annual growth rate of 7%. This goal was selected because, at the time it was established, it represented the Company’s adjusted operating earnings per share goal over the performance period. If the performance goal is met, the PSUs will vest at the end of the 36-month vesting period. At maximum performance, the PSUs vest at 200% of the units granted.

Does the Compensation Committee consider prior equity grants when making compensation decisions?

In making individual long-term incentive equity award decisions, the Compensation Committee does not specifically take into account prior equity grants or amounts realized on the exercise or vesting of prior equity grants in determining the equity value to be granted. The Company’s philosophy is to pay an annualized market value for the executive’s position, sized according to the performance level of the individual in the position. The Compensation Committee does, however, consider prior equity grants to

executives in evaluating the overall design, timing and size of the long-term incentive equity program. In addition, in assessing the recruitment/retention risk for executives, the Compensation Committee considers the value of unvested equity awards.

Did the Company make special equity grants to Named Executive Officers in 2014?

In December 2014, the Company made a special RSU grant to Mr. Soistman. This RSU grant will vest in two substantially equal annual installments on the second and third anniversary of the grant date. This RSU was designed to recognize the leadership of Mr. Soistman and act as a retention vehicle for Mr. Soistman in connection with other management changes at the Company.

What is the Company’s policy on the grant date of equity awards?

The effective date of the annual long-term incentive equity grant in 2014 was the stock market trading day after the February Board of Directors and Compensation Committee meetings which followed the release of our annual earnings. The grant price of any annual award is the closing price of our Common Stock on that day. The Compensation Committee selected this timing so that the award value reflected our most recent full-year earnings information and outlook. The Compensation Committee also makes grants during the year, primarily in connection with hiring and promotions. Under our policy, off-cycle grants made in connection with hiring are effective on the date of hire or the 10^th day of the month following the date of hire.

What are the health, welfare and pension benefits offered?

To attract and retain employees at all levels, we offer a subsidized health and welfare benefits program that includes medical, dental, life, accident, disability, vacation and severance benefits. Our subsidy for employee health benefits is graduated so that executives pay a higher contribution than more moderately paid employees.

The Company makes a tax-qualified 401(k) plan available to substantially all of our U.S.-based employees, including the Named Executive Officers. We also offer a Supplemental 401(k) Plan (the “Supplemental 401(k) Plan”) to provide benefits above Code contribution limits. There is no Aetna matching contribution under the Supplemental 401(k) Plan. The Company’s Pension Plan (the “Pension Plan”) was frozen as of December 31, 2010, and the Company’s Supplemental Pension Plan (the “Supplemental Pension Plan”) was frozen in January 2007. Interest continues to accrue on outstanding pension cash balance accruals.

Does the Company have an Employee Stock Purchase Plan?

Our tax-qualified employee stock purchase plan is available to substantially all employees, including the Named Executive Officers. This program allows our employees to buy our

Common Stock at a 5% discount to the market price on the purchase date (up to a maximum of $25,000 per year). We offer this program because we believe it is important for all employees to focus on increasing the value of our Common Stock and to have an opportunity to share in our success.

Does the Company provide other compensation to the Named Executive Officers?

The Company provides only limited other compensation to the Named Executive Officers (see the All Other Compensation table in footnote 8 to the 2014 Summary Compensation Table on page 40). In the interest of security, with certain exceptions, the Company requires that the CEO use corporate aircraft for personal travel whenever use of the aircraft is not required for a business purpose. Other Named Executive Officers are also permitted to use corporate aircraft for personal travel at the discretion of the CEO. The Compensation Committee believes this practice is reasonable and appropriate given security concerns, efficiency of travel and the demands put on our Named Executive Officers’ time. A financial planning reimbursement, not to exceed $10,000, is provided to Named Executive Officers to assure sound financial planning and tax compliance and to provide more time for the executive to focus on the needs of our business. The Company does not provide any tax gross-ups related to other compensation, including perquisites (other than in connection with relocation benefits provided in connection with an executive’s relocation of residence on behalf of the Company).

What is the Company’s policy on Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m)?

Prior to 2013, Section 162(m) of the Code limited the tax deductibility of compensation in excess of $1 million paid to certain executive officers, unless the payments were made under plans that satisfy the technical requirements of the Code. It has been Company policy to maximize the tax-deductibility of payments as “performance-based compensation” under Section 162(m) to the extent practicable. Annual bonuses, MSUs and PSUs were designed so that the compensation paid would be tax deductible by the Company. As part of the federal health care reform legislation enacted in 2010, Section 162(m) was revised with respect to compensation paid by health insurance companies, including the Company. Starting in 2013, an annual deduction limit of $500,000 per person applies to the compensation we pay to any of our employees and certain service providers. This tax deduction limitation applies to compensation earned after 2009, if paid after 2012. The tax deduction limitation applies whether or not the compensation is performance-based or is provided pursuant to a shareholder-approved plan. As a result, in connection with the administration of the ABP and other programs, the Company has suspended the application of the technical requirements needed to qualify compensation as performance-based under Section 162(m), although annual bonus and other programs continue to have performance-based elements.

Do executives have to meet stock ownership requirements?

The CEO and other senior executives are subject to minimum stock ownership requirements. The ownership requirements are based on the executive’s pay opportunity and position within the Company. The ownership levels (which include shares owned and vested stock units but not stock options, SARs, PSARs or unvested MSUs or PSUs) are as follows:

STOCK OWNERSHIP AS A MULTIPLE OF BASE SALARY

Executives who do not meet their individual ownership requirement at the time an equity award vests or is exercised are required to retain 35% of the after-tax equity payout in shares of Common Stock. These shares are required to be held until the executive terminates employment with the Company. This policy applies to equity awards granted in 2010 and later and is intended to further align the interests of our executives with the interests of our shareholders. Beginning with equity awards granted in 2015, executive officers who do not meet their ownership requirement at the time of vesting or exercise are required to retain 50% of the after-tax equity payout in shares of Common Stock until the earlier of termination of employment with the Company or the

date the executive satisfies his or her stock ownership requirements. All NEOs are in compliance with the Company’s stock ownership/retention policy. (Mr. Soistman, who joined the Company in 2013, does not yet meet the Company’s required ownership level, but is subject to the stock retention policy.)

Does the Company have a policy on hedging or pledging Company stock?

The Company’s Code of Conduct prohibits all employees (including executives) and Directors from engaging in hedging strategies using puts, calls or other types of derivative securities based upon the value of our Common Stock. No Directors or Named Executive Officers entered into a pledge of Common Stock in 2014.

Why do the amounts of severance paid following termination of employment differ among the Named Executive Officers?

The narrative and tables beginning on page 47 outline the potential payments that would be made to the Named Executive Officers following their termination of employment under various scenarios. The difference in treatment among the Named Executive Officers is due to the dynamics of negotiation at the time the executive was hired (or promoted), the executive’s position in the Company, market practices and Company policies in effect at the time of entry into an executive’s agreement with the Company.

Many of these policies are described more fully below.

Does the Compensation Committee use an independent compensation consultant?

During 2014, the Compensation Committee engaged Meridian to provide independent compensation consulting services to the Compensation Committee. The role of the independent compensation consultant is to ensure that the Compensation Committee has objective information needed to make informed decisions in the best interests of shareholders based on compensation trends and practices in public companies. During the past year, the Compensation Committee requested Meridian to: (i) assist in the development of agendas and materials for Compensation Committee meetings; (ii) provide market data and alternatives to consider for making compensation decisions for the CEO and other executive officers; (iii) assist in the design of the Company’s long-term compensation program; and (iv) keep the Compensation Committee and the Board abreast of changes in the executive compensation environment. Meridian also advised the Nominating Committee regarding Director compensation. In accordance with Compensation Committee policy, the Company does not engage its independent compensation consultant for any services other than in support of these two Committees. Meridian had no relationships with any member of the Compensation Committee or any executive officer of the Company. The Compensation Committee has the sole authority to determine the compensation for and to terminate the services of the independent compensation consultant. The Compensation Committee has reviewed the independence of the independent compensation consultant pursuant to applicable independence rules and determined that its work does not raise any conflicts of interest.

What is the role of the CEO and the Board of Directors in determining compensation?

The CEO personally reviews and reports to the Compensation Committee on the performance of select senior executives (including all of the Named Executive Officers other than himself) and provides specific compensation recommendations to the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee considers this information in making compensation decisions for these executives, but the Compensation Committee does not delegate its decision-making authority to the CEO. The CEO also provides to the Compensation Committee a self-evaluation. The CEO does not, however, present a recommendation for his own compensation. Prior to making any decisions regarding CEO compensation, the Compensation Committee consults with the non-management Directors and receives input from its independent compensation consultant. After discussing proposed compensation decisions for the CEO with the non-management Directors, the Compensation Committee determines the CEO’s compensation. The CEO is not present when his performance or compensation is

evaluated and determined, unless invited by the Compensation Committee.

Does the Compensation Committee review tally sheets?

In setting executive officer compensation, the Compensation Committee reviews tally sheets prepared for each executive officer. The tally sheets provide information that is in addition to the information shown in the 2014 Summary Compensation Table. The tally sheets show not only current year compensation, but also historical equity gains and the in-the-money value of outstanding equity awards (vested and unvested). The tally sheets also show amounts that would be paid under various termination of employment scenarios. While compensation decisions are based on competitive market pay data and individual performance, the Compensation Committee uses the tally sheets as a reference point and as a basis for comparing program participation across the executive group. In particular, the Compensation Committee uses the tally sheets to understand the effect compensation decisions have on various possible termination of employment scenarios. During 2014, the information in the tally sheets was consistent with the Compensation Committee’s expectations and, therefore, the tally sheets did not have an effect on individual compensation decisions.

Does the Compensation Committee review risk associated with the Company’s compensation policies and practices?

Annually, as part of its compensation review process, the Compensation Committee requests the Company’s chief enterprise risk officer to oversee a review of the Company’s compensation policies for executives and other employees to determine whether those programs create risks that, individually or in the aggregate, are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. As part of this risk review process in 2014, the chief enterprise risk officer, assisted by human resources personnel, inventoried Company compensation programs and established a financial framework, consistent with other enterprise risk management protocols, to identify compensation policies or practices that could have a material adverse effect on the Company. This review included the structure and material features of each program, the behaviors the programs are intended to reward, as well as program features or Company policies that operate to mitigate risk. After conducting the review and assessing potential risks, the Company determined, and the Compensation Committee concurred, that the design of each incentive program contains sufficient design features, controls, limits and/or financial requirements so that the program does not create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Although a significant portion of the Company’s executive compensation is performance-based, we do not believe that our programs encourage excessive or unnecessary

risk-taking. Overall, our compensation mix, including the use of equity and other long-term incentives, is generally consistent with competitive market practice. While risk is a necessary part of growing a business, our executive compensation program attempts to mitigate risk and align the Company’s compensation policies with the long-term interests of the Company by selecting performance goals that are directly aligned with the Company’s strategic plan, balancing annual and longer-term incentives, using multiple performance measures (including financial and non-financial measures) and applying program caps. Other risk mitigation features include the Company’s executive stock ownership requirement and the Company’s “claw back” policy which are described on page 36 and below, respectively.

Does the Company have a claw back/recoupment policy?

Several years ago, the Company adopted a policy regarding the recoupment of performance-based incentive compensation. Under the policy, if the Board determines

that a senior executive of the Company has engaged in fraud or intentional misconduct that has caused a material restatement of the Company’s financial statements, the Board will review the performance-based compensation earned by that senior executive on the basis of the Company’s performance during the periods materially affected by the restatement. If, in the Board’s view, the performance-based compensation would have been lower if it had been based on the restated results, the Board may seek to recoup the portion of the performance-based compensation that would not have been awarded to that senior executive. This policy applies to the Company’s executive officers as well as the Chief Accounting Officer and Head of Internal Audit. In addition, equity awards issued to employees include a provision that allows the Company to recoup gains if the employee violates covenants that prohibit terminated employees from soliciting our customers and employees, disclosing confidential information and, for some employees, providing services to certain competitors of the Company.

The companies in each of the compensation Comparison Groups are listed below. The companies in the 2014 Health Care Comparison Group were selected because they represent some of our closest competitors. The companies in the 2014 Cross-Industry Comparison Group were selected from the FORTUNE 200 and are companies that

we compete against for talent and capital, without regard to industry. The selected companies represent companies with revenues ranging from .5 to 2x our projected 2014 revenue. The pay information for each group was developed using market pay survey data purchased from third-party compensation vendors.

The 2014 Summary Compensation Table summarizes the total compensation paid or earned for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 and applicable comparative data for 2013 and 2012 by our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, any person who served as our Chief Financial Officer during 2014 and our three other most highly paid executive officers (collectively, the “NEOs” or “Named Executive Officers”). When setting compensation for each of the Named Executive Officers, the Compensation Committee reviews tally sheets which show the executive’s current compensation, including equity and non-equity based compensation.

The cash ABP award amounts for 2014 are disclosed in the 2014 Summary Compensation Table as “Non-Equity

Incentive Plan Compensation” and are not categorized as a “Bonus” payment under SEC rules. The amounts listed under “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” were approved by the Compensation Committee in February 2015. Please refer to the 2014 Grants of Plan-Based Awards table and related footnotes on page 41 for information about the number of RSUs, PSUs, and SARs, as applicable, awarded to each of the Named Executive Officers in the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company has entered into employment arrangements with certain of the Named Executive Officers. Refer to “Agreements with Named Executive Officers” beginning on page 52 for a discussion of those employment arrangements.