Yes, to me it seems like a lot of the messaging about this murder is happening on the backside. I'm seeing a lot of (paraphrased) "if you think this murder is bad, you should know how many people health insurance murders each year by declining care!" (Not the opinion of this gentle poster.)
In a modern corporation, most employees, even higher-ups, are basically cogs in the system. Realistically BT will be replaced next week with a very similar version of himself and the company will go on. There will be no, significant, lasting changes to the health insurance industry because of this, besides the ending of the poorly timed announcement that a different insurer would be throttling anesthesia coverage for surgeries over a certain length.
With all that said, it seems strange to target such a relatively small fish. If you have a grievance against the health insurance industry, wouldn't you want to target a politician that opposes single payer insurance, for example? The whole thing seems a bit misguided. I'm leaning back towards a personal motive. A motive we may have not an inkling of information about...