|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Anthem (insurance) no longer exists as a distinct entity, and the article is unlikely to get any larger. Suggest that any usable material be rolled into WellPoint article as part of a merge of the article, paralleling the merger of the companies. -- 18.104.22.168 23:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, here in Ohio, KY and IN, Wellpoint/Anthem is better known as Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, our insurance cards say Anthem, and our website is Anthem. While we, as employees are employees of Wellpoint, the Wellpoint name has primarily been kept for business reasons but members know us as Anthem. One consideration for the purposes of Wiki is that Wellpoint and Anthem have two different histories, so it may be wise to keep separate websites. For highest searchability, I suggest the use of both the Wellpoint and Anthem names. Usernoid 15:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
All of the legacy Anthem business has continued to operate with the Anthem name. As noted by Usernoid, the companies have two very different histories and while the future activities will be essentially merged, business decisions happen most broadly on a regional basis and often on a state by state basis. While in the long run one entity may prevail, until the business is conducted nationally and business decisions have a national impact (such as with UnitedHealth), it's valuable to have distinct entries to reflect the actual business operations. Otherwise, we end up with a WellPoint header with subheadings for each acquisition. That would get rather long. Tamara Young 21:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
All decisions are now made nationally and then distributed out by business unit. There are no "decisions" made by the Anthem name. Anthem is now just a WellPoint product name, it is no longer the name of either the company or of a business unit within the company. Anthem is used as a product name; just as UniCare, CompCare Blue, Valley Health and others are used as WellPoint product names despite having been their own companies in the past. Anthem should be merged into WellPoint on wiki as well. WellPoint Employee 21:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Per a news release on the WellPoint, Inc. website, WellPoint Health Networks, Inc. merged into Anthem, Inc., with Anthem as the survivor, but the survivor then took the name WellPoint, Inc. There is no need for two articles. The Anthem page can simply redirect to the WellPoint article. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Not sure why someone copy/pasted a copyrighted AP article here. relevant sections related to an encyclopedic entry may be included, but why is an entire news article posted here? Wikipedia is not a news site, and it is also NPOV so there is no reason for bold sections. This sort of entry should be on an anti-Wellpoint site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I am at work and do not have my links on this computer. Can someone please semi-protect this page as "insurer" keeps getting replaced by "death panel" by several IPs. Thank you. Triste Tierra (cannot log in at work) 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- The proper place is WP:RPP. 21:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Quality of Care
Hey everyone, I noticed that under "quality of care" there is a score given by the California Healthcare Quality Report Card 2011 Edition, and this section is listed under controversies. Not only is the 2/4 score it was given outdated and unsourced, but I would hardly consider a grade given to a company controversial. If no one has any objections, I'm going to go ahead and edit that out. Thanks Adamh4 (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- I found the 2014 Quality Report Card and put that information in the lede, while taking out the 2011 one from the controversies section. Hope that's okay with everyone.Adamh4 (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm failing to see how its promotional to include that in the lead. There was no original research done, or any further comments about the rating -- just the information. If someone searches for this company on Wikipedia, more likely than not they're curious as to what kind of quality an insurance group like this can deliver. One of the most important indicators of this is the California Health Care Report Card, I think crucial information like this belongs in the top of the article. We should put both the 2/4 rating and the 3/4 rating there. Adamh4 (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- That seems like undue weight. For one thing, this article is about WellPoint, not Anthem. Additionally, the only secondary source is an article that only mentions Anthem in passing, and the article also mentions that the company received a 'poor' rating in the category "getting care easily". Why not include that, as well? More importantly, the significance of this report card hasn't been established. There is no article California Office of Patient Advocate. Including such a review in the lead is potentially misleading, as it's implying that it's significant to the company as a whole, without giving any clear way to verify that. Adding one comparatively minor, fairly positive review to the lead of an article appears to me to be cherry-picking the best bits, which is why I'm saying that it's too promotional. Grayfell (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- It seems like a large portion of this article speaks about Anthem. In many of the previous articles I've worked on, the most important information was included in the lede, but I can understand why this grade is not considered as the most important, or -potentially promotional. It should be fine where it is. Adamh4 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking through the controversies section, I noticed somethings that I think should be changed. Under “Health care reform,” the controversy in question opens by saying “WellPoint’s Anthem Blue Cross unit, the largest for-profit insurer in California, contacted its employees and urged them to get involved to oppose the Democratic Party-led Congress' plan for health care reform.” I believe that this is violating WP:NPOV for a number of reasons. By insinuating that it is a “controversy” that WellPoint was not in favor of the “Democratic Party-led Congress plan for health care reform,” the article implies that this plan was the right plan, or it is favorable. WP:NPOV states that articles must be fairly represented -- this implies one point of view on the topic.
That being said, there is clearly a controversy in the fact that Consumer Watchdog asked for investigations to take place on the claims that “WellPoint pushed workers to write their elected officials.” I have no quarrels with this being here.
The rest of the section though is not necessary to be included, especially in a section speaking about “controversies.” The company holding meetings and making policy changes to adjust under new health care laws is not a controversy -- it is a standard reaction to law changes. I think this, along with the first part of my comment, should be removed. But if anyone insists on it staying on the page, it should be taken out of the controversies section and moved elsewhere. Adamh4 (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hey all,
- if no one has any objections, I can go ahead and make the changes myself soon. Let me know if you guys have any input on the proposal please. Adamh4 (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- No. Consumer Watchdog accused WellPoint of committing a crime, which is a controversy. It's perfectly acceptable to give context to such a controversy. You gutted the whole section. You removed two important sources. I have to say, if you are interested in improving Wikipedia articles, it might be helpful if you would avoid exclusively doing so in a way that makes the companies look better. If you would like to discuss Re-titling the 'Controversies' section (WP:CRIT) that would be a much better approach.
I was skimming through the page and noticed that WellPoint acquiring Amerigroup was listed under Controversies, as well as mentioned in the History section. I think we should remove this information from the Controversies section not only to avoid redundancy, but because I don't necessarily think that acquirement is controversial. Thoughts? Thanks. Adamh4 (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)