Talk:Anthem Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:WellPoint)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / Indiana (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
WikiProject Companies (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Quality of Care[edit]

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 Not only is the 2/4 score it was given outdated and unsourced, but I would hardly consider a grade given to a company controversial.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)
It may not have belonged in controversies, but it really didn't belong in the lead! This article is already tagged as being too much like an advertisement, so please exercise caution when making such promotional edits. Grayfell (talk) 21:09, 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)

Controversy Section[edit]

Hello everyone,

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.


Hello again,

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)

Gonna go ahead and make this small edit -- keep me posted if any of you would like to discuss it. Adamh4 (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Anthem Inc[edit]

  • Although one described as an insurance company, and one is described as a managed care company, there's too much overlap to treat them as being distinct. The managed care article (this one) also discusses insurance, so why not combine them and prevent some serious confusion? They are both aspects of the same company, started in Indianapolis, Indiana as part of something called The Associated Group and merged with WellPoint in late 2004. At the very least, we really need to rename one of these articles. Grayfell (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I did the text-merge. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Cool, thank you for doing that. Grayfell (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)