Talk:TeamHealth

Neutral Point of View in Litigation Section

The section on Litigation Against UnitedHealthcare fails to stick to a neutral POV, and it makes one very inaccurate claim. It stated that "United provided Cooper with cherry-picked-data and edited his conclusions…" But the cited reference makes no such claims, although it quotes an EmCare public statement alleging the data was cherry-picked. A publicity statement from a rival private company is hardly a neutral source. The source also doesn't claim that United edited the study's conclusions, although it acknowledges that United provided suggestions, which, while it's a valid objection, doesn't mean they actually made their own changes to the study. I'm removing the false accusation. But the whole section should be rewritten to provide a more neutral point of view. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

There's a second troublesome sentence: The manipulated conclusions were used to advance a formula that allowed United to determine payments to out-of-network physicians. This is cited from an Intercept article titled "UnitedHealthCare Guided Yale's Groundbreaking Surprise Billing Study," but the article makes no such claims. It's also targeted at United, but the formula actually helps all insurance companies. And the article doesn't take sides on whether the conclusions were manipulated, saying only that United provided input to the Yale study's authors, and that Yale insists the study was "free of United's influence." Then there's the phrase "advance a formula…" I can't find any mention of a formula in the cited source, although there is a formula being developed by the US HHS department. I pulled the sentence out from the cited source, clarified it a bit, and marked it with "citation needed."

Bias

This article addresses none of TeamHealth’s legal losses. It skims over a lot of their controversies that can easily be found with a google 68.237.48.32 (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)