Talk:UnitedHealth Group

Addition to Medicare Advantage entry

On behalf of UHG, I'd like to submit a request to add balance to the third paragraph in the Medicare Advantage Overbilling entry, which is located at the very end of the Criticism and controversies section. The text I am seeking to add to the end of the third paragraph is as follows:

• A spokesperson for UHG called the newspaper’s analysis “inaccurate and biased” and said Medicare Advantage “provides better health outcomes and more affordable healthcare for millions of seniors” than Medicare.

Note: The text I am proposing to add is supported by the same Wall Street Journal article already used as a citation in the existing entry.

Thank you for considering this edit. Barbara at UHG (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia isn't really very interested in the gloss that company spokespeople try to put on events, even if they do so via the Wall Street Journal. Axad12 (talk) 08:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Update to introductory information

On behalf of UHG, I'd like to submit a request to update the UnitedHealth Group article introduction with the company’s world ranking and market capitalization based on the 2024 Fortune Global 500.

Edit to first paragraph

• In the last sentence of the first paragraph, world’s eleventh largest company by revenue needs to be changed to world’s eighth largest company by revenue.

Edit to second paragraph

• This paragraph should read: The company is ranked 8th on the 2024 Fortune Global 500. UnitedHealth Group had a market capitalization of $474.3 billion as of July 15, 2024.

Thank you for updating the introduction! Barbara at UHG (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Barbara at UHG (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Approved. Thank you for your request. I am happy to approve you to make the changes above and to include the relevant citation. Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This is the way! Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 06:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this request and granting me permission to make the update myself. However, I am more comfortable having someone else update the article on my behalf since I have a conflict of interest. Could someone please update the introduction as outlined in the request above? Barbara at UHG (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Encoded  Talk 💬 22:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for making the edit to UnitedHealth Group's Fortune Global 500 ranking.

Would editors also be willing to update the first paragraph in the introduction? The text says UnitedHealth Group is the world's eleventh-largest company, however the List of largest companies by revenue shows UnitedHealth Group as ninth largest. As a result, I am proposing that eleventh be changed to ninth in the last sentence of the first paragraph.

Again, thanks much for your help. Barbara at UHG (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You have already been approved to go ahead and make this change yourself, as per the previous request above. Please therefore go ahead and make the change rather than pestering unpaid volunteers to do work for you that you are paid to do yourself. Axad12 (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Addition to History section

I would like to propose the following addition to the History section, per reporting by Axios and Fierce Healthcare:

• By 2024 UnitedHealth Group's investments in affordable housing reached more than $1 billion. The company has invested in housing since 2011. UnitedHealth Group leverages federal tax credits to build low-income housing and invests a portion of its reserve funding in housing development.

Would editors consider adding this information as a new entry at the end of the 2020s-present section of the History timeline? Source and text edits welcome, as always. Thank you! Barbara at UHG (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Barbara at UHG (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I think the request presents a non-neutral, and possibly undue, point of view. Kindly go over it and we will review the request. PK650 (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I concur. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 02:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Death

I am wondering why the recent death is relevant to the company? I see this as WP:COAT and not worthy of inclusion. If someone has a different opinion please let me know but likely will remove per WP:ONUS until there is more information. CNMall41 (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Why do you see this as WP:COAT? The departure of a CEO, much less the death of one, is a major event for any company and is worth including. The company has already filed an 8-K with the SEC indicating they view it as an event material to their operations, and there are a number of precedents for inclusion of acting-CEO deaths in the history section of a company's Wikipedia (CSX Transportation - Wikipedia, Scholastic Corporation - Wikipedia, Apple Inc. - Wikipedia, etc.). Philoquaker (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Certainly notable. The statements by various parties reflect this. No Swan So Fine (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Incident may be notable, but not sure it meets inclusion criteria for this page. What does it have to do with the company? There may be a way to include it but not as written prior to removal. It was basically stating that the CEO was killed. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I am trying to find something saying that the shareholder meeting was delayed or anything similar showing how it relates to the company. That could be a way to include it. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't a shareholder meeting, it was an Investor Day; per this article, there was a full day of presentations and meetings planned that were halted once the news broke. Philoquaker (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

So it was a something that would not affect the company if delayed or not. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It would likely affect the company even more; as opposed to just one shareholder meeting being delayed, this was an entire day's worth of shareholder meetings that were cancelled. Philoquaker (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS regarding the precedents. Saying the departure of a CEO is relevant is like saying it would be okay to list every time a company changes its CEO. And, he was NOT even the CEO of this company so even if there was a "precedent," can you show one where the departure of a CEO of subsidiary was included on the parent page?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as UnitedHealthcare comprises 75% of United Health Group's revenues and doesn't have a standalone page, I still think the death is still worthy of inclusion on the parent page. I am happy to search for precedents, but don't want to waste time if you're just going to point to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS anyway. Philoquaker (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:Avoid other stuff exists regarding your argument. Other stuff exists is in the case of a general link, and space should be made for consistency purposes. The murder/other notable death of a CEO is something that appears consistently amongst articles for companies. It is not just a CEO change, it is a notable killing. Regarding your argument of it being a subsidiary, this is also the page for UnitedHealthcare. Healthcare is the primary product and revenue stream of UnitedHealth. Coleisforeditor (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Notability and inclusion are not the same. If you feel it is notable, create a page for it. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Notability is used here as it is an important factor in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Consistency is to be preferred, as per WP:Avoid other stuff exists. Coleisforeditor (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Saying the departure of a CEO is relevant is like saying it would be okay to list every time a company changes its CEO.

The CEO didn't "depart", he was shot dead in what appears to have been an assassination. You can easily make the argument any material fact is not relevant if you mischaracterize it.

In any case the article already includes information about other changes in management when they weren't routine like the ones that happened in 2006. And those didn't even involve anyone getting murdered. Operator-zeta (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Could just be a short sentence not like what was included before, something like:

In December 2024, the then CEO of UnitedHealthcare Brain Thompson was fatally shot before the annual investors meeting. Operator-zeta (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It is THE hyper-relevant information everyone needs to know FIRST about this company, BEFORE they learn anything else, or they won't be informed about what it *actually* does, because the single MOST RELEVANT information will be missing! The CEO did not *merely* "die". He was KILLED, which is an event of a VERY different character than a random loss of life due to physical accident or old age or poor health. While the news event is brand new and we don't yet know the motive of the person who did it, it's unreasonable to think the event is anything other than HIGHLY LIKELY to be directly related to unethical & greedy character of the corporation itself, which has negatively affected everyone in the entire world, directly or indirectly, and definitely made the lives of EVERY American worse. The nature of that event is permanent, ever-lasting evidence of the true character & public reputation the company has *earned* from its bad behavior. ♠Ace Frahm♠^talk 18:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like you are saying the company is notable because of the death of the CEO of one of its subsidiaries. Is that correct?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The argument is that the death is a notable event in the company history. Coleisforeditor (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The statement was - "It is THE hyper-relevant information everyone needs to know FIRST about this company, BEFORE they learn anything else" - which tells me the user is saying it is the most important thing about the company. Why are SPAs answering for other SPAs? This is going to become ad nauseam soon. Would suggest going with a WP:RfC as I see no policy-based reason for inclusion.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The policy based reason is to maintain consistency between this and other articles; in other instances of prominent and acting executives of a company dying, it has been listed on the respective company's Wikipedia article. Just as it details here, "Non-fiction literature, such as an encyclopedia, is expected to be internally consistent. As such, arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred." Philoquaker (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Not an SPA; just rarely active. WP:NOTDIARY may apply here but consistency is important. Coleisforeditor (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Understood. I was basing my comment on the few edits so my apologies. My apologies then. Truly.

Simply saying it has been done on other pages does not meant OTHERSTUFF does not apply per WP:SSE. If we are consistently wrong, it doesn't mean we keep doing it. These need to be judged individually. At this point, unless it has something to do with his work at the company, then not sure of the relevancy. I have a feeling when more information comes out it will be related to (possibly the M/O) but until we have that information simply putting the death here because he was the CEO of its subsidiary isn't worth of including. Just my opinion, but maybe a RfC would find otherwise, and it would not be the first time I have been wrong about something. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Well if it does get mentioned here, the fact that he was scheduled for shareholder conference would warrant inclusion. Had this occurred elsewhere(I.e. he was on vacation), I wouldn’t warrant including it here. 2600:100C:A218:9A7B:543B:670A:CC3:3375 (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It has been corrected that this was NOT a shareholder meeting, it was an "investor day." Sounds like something unrelated to workings of the company (more of a gathering than actual business). --CNMall41 (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. An investor is the same thing as a shareholder; hence a day-long conference for investors is not just a "shareholder meeting," it's a series of shareholder meetings throughout the day, meaning it is even more important. Not only that, but it was their Annual Investor Day, elevated above other important investor relations events like quarterly earnings or press releases. It is certainly related to the workings of the company, as it's the primary means by which a public company communicates to its investors. Philoquaker (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Meanwhile people coming to Wikipedia for facts and wondering if maybe the UnitedHealthCare mentioned in the news is not the same thing as United Health Group (the name of this article), which has someone else listed for the CEO. Wikipedia could be a great place to clear up this confusion, but instead you guys are arguing about whether the death of the lead of the company should be mentioned. Of course it should be mentioned. Why wouldn't the death of the leader of a company not be mentioned on the company article? -- Deltaray3 (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Facts are great but we adhere to WP:VNF. And per WP:ONUS, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Wikipedia is also WP:NOTNEWS. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Verifiable per their public SEC filings. 108.210.5.163 (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

when a king of a country dies, it is usually considered a notable thing, is it not? BadMombo1660 (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes but if the governor of a state dies, it's not quite notable for the country as a whole. Brian Thompson was the CEO of a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group Tjanator (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

ah, I see. That does make it somewhat less notable. Perhaps we should wait for more developments before we add too much. BadMombo1660 (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

That’s a specious analogy. UnitedHealth Group has two subsidiaries, not dozens. If the First Minister of Scotland were assassinated, I would expect to see information about it on pages dealing with the UK as a whole. All the more so if there were no pages that addressed only Scotland. And even that’s not a great analogy, since the UK consists of 4 countries, not 2, and given that UnitedHealthcare is by far the more prominent and important component, it’s more analogous to England.

Also, that view can’t be reconciled with the “Criticisms and Controversies” section, which mostly consists of scandals unique to UnitedHealth. The notion that political scandals involving California’s state government would merit inclusion on page about the U.S., but the assassination of California’s governor would not is odd. And it becomes untenable when all available evidence indicates the assassination is connected to one of those scandals (or a different but very similar scandal). 73.201.172.195 (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest including this in the Criticism and Controversies section; Thompson's killing led to a widespread criticism on social media of this very company. That's a public controversy, ignited by the killing. Both are, then, relevant.

TypistMonkey (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

He was never mentioned in the article before, so Im hesitant, but this event is quite noteworthy. Metallurgist (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As stated above, there is a debate on whether or not to include the assassination of its biggest subsidiary’s CEO Brian Thompson. This is a fairly major event that has reached worldwide news. Should we include it here? 2600:100C:A218:9A7B:543B:670A:CC3:3375 (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Weak wait We should probably wait and see if this murder gets lasting coverage and its impact on the company before we add it to the history section. I do think Thompson should be in the See Also section at least, though. Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

That does sound quite fair. 2600:100C:A218:9A7B:543B:670A:CC3:3375 (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thompson has no article as of now. I stand corrected. His article was not on the disambiguation page when I checked Coleisforeditor (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• No- For the reasons stated in the previous section. Just being the CEO of a subsidiary does not mean this is related to the company. It is an attempt to COAT information on a BLP subject into a company page. If more information comes out that says it is related to the company, then we can discussion inclusion. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Note - The number of accounts with few edits and IP comments is quite concerning in my opinion. Hoping this RfC can bring more experienced editors familiar with things like NPOV, ONUS, etc.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm genuinely confused where these arguments are coming from - are you saying that the assassination of someone responsible for 75% of a company's revenues is not relevant to that company? How could it not be relevant to the company when their Annual Investor Day was cancelled, it's on the front page of their website and they've released an 8-K suggesting it is material to their business, volatility in their stock yesterday was 30% higher than the 90-day average, etc.? Philoquaker (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

This is the page for that subsidiary. It is 75% of the profit and the main business for UnitedHealth. Coleisforeditor (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but you seem to believe that the rules are ends in themselves, rather than intended to achieve specific objectives in support of a broader mission. The mission of Wikipedia is to promote understanding. The purpose of the rules you’re citing is to determine (a) does this content belong somewhere on Wikipedia? and (b) if so, is this (one of) the page(s) it should go on? Here, I don’t think anyone doubts that the answer to (a) is “yes,” and I hope that the following anecdote helps clarify why the answer to (b) is also “yes”:

I wound up on the Talk page because after reading news coverage of the assassination, I wanted to learn more about the insurance company the CEO worked for. I looked up UnitedHealthcare, got to the page and didn’t see information about the assassination, and thought to myself, “Surely, the assassination would be mentioned prominently. I must have mixed up the name of the company.” Had I not bothered to confirm that it was indeed UnitedHealthcarel, I would have left Wikipedia less informed than when I entered it. Several others have reported similar experiences, and in all likelihood, the people bothering to mention it on Talk page are a fraction of a percentage of the total. (The page had 1000 views on Tuesday; it had 337,000 views on Wednesday.)

There can be no more profound a failure for an encyclopedia for people to enter it with the correct information, but leave it concluding they were mistaken. And there can be no better an indication that information belongs on given page, then its absence causing widespread confusion.

If you believe the rules compel such a result, you are misinterpreting or misapplying them. Ggrzw83 (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ggrzw83 You misinterpret my message – I was and am in strong support of adding it to the article Coleisforeditor (talk) Coleisforeditor (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yes Lots of coverage in reliable sources, directly relevant to the company. But we would want to think about WP:WEIGHT, ie. not have a massive section theorizing about the shooting unless it's clearly due and directly related to the company. --Tristario (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yeahhh as stated above had he not been assassinated while scheduled to attend a COMPANY SHAREHOLDER meeting, I would argue to exclude. 97.64.56.192 (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I came to this page attempting to seek more information on the organization and left confused. After searching the CEO, I was somewhat able to connect the dots.

Above someone mentioned that not only is this relevant but also would clear up some confusion. I can attest to the confusion because I lived it.

This should likely be filed under the Controversy heading. 107.116.98.134 (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - I actually scrolled there looking for it. 2603:6081:6200:22CF:EC95:50E0:2F1C:2A84 (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it belongs in the lead or its own subheading. I came looking for info about the assassinated CEO’s company, and when I didn’t see a prominent “Assassination of CEO” section, I initially assumed I had gotten the insurer’s name wrong. I can’t be the only one.

(I get that this is the page for the holding company, so fine, let’s call him equivalent to a senior VP. A c-suite executive of a Fortune 500 being assassinated—seemingly because they were blamed for actions of the corp—is the kind of thing that I’d expect to see mentioned.) Ggrzw83 (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• What content is being proposed exactly? It may be appropriate to add a brief statement to a chronologically appropriate part of the History section. It's definitely not appropriate to significantly rewrite the lead or add a WP:CSECTION. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes Brief summary, with link to full article elsewhere. Makes Wikipedia look quite outdated that this info is still missing! There's plenty of reliable sources talking about possible motive directly related to the company's operations. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Strong yes, the sudden death of a CEO is likely worth mentioning in passing at least even if there is no further connection to the company. The WP:BLP concerns seem misguided considering the death is well sourced, saying simply the then CEO was fatally shot seems perfectly fine, but perhaps should avoid calling it an assassination until/unless someone is formally convicted of that per WP:BLP presumption of innocence. Considering a handful of editors appear to be re-adding the change and a single editor is repeatedly revert it back we are getting close to a violation of WP:3RR, so would seem best to work towards reaching a consensus sooner rather than later. Mentioning the death in passing seems like a reasonable compromise that links people looking up the company after hearing about it to the right page as well as avoiding undue weight being placed on a single event. Operator-zeta (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It should also mentioned he was scheduled to speak at a shareholder conference...this boosts the relevance of adding this to this article. 97.64.56.192 (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed 97.64.56.192, but it appears to have been included already. Considering the unanimous consensus to include the information it seems reasonable to expand that further if more information around motive comes out. Operator-zeta (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes Absolutely. If they were killed in a robbery gone wrong etc. Then it would be fair not to mention it. But it's been reported as a targeted attack. It was committed outside an investors meeting, while the shooter waited until he arrived. It's clearly notable. Listing it in Controversies or even in the main article at the bottom of 2024 would work.

Ignoring it doesn't make the site or article better or more reliable. It actively makes it worse. Basetornado (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. This is a major news story. It's an apparent assassination based on the details that are coming out. Wikipedians have already built a page for Mr. Thompson. I think the killing warrants mention on this page. Aresef (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. In addition to what other users have mentioned, other instances of acting executives dying have been mentioned on their respective company's articles; would recommend including somewhere in the article to maintain consistency. Philoquaker (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. This page is likely to be the first article someone finds when searching for information on this event. At the very least, there should be a link at the top to Assassination of Brian Thompson. Given this is a major news story, I think at least this much is warranted. The news articles/parlance currently covering this subject typically use the term "UnitedHealth Group CEO" when referring to the victim. My personal anecdote is that I searched for "UnitedHealth" on Wikipedia after hearing about it, and I thought I had the wrong name until I clicked the Talk page. In fact I didn't even know the victim's name until I read this Request for Comment. Nftrot (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes - it's laughable that some don't think it belongs here. This is a historical event in the company's tenure. 2603:6081:6200:22CF:EC95:50E0:2F1C:2A84 (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes (invited by the bot) IMO the main issue is relevance to the topic and to good coverage of the topic and it appears that the answer to that is "yes" North8000 (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: From the discussion on this talk page and the article's revision history [1][2][3], it appears that the objections against inclusion come mostly from a single editor, User:CNMall41. Given the clear consensus that is already apparent in this RfC and the ample RS coverage, I have reinstated the previous mention. CNMall41 should be aware of WP:STONEWALL before considering to delete this information from the article yet again. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Please add that he was scheduled to attend an annual shareholder meeting, this amplifies the relevance to this article. 97.64.56.192 (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yes we have to be careful not to be too US-centric, this is a global encyclopedia. Most people outside the US would not have heard of the company were it not for the assassination, nor potentially be aware of the insurance system that most likely is the indirect cause. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Strong yes. I genuinely don’t understand how this is debatable. A high-level executive of a major American company was assassinated. All available evidence indicates the assassin was motivated by objections to the corporation’s business practices. It’s been front page news across the nation, and reported around the globe.

If Ford’s senior VP for accounting were murdered in 1979 by a man whose wife died in a car accident, I’d be a little surprised if it weren’t mention in the corporate history section. I’d be flabbergasted if the murder went unmentioned despite occurring in 2022. Ggrzw83 (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Greatest denial rates?

I was looking at a video about the Thompson assassination [4] and saw this graph. Can anyone confirm or corroborate it? Mesopub (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

There are a number of articles that discuss this like

• Kliff, Sarah; Abelson, Reed (2024-12-05). "'Delay, Deny, Defend': United Has Faced Scrutiny Over Denying Claims". The New York Times. Retrieved 2024-12-11.
• Gil, Bruce (2024-12-05). "No one knows how often health insurers deny claims. Here's why". Quartz. Retrieved 2024-12-11.
• Stephanie Kelly, Julie Steenhuysen (2024-12-09). "Killing of UnitedHealthcare exec ignites patient anger over insurance". Reuters. Retrieved 2024-12-11.
• Feldman, Amy (2024-12-05). "UnitedHealthcare Denies More Claims Than Other Insurers". Forbes. Retrieved 2024-12-11.

According to Quartz (publication) At the same time, posts on social media have been claiming that UnitedHealthcare’s claim denial rate is the highest in the industry at 32%. This figure comes from the personal finance website Value Penguin, which said it calculated that rate from available in-network data from plans sold on the marketplace. Tristario (talk) 08:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Value Penguin is not a reliable source. It’s a subsidiary of LendingTree, basically a payday lender that publishes click bait in order to scare people into taking out high interest loans. In fact, it’s almost impossible to estimate claim denial rates because the data is proprietary. This is not a reliable source and the number is basically made up. It went viral on internet, like a lot of made up stuff does. Volunteer Marek 04:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

A number of the articles that discuss this indicate that this is a difficult thing to estimate. I would be in favor of including information from sources about the difficulty of estimating this as well as attributing what estimates there are, that have been reported by reliable sources. Tristario (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)