Talk:TennCare

message: Looking through the edit history it appears that there have been two versions of this article on Tenncare. There are many objections to the neutrality of the current article. 
Specifically in the fourth (4th) paragraph it is claimed that Tenncare suffered mainly from mismanagement. There is no information supplied within the article to support this claim, and I believe that it would be reasonable to assume that those accused of mismanagement and their supporters would have a quite different view of the matter.
Also, the fifth paragraph is blatantly biased. It reads:
:In 2005, the TennCare program was dealt a devastating blow by Governor Phil Bredesen, who had promised during his campaign to reform the program. Instead of reform that repaired the mismanagement of the program, Bredesen terminated coverage for all the adults enrolled in the TennCare waiver as well as for all the adults in the optional Medicaid categories that most states cover. Nearly 200,000 people in the state have lost health coverage, including people with life-threatening illnesses. Many have died. Their deaths are continually being reported by the media.
:(emphasis added)
The language used therein reflects a clear bias against the actiosn of Bredesen. He and his supporters quite obviously feel differently about the decisions that were made. I would propose that in the interest of representing both sides of debate that the reasons advanced by Bredesen and his supporters be placed back in the article. The final paragraph contains similarly loaded language, particularly within the last paragraph.
Within the state of Tennessee there is still debate among well meaning people over Tenncare. Prior to 10 June there was also considerable information about criticisms against the Tenncare program that may have a place in a neutral article about the program.
Yaoibutler
----
My dad no longer has access to healthcare because of this.  He is not "abusing the system;" he is very sick and extremely unemployed.
His story isn't unique or exceptional either.  So how is that biased?  What would be fair and balanced?  Ignoring the poor of Tennessee who now have no way to go to the doctor?  Sure, I'll bet Bresden's plan sounds great if you leave all of that stuff out.
How can you be fair and balanced about an atrocity?  I'm sure My Lai sounds a lot different if you leave out the civilian massacre and just listen to Calley's reasoning.  I'm sure Halabja sounds different if you leave out the dead Kurds and only print Saddam Hussein's rationale.
I'm not saying that the TennCare castration is the same thing or on the same level as My Lai or Halabja, because it's not.  The difference in degrees is huge.
I'm just trying to make a point.  That Bresden has done is inexcusable.  We can talk about the fiscal issues all day long, but that won't make all the sick people in Tennessee any better.  Can you really weigh fiscal issues against human life?
-Random Goblin
----
this is clearly written with a heavy political bias. There is no analysis whatsoever of what TennCare really was and how it really worked and really didn't work. There is no tie-in to Hillary Clinton's failed 1994 national healthcareplan, of which this is clearly a carbon copy on the state level.
how is it inexcusable to terminate a program that the state could no longer afford? Where is the rationale in keeping a programme going if the costs are going to exceed the state's income in the none too distant future?
for example, the article seems to suggest the programme worked and was efficient before it fell into mismanagement. The mismanagement happened from the start.
--82.156.49.1 13:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Issues 

message: regarding "At the time, Tennessee was one of less than a half-dozen states in the nation with no limits on pharmacy benefits. The state set the limit at five for most enrollees..."
Five what? Five distinct drugs?  Simultaneously? Per Year?  Leotohill 02:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  five what? 

message: I restored , since someone removed the tag without any comment.  Looking at the Talk page, it seems that the neutrality discussion is stale. Do people still have objections to how the article reads?  EdJohnston 15:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any remaining issues with neutrality? 

message: This article reads like a positive ad for the Governor. I have requested a team from the board of editors to examine this article and see if it is in violiation of Neutrality. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you need a team.  I just removed all of the unsourced commentary and left the stub.  2-years without and sources being added is more than enough time to go through and remove unsourced material.  Arzel (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  After reading what I said above, I agree with you Arzel. Thanks for helping this article.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reads like an ad for Bredesen

message: Why is there nothing at all in this article about Access Med Plus??  One reason TennCare had financial issues was that Access Med Plus was taking the state's money and not paying healthcare providers.  Some hospitals had claims from the implementation of TennCare that were never paid.  Big money.  There is information about this out there.  Here's just a glimpse:  http://nashvillepost.com/news/2001/9/18/state_to_kick_access_medplus_out_of_tenncare
"Repeatedly since TennCare was introduced in the mid-1990s to replace the former Medicaid plan, Access MedPlus has run into payment problems with providers and been watched warily by state regulators due to its precarious financial position."
I wish I could get you in touch with some hospital insurance billers from the late 1990s.  They could tell you some stories.  If I can get more info beyond "original research" I will post it here.  I wish I had the experience to re-write the article myself.
But this Wikipedia article tells nothing about the TennCare I experienced working medical offices and hospitals.
69.42.36.149 (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The topic of TennCare is complicated. Most Tennesseans don't understand it. This article is seriously incomplete, and several years out of date. (Note that it discusses 2010 as a future date.) If you have reliably sourced information about its history that you think needs to be added (not just people's personal recollections, but information published by a reliable source), please provide an outline here of what you think needs to be said. Experienced contributors can help figure out what to add and where to put it. (That 12-year-old article you linked to has worthwhile information, but it tells about just one tiny detail of the convoluted history.) --Orlady (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Access Med Plus 

message: I haven't parsed the history of this article, which is still out of date, but I agree with Orlady. I have read the above comments, and paring this article with the aim of neutrality has made it essentially useless.  Yes, if you remove basic facts from any article, it will become somewhat neutral.  Unless neutral readers are trying to verify possibly biased statements at other sources by coming here for the facts. In that case, a useless article only perpetuates a myth or leaves truth out in the cold.
I am not familiar with TennCare, and do not know how it worked, let alone if it was well thought out or not. I've read the article twice, and still don't know. Did TennCare enrollees pay for their coverage, or what?   I am also not familiar with Medicaid, except that it is a federal program for people under 65 with low or no income and I think those with certain serious conditions. Apparently TennCare was just a replacement for Medicaid, in which case I suppose only low-income people were eligible and thus did not have to pay?  What did the independent consultant's report say in more detail? Surely it had an executive summary or something.  Although the article shouldn't parrot content that can be found elsewhere in WikiPedia, the reader should not have to be a student of Medicaid just to understand what's said here.
To be constructive, I suggest this: A couple of experienced editors, from varying viewpoints, might find 2-4 news articles on the history of TennCare and, paraphrasing from these, weave together the essential facts. Where statements are controversial, state opposing views (or whatever) and note the controversy. (Hopefully that can be done without feeling obliged to give equal time to whatever might be to topic's equivalent of the Flat Earth Society. ) Then let's see what we've got. 67.101.25.51 (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seems pretty neutral now, but also pretty much useless