WellPoint strikes up chat on health reform

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

WellPoint Inc. is turning from opponent of the health care reform law passed in March to “trusted adviser.” Its Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield subsidiaries launched a website where Anthem representatives answer customers’ questions about the new health reform law.

The site, healthychat.com, launched on May 1, but Indianapolis-based WellPoint is now promoting its use. The hottest topic so far on the site is about the law’s requirement that health plans cover children of their customers up to age 26. Most states today allow insurers to drop dependent children once they stop attending school.

It has sparked 26 comments. Anthem’s answers are helpful when it comes to interpreting the law, such as one person who asked if her employer is allowed to keep her son off its plan until July 2011. (Answer: Yes, because  the law starts the requirement for insurance plan years that begin after Sept. 23. If this employer’s plan year begins in July, then the company can wait a full year to start dependent coverage.

Other questions show the limitations of anonymous online chat for giving advice. Several times, Anthem responders had to answer a question by saying, “You should regularly get in touch with your current or future insurance providers to learn more.”

The  conversations on healthychat.com can also be followed on Facebook and Twitter.

“We hope that consumers will find these tools valuable as they navigate the health care reform changes, and as they look for ways to improve their own health, and the health of those around them,” said Kate Quinn, vice president of corporate marketing for WellPoint.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!