Anthem Blue Cross to release data officials hope will help NYC crack down on soaring health care costs, saving $2B yearly
The Big Apple's largest public-employee insurer has agreed to provide previously redacted healthcare data that could help rein in astronomical prices New York hospitals charge patients, The Post has learned.
Anthem Blue Cross' sudden change of heart Saturday came a week after The Post reported on the flawed 263-page report by the city Health Department's new Office of Healthcare Accountability, which found wild price inconsistencies across city hospitals. For example, a colonoscopy may run $940 at one hospital and $12,000 in another. Same for a cesarean-section delivery, which ranged from $7,000 to $58,000.
The study – which focused on payments made through Anthem, and not private-sector insurance plans– also had gaping holes in it, and it accused Anthem of violating the law by failing to provide the OHA with data needed to provide a complete picture of the price inconsistencies.
Anthem agreed to release previously redacted data following a virtual meeting Friday with Councilwoman Julie Menin (D-Manhattan), who sponsored the legislation creating the first-of-its-kind healthcare watchdog office in 2023.
'We are very pleased to have reached this agreement with Anthem to release this missing healthcare transparency data that will once and for all allow New Yorkers to know what hospitals are charging for all medical procedures and enable [NYC] to potentially save upwards of $2 billion a year by harnessing its purchasing power to drive down costs,' said Menin.
The OHA is now expected to issue a revised report with the new numbers to give the city critical information needed to help negotiate cheaper prices for healthcare, Menin added.
The insurer set up the meeting following the Post's coverage of the flawed OHA report, which included Menin ripping Anthem's decision to withhold data as 'a slap in the face to the City of New York.'
'We believe in pricing transparency and will continue to work with our partners within city government, organized labor, and our provider community to ensure we are investigating all avenues for continued savings for the employees of New York City and their families,' said Victor DeStefano, president of Anthem's New York plan.
Anthem — which the city pays a whopping $3 billion yearly to provide insurance to roughly 900,000 employees – had previously claimed releasing some of the pricing data would violate confidentiality agreements that predate both a 2021 federal rule and a 2023 city law requiring hospitals to disclose their prices to the public.
The insurer, however, denies violating any laws but agrees the additional data will enhance the value of future OHA reports.
The city's GHI-Comprehensive Benefits Plan through Anthem paid on average $45,150 for inpatient services last fiscal year at New York's top 10 hospital systems, the OHA report said.
The highest prices for full in-patient treatment were at New York-Presbyterian ($92,727) and Montefiore Medical Center ($83,573), while Stony Brook University Hospital was the lowest ($36,876).
The Post two years ago reported on analyses by 32BJ SEIU, the city's building-services employee union, showing the Big Apple could save taxpayers as much as $2 billion annually by auditing exactly how much municipal workers pay for care at various hospitals and making recommendations on ways to lower the prices.
'All along we've said that access to transparent data allows us to be better consumers,' said Henry Garrido, executive director of District Council, the city's largest municipal employee union.
'We appreciate Anthem doing the right thing and working with us to release the data for city worker healthcare costs.'
Anthem's decision to turn over the data also came after NYC Comptroller Brad Lander separately sent the insurance provider a scathing letter Wednesday demanding full transparency. Prior to Anthem's reversal, Lander, through a spokesperson, threatened to probe the insurer.
'The office is prepared to exercise its investigative powers to get to the bottom of this,' Lander's spokesperson Oluwatona Campbell told The Post Friday.
'New Yorkers deserve hospitals that prioritize care over profits and a healthcare system that's transparent, equitable, and worthy of their trust.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
The assisted dying movement is gaining momentum. These opponents are pushing back
What does it mean to die well, with dignity? The question is at the heart of the contentious debate over whether legalizing physician-assisted death for terminally ill patients is an act of compassion, upholding an individual's dignity, or a troubling step toward devaluing human life. The debate has recently returned to the spotlight in New York, where the state Assembly passed a bill in April that would allow terminally ill patients with a prognosis of six months or less to live to request life-ending medication. It also came up in May, when 'Dilbert' cartoonist Scott Adams revealed that he only has a few months to live and indicated that he might take advantage of California's End of Life Option Act. New York's proposal requires confirmation from two doctors, who must verify the diagnosis and ensure the patient is mentally sound. The measure passed narrowly — 81 to 67 — after more than four hours of debate. Its fate now rests with the state Senate, where it needs 32 votes to pass and currently has 26 co-sponsors. Currently, 12 jurisdictions — including Oregon, Colorado and the District of Columbia — permit what's commonly known as 'medical assistance in dying' (MAiD) or 'assisted suicide.' On May 20, Delaware became the latest state to legalize medical assistance in dying, and at least 19 other states are considering similar laws. Canada, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands have adopted MAiD laws, some extending eligibility to people without terminal illnesses. The United Kingdom is also reviewing a similar bill, with a vote expected later in June. 'Passing this bill is about love, compassion, and reducing needless suffering. No one should have to endure agony when there is a better, humane choice available. This is not a political issue — it's a human issue, and we owe it to New Yorkers to pass the Medical Aid in Dying Act,' said the bill's sponsor, Assemblymember Amy Paulin, D-Westchester, in a press release. Supporters argue that allowing patients to choose death in the face of unbearable suffering respects their dignity and autonomy. For those speaking out against the bill, legalizing physician-assisted suicide devalues life and puts vulnerable populations at risk, including people with disabilities, poor people and people with mental illness. Dr. Lydia Dugdale, a physician and ethicist at Columbia University, wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed that the debate isn't about dying well. 'It is about relieving society — government, medical systems, even families — of the responsibility to care for those who need the most help: the mentally ill, the poor, the physically disabled,' she wrote. Opponents worry about a 'slippery slope,' arguing that vague eligibility requirements could lead to the kind of expansion seen in Canada, where assisted suicide has become available to people suffering not only from terminal illness, but also from conditions like loneliness, eating disorders and mental illness. 'I cannot get through a day ... It's physical torture,' said a Canadian woman with a series of nonterminal diagnoses, whose journey seeking, and receiving, MAiD is the focus of a recent New York Times story. 'Once we go down this road, there is no going back,' said Ed Mechmann, the director of public policy at the Archdiocese of New York, speaking at a recent event in New York hosted by Communion and Liberation, a Catholic lay movement, along with other opponents of physician-assisted suicide. 'It will change the nature of health care, of living and dying forever,' Mechmann said. The terms 'physician-assisted death' or 'assisted suicide' typically refer to a medical practice in which a terminally ill person is provided a lethal dose of medication they can take to end their life. The term 'medical assistance in dying' is commonly used in U.S. and Canada policy discussions and often refers to both assisted suicide and euthanasia. Euthanasia, by contrast, involves a medical professional administering a life-ending medication, typically by injection, at the patient's request. Euthanasia is not legal in the states that have legalized MAiD, whereas countries like Canada and the Netherlands allow both. Although the proponents of MAiD often frame assisted suicide as a matter of personal autonomy, those who oppose it believe that in reality, it would accomplish the opposite and endanger vulnerable patients who struggle to access care and support. 'As a practicing physician, I will tell you this does not become a matter of choice for most people,' said Dugdale, author of the 2020 book 'The Lost Art of Dying,' speaking at the New York event. 'The concern is that once you have a choice legalized for the privileged few, it will then threaten life for many others who find it difficult to maintain life for a variety of reasons.' Weak safeguards of the laws and ambiguous definitions would likely contribute to eventually including a wide range of chronic conditions, including diabetes, heart disease, cancer and even mental health disorders like anorexia, Mechmann noted. In such cases, choosing death may not reflect true autonomy but rather systemic neglect, he said. In Colorado, for instance, patients with anorexia have already qualified for assisted death on the grounds that the condition can be fatal if untreated. In 2024, Quebec, a province in Canada, established the right for a person with a serious and incurable illness to choose a medically assisted death in advance. Also in Canada, patients with a mental illness as an underlying medical condition will be eligible for MAiD in 2027. But even with long-term patients, it can be difficult to determine whether a desire to die stems from informed decision-making or untreated depression, Dugdale said. 'The people who tend to seek to end their lives through lethal prescription, who want assisted suicide, are at high risk for depression demographically,' Dugdale said. Among those groups are older adults with advanced cancer, especially white men. Depression is often overlooked or misdiagnosed, despite being treatable. In Oregon, where MAiD has been legal the longest, less than 1% of patients requesting lethal prescriptions are referred for psychological evaluation. 'This is a major oversight that fails to protect depressed people from making flawed decisions,' Dugdale wrote in her op-ed. Opponents also challenge the popular narrative of MAiD as a carefully considered choice made by an informed patient with a long-trusted physician. 'Very few patients have a doctor they call their own anymore, or a doctor who knows them,' said Dr. Eve Slater, a physician and Columbia University professor at an online event hosted by Plough, a Christian magazine, on June 2. Slater, who previously served as assistant secretary for Health and Human Services, said that for many today, especially in New York, care is fragmented, which makes it more challenging to make intimate and ethically sound decisions. She added that legalizing physician-assisted death could further erode the foundational trust between doctor and patient. Physicians also often misjudge how long terminally ill patients will live, according to Slater. 'I've been thankfully proved wrong on many occasions,' Slater said. ' I think there is a fallacy in the premise that you qualify if you have less than six months to live, because any doctor who declares that is assuming a crystal ball that they don't have.' In reality, legalizing assisted death risks creating a new social norm — one that pressures vulnerable individuals, especially those who are alone, seriously ill or unsupported, into feeling like death is their best or only option. In 2019, Kate Connolly, a communications professional in New York City, received a call that her mother had been rushed to the hospital with a brain aneurysm, she recalled while speaking alongside Dugdale and Mechmann. For the next four and a half years, her mother remained confined to her bed and wheelchair, on a feeding tube, unable to do much without assistance. Yet, even in a severely disabled state, her mother's presence was cherished by her family before she died, Connolly said. 'Her family's role, which was also a great sacrifice, was to be steward, not dictators, but respectful stewards of a precious gift,' Connolly said. Around the same time, Connolly learned her unborn son had developed a cystic hygroma — a condition often considered incompatible with life. Both with her mother and her son, Connolly described pressure from medical professionals to end their life prematurely — through abortion or withdrawal of care, which were presented as practical and compassionate choices. She chose to continue her pregnancy, giving birth to a son and holding him after he died. Although hastening death may sometimes seem like a more compassionate and pragmatic decision, this mindset fosters a view of suffering lives as disposable, Connolly said. 'The truth is, from what I've seen, dying is not a problem to be solved,' she said. 'It is an experience to be lived and even embraced. It is a sacred time, truly set apart from any experience.' End-of-life decisions must involve thoughtful, peaceful conversations between patients, families and doctors, Connolly noted. 'What is the right course of action? What is reasonable or what is needlessly extending pain and suffering?' she said. 'You cannot ask these questions thoughtfully or with any real meaning when you're being pushed to just do the expedient thing and end the life in front of you.' According to studies from Canada, the top reasons that patients say they seek a lethal prescription are more social rather than physical. In Canada, the 2022 annual report revealed that the most commonly cited reasons for requesting MAiD were loss of ability to engage in meaningful activities (86%) and loss of ability to perform daily activities (81%). While supporters of MAiD often argue that alleviating pain is one of the main reasons for hastening the death of a patient, about 59% are concerned about 'controlling pain.' According to Oregon data, nearly 30% of MAiD-seeking patients cite current and future concerns about pain. 'So it's much more an issue of control,' Dugdale said, adding that the U.S. has robust pain control. 'Dying in pain is not an issue. It should not be an issue.' Instead, loss of independence and fear of being a burden often are. These fears should be met with care, not a prescription, Mechmann said. 'It's incumbent on us to make sure people don't feel (like a burden).' With her medical trainees, Dugdale observed a shift in attitudes toward physician-assisted dying. In recent conversations, she said, some trainees wondered, 'Why don't we just do away with our societal aversion to suicide altogether?' and embrace the view that if individuals wish to end their lives, they should be free to do so without interference. Once, she was asked whether assisted suicide can be a solution to the problem of loneliness. With this mindset, end-of-life decisions would be made through a utilitarian and individualistic lens. Many physicians are uneasy about appearing 'paternalist,' Dugdale said. 'And so to mitigate that, we defer everything to the patient,' she said. The core ethical principles of beneficence (doing good) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm) have, in practice, been overshadowed by an almost singular focus on autonomy, Dugdale said. For doctors, she continued, MAiD can offer a controlled intervention in the often unpredictable process of dying, providing a sense of agency amid uncertainty. 'There's already a growing pressure to sacrifice one's life for the so-called 'greater good' and to rid the world of expensive, hopeless cases,' she said. Normalizing the idea of choosing death, especially in a society already grappling with high health care costs and an aging population, may cause younger health care professionals to view seriously ill, expensive patients as burdens. A study from Oxford University points to a correlation between legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia and increased rates of more common forms of suicide in both the U.S. and Europe. 'Once it becomes widely acceptable that I can end my life on my own terms, that feeds a culture of death,' Dugdale said. In Canada, euthanasia is now the fifth most common cause of death. 'At some point, the vast majority of people in the state of New York are gonna be laying in a hospital bed. And when the doctor shows up, what are we gonna think? Is this my ally or is this my enemy?' Mechmann said. So what, then, is the way forward? Investing in meaningful relationships and community and maintaining deep personal connections through family, faith communities, clubs or friendships is a bulwark against loneliness and despair, experts agreed. It's human connection — not lethal prescriptions — that is the real antidote to suffering, participants in the event said. 'Suffering is inevitable,' Mechmann said. But the assisted suicide is a 'bad answer' to the problem of suffering. 'It's love, it's community, it's not despairing. It's being willing to embrace some of the suffering and to live with it and to walk with it.' Editor's note: This story deals with the practice of assisted suicide. If you or someone you know is struggling with thoughts of self-harm, the 988 Suicide and Crisis Line is always available. You can text or call 988 any time or chat at In Utah, you can also reach out to SafeUT, 833-372-3388, or download the SafeUT app.
New York Post
8 hours ago
- New York Post
Fury as major credit card company cuts airport perk and hits customers with new steep fee: ‘I'm deeply disappointed'
Time for them to say bye-bye-bye to these perks. Capital One customers will soon be grieving a beloved perk that the bank holding company provided its customers with — and they're not happy about it. The company's Venture X card launched in 2021 and is known as a premium travel card offering great perks to its users. Advertisement Capital One hits cardholders with a steep $395 annual fee — however, users were willing to pay that since the card offered them many benefits, including complimentary access to airport lounges. However, starting next year — on February 1st to be exact, according to The Points Guy — that free access for Venture X and Venture X Business cardholders will soon be a thing of the past. Having free access to airport lounges was a beloved perk by card users. Yakobchuk Olena – Advertisement In early 2026, cardholders will have to shell out a yearly $125 fee for each person who wants to relax in an airport lounge — which means a family of four has to spend around $500 for some sanity before even stepping foot onto a plane, as reported on by Men's Journal. Yes, it gets even worse. If you want to access the Capital One-specific lounges — it'll cost you $45 per guest and $35 for Priority Pass access, exclusive lounges affiliated with Capital One. The only way cardholders can be exempt from paying these annoying fees is if they rack up $75,000 in credit card charges over the course of a year. Advertisement Sounds like a lose-lose situation. The Post reached out to Capital One for comment. 'As airport lounges continue to grow in popularity across the industry, we've seen our customers increasingly encounter wait times to enter them,' a Capital One spokesperson said in a statement to the Daily Mail, defending their decision. Venture X cards were always known for their great perks. monticellllo – Advertisement 'It is important to us that we maintain a great airport lounge experience for our Venture X and Venture X Business customers, while continuing to deliver best-in-class premium travel cards at an accessible price point.' Regardless, Capital One customers are furious over these changes. '…to be blunt — I'm deeply disappointed. This isn't just a tweak to policy. It's a fundamental shift in what made this card valuable, and frankly, worth recommending,' Seth Chomout, a Venture X cardholder and travel advocate, wrote in an open letter on LinkedIn. '…it feels like Capital One has pivoted from creating value to creating obstacles.' 'And sure, I get that lounges are crowded. But rather than scaling with demand, Capital One chose to wall off benefits behind spending thresholds that are completely misaligned with the needs of real families and real travelers,' Chomout continued.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘Ghost networks' are harming patients, but attempts to eliminate them have fallen short
The clock started ticking when Michelle Mazzola's son, Guy, was diagnosed with autism before his second birthday. Doctors told her the sooner Guy received therapy for his nonverbal communication and behavioral challenges, the better chance he had of reaching his full potential — and perhaps entering a kindergarten with neurotypical students. Like many parents, Mazzola hoped to find therapists who were covered by their insurance. So she consulted a directory of providers listed as 'in-network' on her insurance company's website. Mazzola spent two weeks calling providers on the list, but found no viable options. 'Probably 50% of the time no one answered the phone or the phone number was wrong,' she said. 'Then you would get people on the phone and they'd say, 'Yeah, we have about a nine-month wait list.'' Watch NBC Nightly News with Tom Llamas tonight at 6:30 p.m. ET/5:30 p.m. CT for more. She had stumbled upon what's informally known as a 'ghost network' — a directory of providers that are largely unreachable, out of network or don't accept new patients. Studies suggest it's common to encounter these networks while looking for covered care. By prolonging the search for a provider, ghost networks can delay patients' ability to get diagnosed and treated, or cause them to forgo care altogether. But regulatory efforts to force insurance companies to update their directories or penalize them for inaccurate provider information have fallen short, prompting some patients to turn to the courts. A class action lawsuit filed last year on behalf of federal employees in New York against Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield claims the company's ghost networks amount to deceptive advertising by making people think they're purchasing insurance with an extensive list of in-network providers. The suit further claims that inaccurate directories help insurance companies 'evade the costs' of covering people's care. It alleges that plaintiffs who could not rely on Anthem's directory were forced to use out-of-network doctors, saddling them with thousands of dollars in extra costs. In moving to dismiss the case, Anthem has argued that federal law pre-empts the plaintiffs from suing as members of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Mazzola, who lives in Connecticut and runs a construction company with her husband, is not a plaintiff in the suit. She estimated that she pays about $7,000 out of pocket each month for Guy's care, even after appealing denied claims and getting reimbursed for some out-of-network costs. She believes she wouldn't have to pay that sum if the providers in Anthem's directory were available. 'You take it at face value when you're buying a plan that this is what I'm getting,' Mazzola said. 'I would have gladly gone to any of those [in-network] providers if they actually were taking patients.' If you are dealing with bills that seem to be out of line or a denial of coverage, care or repairs, whether for health, home or auto, please email us at Costofdenial@ A spokesperson for Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield said the company meets access requirements outlined under state law. 'We also work hard to ensure that our provider directories are up-to-date and as accurate as possible, which requires a shared commitment from providers to update their information when there are any changes,' the spokesperson said. Anthem said its provider network offers most of the services Guy needs, but due to the specialized nature of those services, it can be challenging to get appointments immediately. The company said it reviewed the list of providers that Mazzola tried to contact and found five errors related to incorrect phone numbers or addresses, which it said it will work with providers to fix. NBC News reached out to 21 providers listed in Anthem's network, and found 20 either didn't take patients Guy's age or had no availability for months. Another class action lawsuit filed in April on behalf of state and local employees in New York against Carelon Behavioral Health, which provides health care services through insurance plans, claims that ghost networks delayed plaintiffs' access to mental health treatment. Carelon said it does not comment on pending litigation. The two class action suits are among the first to challenge insurance companies over ghost networks, said Steve Cohen, a lawyer at Pollock Cohen in New York who is representing the plaintiffs in both cases as well as Mazzola. 'Patients are in need of help,' Cohen said. 'They call provider after provider who are listed in this directory to get no answer, to be told it's not a doctor's office, to be told they don't accept the insurance. It's incredibly frustrating and often complicates getting medical care. It's dangerous.' Mazzola's experience is familiar to many, regardless of their insurance plan or health issue. 'The vast majority of the time, a doctor's information is not going to be correct,' said Dr. Neel Butala, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine who co-founded a company that uses artificial intelligence to help large health plans improve provider data. Butala reviewed physician directories from five large health insurers and found that 81% of entries had inconsistencies, such as address errors or the wrong specialty being listed for a physician. His findings were published in JAMA Network Open. A government review of Medicare Advantage plans found that the share of inaccurately listed provider locations ranged from nearly 5% to 93%, depending on the directory. Ghost networks can pose a particular challenge to finding mental health providers, many of whom have long patient waitlists or have stopped taking insurance. After calling nearly 400 listed numbers for mental health providers in New York, the state attorney general's office found that 86% were ghost entries. Staffers on the Senate Finance Committee similarly contacted 120 mental health providers listed as in-network by Medicare Advantage plans, and found that ghost entries made up more than 80%. 'In my view, it's a breach of contract for insurance companies to sell their plan for thousands of dollars each month while their product is unusable, unusable due to a ghost network,' Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said at a Senate hearing on mental health access in 2023. Anneliese Hanson, who was a network market manager at Cigna Behavioral Health until several years ago, said she felt pressure to make provider networks seem more robust to appeal to current or prospective members. 'If our target was to have 100 autism specialists within a certain [geographic area], we would be working towards meeting that target on paper, rather than actually checking and ensuring that there were 100 autism providers,' Hanson said. A Cigna spokesperson said the company takes rigorous measures to ensure its directory is updated and accurate, and has a dedicated team of specialists to help patients access behavioral care quickly and conveniently. In response to Hanson's comments, the spokesperson said: 'These untrue and inflammatory assertions have no basis in reality, neither back then nor today.' Cohen said that federal and state standards require insurance companies to offer an ample number of in-network health care providers within a defined distance of the patient's home. Those requirements may encourage insurers to pad their directories, he said. But Butala pushed back on that idea: 'I don't think there's any actually bad actors,' he said. 'I think everyone wants to get this right.' Butala said there's an incentive for insurance companies to put out the right information, since a bad member experience could cause them to lose customers. One explanation for ghost networks, he said, is that providers report doctors' information in a way that's conducive for billing, but isn't necessarily accessible to patients. Insurers often receive data that's difficult and time-intensive to comb through, he said. 'I think it's just a really hard problem to solve,' he said. Mazzola said she and her husband, also named Guy, have been fortunate enough to afford their son's autism therapy so far. The younger Guy, now 2, is not speaking yet but has gotten better at making eye contact and using sign language to communicate words. But the Mazzolas still feel the insurance system didn't work for them as promised. 'You pay for insurance your whole life, hoping [a diagnosis] never happens, but when it does, that you can put your head on the pillow at night knowing they're going to be there for you. And that just wasn't the case,' Guy Mazzola said. Legal and medical experts say some protections against ghost networks exist, but aren't consistently enforced. Under the No Surprises Act, a federal law that took effect in January 2022, private health plans are required to verify and update their provider directories at least every 90 days. If a member receives out-of-network care because the directory information was inaccurate, insurance companies must reimburse them for any costs that exceed the in-network price. Patients can also file complaints to state regulators, who have the authority to fine companies for directory errors. But a ProPublica investigation last year determined that such fines are rare. In an average year, fewer than a dozen fines are issued by insurance regulators for directory errors, the investigation found — and even then, the penalties are small. One solution that might reduce the prevalence of ghost networks is a centralized directory of providers that all health plans could refer to. But health policy experts see that as a long-term goal that would be difficult to implement. Butala said AI can help insurers scrub their directories for errors. 'I don't think health plans are skimping on throwing people at the problem,' he said. 'I think they've been throwing too many people at the problem, and now they realize maybe AI can actually make it better.' But the Mazzolas also think insurance companies should be willing to pay more providers, so it's not a challenge to offer services in-network. 'I'm not anti-business. I'm not anti-profit, but there's an ethical side of it, too,' Michelle Mazzola said. 'Something needs to be done.' This article was originally published on
