Talk:Seema Verma

Washington Post on Verma's Medicaid plan in Indiana

Washington Post has a good story about Verma's Medicaid plan in Indiana. It has the virtue of being WP:NPOV and explaining the arguments for and against the implementation in significant detail. This summarizes issues that are being debated throughout the medical literature. More important than conflict of interest is the question of whether the plan will work at all, or whether the incentives are too complicated to serve their purpose.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/01/what-trumps-pick-to-run-medicaid-did-for-the-white-working-class-in-indiana
What Trump’s pick to run Medicaid did for the white working class in Indiana
By Max Ehrenfreund
December 1, 2016
(Trump nominated Seema Verma to head the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid. Verma is a private-sector consultant who advised on state Medicaid programs, is usually credited with the design of Indiana's program.)

The new system has provided coverage to hundreds of thousands of people of modest means who were previously uninsured. At the same time, the design burdens patients with more paperwork and more out-of-pocket expenses compared to similar programs in other states.

beneficiaries pay for their own insurance, but they receive savings accounts from the government worth $2,500 each to help cover their out-of-pocket costs.

the program had extended coverage to about 207,000 people who were not enrolled in Medicaid previously. in contrast to Medicaid recipients in other states, beneficiaries in Indiana are responsible for paying additional costs, such as co-payments or premiums in the form of contributions to the savings account. These provisions are designed to encourage recipients to plan ahead and save money by only seeking medical treatment when it is necessary The system's "consumer-driven design familiarizes its members with the concepts of commercial health insurance and encourages them to be prudent consumers, comparing cost and quality of health care services," she and Brian Neale, another of Pence's advisers, wrote in Health Affairs in August.

Opponents of Indiana's system say that while it forces subscribers to shell out more in the form of co-payments and required contributions, the rules are too byzantine for participants to take them into account in making decisions about their health care

For those in the more comprehensive plan, only about 48 percent were aware that they had a savings account, according to the results of a survey included in the report commissioned by the state.

--Nbauman (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Verma on pregnancy coverage

Here's what Verma said about pregnancy coverage at her confirmation hearings. It would be a good idea to go back to her hearings and include all of her comments that were reported by multiple WP:RSs.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/13/news/economy/maternity-obamacare-gop/index.html
Families to pay price if maternity coverage gets cut in GOP's health care plan
by Julie Rovner, Kaiser Health News
@CNNMoney

Seema Verma, the consultant on private health insurance who was nominated to head the agency that oversees the health law, said at her Senate confirmation hearing last month that she does not necessarily support keeping maternity care as a requirement for insurance plans.

"Women have to make the decisions that work best for them and their family," she said. "Some women might want maternity coverage, and some women might not want it."

Backers of the coverage requirement say that's a fundamental misunderstanding of how insurance works.

"Anytime you allow people to pick and choose, you're making the care they don't pick more expensive," said Debra Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women & Families.

--Nbauman (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Discrepancy about BLP

User_talk:64.112.178.0 and I seem to be in agreement that Seema remains CMS administrator. Aside from primary sources, does anyone have comments from high ranking officials about this subject? If not, the article should remain in its current form Sucker for All (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yep, here, here, here, here, here, and here; here is some correspondence that refers to her multiple times as the acting administrator. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 01:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I would be very curious to know how you reached the conclusion that Seema remains CMS administrator. Poguetry (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I have placed an NPOV tag on this article because this article has long suffered from an egregious lack of neutrality. Single-purpose IP accounts located in Washington D.C. appear to be intent on making this article a hatchet job against the article subject. Do better. Marquardtika (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Without adjudication or discussion, the NPOV tag was removed after placed by Marquardtika. I have reinserted it. Please discuss on the talk page.W21040tx (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, I have posted this on [BLPN] in hopes of reaching a balanced consensus.W21040tx (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I removed the most obvious NPOV problems, poorly referenced and highly promotional. --Hipal (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

There are a lot of solo WP:BLPPRIMARY citations there which suggests OR and NPOV issues. I'll go through and remove them, and people shouldn't reinstate without secondary RS coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I ended up removing the laundry list of inappropriate consultant payments from the congressional report since it seemed to be redundant or overlapping with the ones identified in the HHS report. That should knock down the size of that section for balance. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we can reach a better consensus one bit at a time. I added back biographical content that was removed. It is current, relevant, and accurate. I should think there should be no objection to this. Please discuss here if you disagree.W21040tx (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

There are too many recent edits to remove factual information widely reported in national media outlets. The 13:26, 24 May 2022 version reflects a balanced view of a public / political person, for better or worse. We should not water down actions and decisions that are widely accepted as fact. I will now merge the biographical content that W21040tx refers to above. That should hopefully reconcile all edits. 98.186.211.113 (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

BLP

I do not believe this article meets BLP policy. This is a hit job. Never was she sanctioned, reprimanded, fined or penalized in any way. For example, in the conflict of interest issue with the state of Indiana: There was never any investigation, she was not a state employee; she did nothing illegal. Regarding press reports of clashes with her CoS: This is very nearly tabloid fodder. Regardless, nothing illegal happened. Regarding contracts to firms with Republican ties: OIG investigated, and did not find Verma responsible. For this wiki, repeated efforts at mediation have failed. Editors have removed balance and even biographical information that is purely factual in nature, such as Verma's current activities. Consistent with BLP policy, the article should focus on biographical information and not allegations that never led to any sanction.W21040tx (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Please point out any references that fail to meet WP:BLP standards. --Hipal (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the edit-warring to add poor and promotional content. --Hipal (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I found a few poor references and removed it. I hope a better one can be found to replace the homehealthcarenews.com ref that I found. --Hipal (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems there's a bit of editorializing. "In 2014, SIGNIFICANT ethics concerns WERE RAISED". To be fair, this should say something like "in 2014, X raised ethics concerns about Y". HyperboleHawk (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Also: "She submitted her resignation from the Trump administration 7 days after the 2021 United States Capitol insurrection". Someone is trying to make political hay out of this but it doesn't appear that Verma's resignation is related, as it took effect on the day prior to Trump leaving office. At most, the page should merely note that Verma submitted her resignation on January 13, 2021. HyperboleHawk (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

CMS and Modern Healthcare

I reverted a rewrite [1] of the paragraph, concerned that the WP:POV change was driven by WP:OR rather than the references, and asking that smaller edits be used to make it clear why the changes might be justified. --Hipal (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

IP edits

I have been periodically contributing to this page, as editing political pages is one of my interests. Noticed multiple one-off IP addresses that appear to be policing the page & leaving misleading edit summaries. I, as well as another account (Hipal), have directed the IPs to use Talk for any issues. This appears to be a COI (Wikipedia:Disruptive editing) & I am inserting the POV tag until I receive a response via Talk.--Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I've reviewed the most recent edits very closely. I've also reviewed each and every reference. I'm not sure why users like you keep removing content that has been sourced and cited by news media sources. I agree that some of the content is not flattering, but it is relevant to the subject. I have removed the POV tag. 72.203.210.137 (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

All tags removals need to be discussed on Talk prior to removal. Wikipedia needs to read as a neutral summarization of any given topic. The content was removed under WP:LENGTH. I found that many pieces of content on this page (i.e. lengthy quotations) were not necessary or beneficial for contributing to the narrative of this page. In fact, a lengthy page ends up burying the streamlined story, whether controversial or not. I've looked into your IP edits & it is highly suspicious that you are solely targeting this page. You appear to be a COI of some sort. It is even more strange that the IPs have been one-off edits that share your stream of consciousness, especially the random Netherlands and New York IP locations. It looks as if you are using a proxy tool/VPN, which is frowned upon on Wikipedia. I don't care to get into this mess, but you should watch yourself with reverting multiple Wikipedia editors. You cannot police this page & it is not fair to pass judgment on other editors' contributions. This is a public community & we wish to communicate effectively rather than create edit skirmishes. If this policing continues, I will consider moving forward with WP:RfPP.--Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

To me, this is an attempt to police and then gaslight honest edits to this biography. The content continually removed by Kentuckyfriedtucker is that which has been widely cited. I have no connection to the author or subject. This is a public figure for whom the removed details are relevant for the public to understand the actions and motivations of someone entrusted to lead a public agency. Please stop removing such information. These deletions coincide with an uptick in communications activity by Oracle to publicize Ms. Verma in her new role in that company, so I too suspect conflict of interest in these deletions. 143.170.111.82 (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I've requested the article be protected. WP:CT/AP and WP:CT/BLP apply. Editors are required to get consensus before restoring disputed content per WP:BLP. I suggest working on one area at a time, clearly identify what content you want to be changed, and what references support the changes. --Hipal (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Protected it should be yes, but this subsection is wrongly called 'vandalism'. There's been no vandalism to the article in the time this chat has been live, unless we count the mass blanking. --Jack Developer (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

BLP requires consensus for inclusion of contentious material, with the onus being on those who add or restore the material. There's clearly no consensus. Please revert. --Hipal (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Al right. How about this. For now, shall I remove the parts that don't appear to be referenced, and let the rest sit while we all look into it? --Jack Developer (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

That would violate BLP. --Hipal (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

All done. --Jack Developer (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you.

Anyone want to make arguments for inclusion of any of it? --Hipal (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Not me at this stage. Not sure if IP wants to make case. --Dock Mock (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this not being titled properly. I've retitled this discussion, as it pertains to one-off IP edit activity that appeared biased to me. I removed content previously (reverted without adequate edit summarization by IPs) which I felt didn't fall under WP:LENGTH. If we don't hear from an IP making its case, I will look into continuing cleanup but will make sure to not remove any credible sourcing.--Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at BPP policy very carefully:

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." 143.170.111.82 (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Each and every part continually removed by Kentuckyfriedtucker has been sourced multiple times in news media and other sources. Removal is counter to BLP policy

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

Please revert 143.170.111.82 (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Take another look at BLP please, starting with the nutshell and introductory paragraphs that end with, The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. --Hipal (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Hipal - Please take a look at the material that Kentuckyfriedtucker keeps removing... It is sourced and meets criteria. So why is it selectively deleted? 143.170.111.82 (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

It was removed per BLP according to multiple editors.

Again, I suggest working on one area at a time, clearly identify what content you want to be changed, and what references support the changes. You may want to use an edit request. --Hipal (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, got it. Thanks Hipal 143.170.111.82 (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

February editing and other problems

I have many concerns about the recent edits. Some of the material simply didn't appear to be verified by the references given, there were some poor references, and there were changes from the chronological ordering.

I'm concerned that there may be other problems with chronological ordering in the article.

It also appears that some references are not being used in a NPOV manner, rather the main points of the references are being withheld from the article. --Hipal (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

On balance the article looks much better now. I've gone through and and reviewed the text against each reference. After doing so, this seems to capture a fairly accurate bio and timeline. Some details, although widely reported and relevant (e.g. that the subject wore Ivanka Trump jewelry to the White House and subsequently filed a stolen claim with the government) been been selectively deleted by recent editors. Lacassal (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

My recent edits fleshed out early career & post-Trump content. Obviously there have been differing opinions on this page, with multiple one-off IP addresses that appeared to be policing the page/leaving misleading edit summaries (evidenced by page getting locked in December). I added content sourced by CNN, Revcycle Intelligence, and Bloomberg. Understood that not all of the sourcing I added qualified as being verifiable considering the contentious nature of this topic. However, I plan on adding back this portion, as it is sourced by PBS:

She also assisted Gov. Matt Bevin to develop a Medicaid expansion proposal that included a work requirement, which saved the state of Kentucky $2.5 billion.

If reverted, please explain why. I do not quite understand the level of concern for this page + why one main editor is taking it upon himself/herself to be the singular judge of new content, so to speak.

As for the tags, I added both of them. I recently tried removing the length tag because I felt that it was addressed. However, this edit was reverted -- which indicates that there needs to be further trimmed content? If so, then allow content to be succinctly rephrased rather than leave a tag in place without allowing editors to resolve such tag. (Noticed that previously trimmed language was added back?) I also added the Close Connection tag, as it seemed that the one-off IPs were trolling this page.

Lastly, my recent edits didn't alter the timeline -- unless you're referring to the one change made in the Post-Trump administration career section? Again, not really a cause for concern. Out of respect, I won't touch that placement; however, I will add the boards referenced, as it is stated in the source listed.--Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

She also assisted... Where is that verified? It looks like those that promoted the legislation claimed it would save that much. I'm unable to find any verification that it actually did. However, other references make clear the problems with such a "puntative" approach, yet that hasn't been included.

I've trimmed back the details about the stolen items, though the Trump branded jewelry seems due per the AP ref. --Hipal (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Heard and understood. Thanks for explaining, I appreciate it.Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, the most recent edits by Kentuckyfriedtucker appear to be an attempt to remove details that, while might not be the most flattering, were widely reported (and cited) and provided context into some of the controversies surrounding the subject. Not sure why this page continues to be peeled back by the same 1-2 folks in an insiduous fashion, especially what could reasonably considered to be old news. Editors appear to be closely connected to the subject. I have reverted to the most recent edits prior to the latest round, reviewed each reference closely, and added one new reference. Lacassal (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Lacassal The reason why I removed further content is because of the length tag, which still needs to be addressed. You reverted both my attempts to resolve the tag as well as the actual tag removal. This is contradictory to how tags function on Wikipedia. It appears to me that you are using a burner account, evidenced by your sporadic activity on Wiki. I think it's very interesting that your account was created soon after the page was temporarily locked. In all honesty, the coordinated IP edits + your own have indicated something at play here. I myself added the close connection tag on the page due to this. I will revert your reversion now -- if you feel this is unacceptable, please explain why (using a Wikipedia guideline) & at least remove WP:LENGTH so that we can resolve that. Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)