Talk:EviCore

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 13:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a single company authorizes health insurance coverage for over one hundred million Americans?

• Source: The biggest player is a company called EviCore by Evernorth, which is hired by major American insurance companies and provides coverage to 100 million consumers — about 1 in 3 insured people.

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Zeinab Shaath

Created by Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 33 past nominations.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 20:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC).

• Reviewing. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• New enough (submitted within 3 days of start of 5x expansion), long enough (6871 characters). Well sourced to a range of publications including academic journals, mainstream business newspapers, healthcare industry publications, magazines, newspapers, and ProPublica. Earwig and spot check suggest copyvio and close paraphrasing are unlikely. Article is written neutrally. QPQ is done. Hook is interesting and backed up by a source that is generally reliable for all purposes according to WP:RSPLIST. Good expansion. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

GA review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:EviCore/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 00:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: MCE89 (talk · contribs) 07:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Hello, I will review this! I'll add my comments within a day or so. MCE89 (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin Overall everything looks great. I've added some initial general comments below — please take all of these as suggestions and feel free to push back on any that you disagree with. Just ping me when you're done responding to these and I'll do my spot checks. MCE89 (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin All done with my source checks. There was just one minor outstanding prose comment that you might want to take a look at, but not anything that would hold up GA status. Passing this now :) MCE89 (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Initial checks

• Images:
  • Logo is PD simple, no issues
  • Image of headquarters is CC own work. Caption and relevance are fine
• Copyright: Nothing concerning on Earwig. Will do further checks for close paraphrasing as part of my source spot checks
• Stability: No issues

Prose and general comments

• to increase customer retention of prior EviCore clients — I found this a little confusing. Is this saying that Express Scripts wanted to do a better job of retaining customers who were already clients of both Express Scripts and Evicore by integrating the two companies together?
• serving seven clients — Perhaps initially serving seven clients?
  • Done. (I don't think it's strictly necessary but it doesn't hurt.) — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 17:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
• Few regulators have penalized EviCore — This comes a bit out of left field because at this point you haven't yet explained the things that they have been criticised for, so it's not clear why we should expect them to have been penalised by regulators. I'd consider switching this paragraph and the following one.
  • Done, makes sense. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 17:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
• In 2024, EviCore was fined $16,000 by Connecticut's Insurance Department after a review of 196 files. — Can you add anything about what the fine was for?
  • Added the phrase for 77 charges, probably don't need to specify what they were if there were that many of them. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 17:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
• A report from ProPublica criticized — Given that the paragraph opens with EviCore received complaints from medical organizations I think it'd be worth adding "the non-profit investigative journalism organization" or similar in front of "ProPublica" to avoid any potential ambiguity
  • Done
• criticized this business model without explicitly mentioning EviCore — Could you be a bit more specific about what "this business model" is referencing here?
  • Rephrased to the business model that creates profit from claim denials — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 17:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
• the proportion of denials — Suggest changing this to the proportion that are denied
  • Done
• Reducing costs is a major part of the company's methods, as well as its marketing, which says it has a 300% return on investment for clients. — I don't quite follow the meaning here — is this referring to marketing that EviCore does on behalf of its clients?
  • Rephrased to in its marketing to clients, the company says that it gives them a 300% return on investment. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 17:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
• Personally I would attribute some of the claims in the last few paragraphs to ProPublica's reporting. E.g. I think ...which doctors say is because the company makes it difficult to file legitimate claims is a slightly POV journalistic claim to put straight into wikivoice, given that ProPublica doesn't give much detail about how many doctors they spoke to or whether these doctors are representative of the field. I'd suggest attributing some of these more journalistic claims by changing it to something like According to an investigation by ProPublica, doctors have criticised the company for making it difficult to file legitimate claims etc.
  • Done.

Source review

• Sources are all reliable. I checked citations 1, 5, 7, 8, 13a, 13d, 13g, 13i and all verified without close paraphrasing
• The article appears to reflect the available secondary coverage, much of which is relatively critical of the company, in a balanced fashion without giving any perspectives undue weight. No concerns about OR, breadth or focus

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.