Elevance Reverses Controversial Anesthesia Coverage Policy Amid Backlash

Elevance has abandoned its controversial plan to limit anesthesia coverage for certain surgeries after facing significant backlash from physicians and the public.

The policy, set to take effect in February for members of Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield in New York, Connecticut, and Missouri, quickly gained attention following the tragic death of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York City, which fueled anti-insurer sentiment online.

Where to Find the Best Deals on Hoka Shoes

Meaning “to fly” in Maori, Hoka was founded in 2009 so that anyone spending long hours on their feet could get the ultimate experience with optimum cushioning and stability. Less than 15 years after its founding, Hoka is bringing in revenues topping a billion dollars a year, so it’s clear that people are loving this brand. But with quality comes high prices, and Hoka is no doubt in the high end price-wise. Thanks to Brad's Deals, we found the best prices on Hoka.

Here are the top 8 stores where you can find great deals on Hoka.

Elevance responded to the backlash, clarifying that the policy was never meant to deny medically necessary anesthesia services, but to align coverage with established clinical guidelines. The insurer’s proposed changes aimed to base anesthesia coverage on Physician Work Time values set by CMS, limiting coverage to specific time frames unless the surgery or procedure took longer. Exemptions were planned for patients under 22 and those receiving maternity care.

The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) strongly opposed the policy, arguing that tying anesthesia coverage to CMS estimates would be an unreliable approach. They pointed out that anesthesia durations can vary due to complications, and setting time limits could result in unexpected out-of-pocket costs for patients. Elevance defended the policy as a necessary measure to prevent overbilling by anesthesia providers.

Politicians in New York and Connecticut also voiced their opposition, adding pressure to the insurer’s decision to retract the policy. The move highlights the growing tensions between insurers’ cost-management practices and concerns about patient care and access.