'"It would be wrong to subject local residents to any disruption in their care as we conclude negotiations," Anthem Blue Cross President Mark Morgan said in a statement released Monday.'

And yet,

'Darrel Ng, a spokesman for Anthem Blue Cross, disputed the claim that its patients would continue be able to pay as if they were in-network.'

So, Anthem says it "would be wrong" to disrupt patient coverage, while Anthem also says that Anthem will NOT continue existing patient coverage -- i.e., Anthem chooses to be "wrong."

You can't 'not' disrupt care when one party refuses to agree to participate in a contract agreement. If you read the information, there was a mutual two year deal that the facility rejected b/c of third year terms. It's fact the insurer can't administer a deal that isn't accepted by the facility. Not sure how Larkin can back up his comments about continuing to provide in network benefits when they initiated the termination and then refused the deal by Anthem and its the insurer that determines if its in network or out of network. IMO, there is a lot of PR posturing by Stanford going on.

This seems to come up every three years. Stanford Hospital and Clinics, and often PAMF as well, want to raise their rates and demand higher payouts from Anthem Blue Cross, and ABC says, "No way!". One or the other caves in the end, because basically, Stanford et al really can't afford to lose 10,000+ patients and Blue Cross can't afford to have 10,000+ disgruntled clients whom they may lose next time Open Enrollment comes around.

Oh my I do not fault Stanford, Blue Cross Anthem charges outrageous premiums, copayments are a joke for example I pay $45 for PT/anthem pays $30 and the provider gets a total of a big whopping $75. The unfortunate patient gets 24 visits per year, how generous... glad I'm healthy and vegan.