Right. The headline was edited to fit HN length limits with the unfortunate effect of making a decade-old action appear to be current. I'd suggest dropping "Advantage" which reduces specificity but doesn't mislead to the same extent.
My own practice is to note headline edits in a submission comment, whether for length, clarity, removing clickbait / outrage, etc.
And the fact that the past nature of the event is immediately clear in the first 'graph of TFA strongly encourages the act of R'ing TFA, rather than reacting blindly to headlines.
(I've emailed mods suggesting an improved title of: "Feds Killed Plan to Curb Medicare Overbilling After Industry Opposition in 2014".)
Advantage is relevant. Medicare advantage is a specific type of plan that isn’t quite Medicare that insurance companies offer. And it’s at the center of that case.
The question isn't what is relevant, the question is comparative relevance. "Medicare plan" might be another option, though my suggestion to add the year already comes up hard against HN's 80-char limit.
Wordsmithing titles is in fact both hard and a matter of compromises.
HN's guidance is to use the original title, except where that's misleading or clickbait, and as an alternative to shorten that, or to substitute alternate text from either a subhead / alternate headline, or the article itself:
If you care to suggest something that is accurate, covers the relevant elements, and fits inside 80 characters, you're welcome to do so. It makes the mods' decision and action far easier, and is why I'd made a specific recommendation myself. I'm not wedded to that, but it is my good faith best-effort attempt. I'm happy to consider better. I've scoured the article a few times with limited success myself.
Though "DoJ alleges United Healthcare cheated Medicare out of more than $2 billion" (from "Justice Department alleges the giant health insurer cheated Medicare out of more than $2 billion") might also work, and makes the titled action current. 74 characters.
(I've submitted that as an alternate to HN's overworked mods as well.)
My own practice is to note headline edits in a submission comment, whether for length, clarity, removing clickbait / outrage, etc.
And the fact that the past nature of the event is immediately clear in the first 'graph of TFA strongly encourages the act of R'ing TFA, rather than reacting blindly to headlines.
(I've emailed mods suggesting an improved title of: "Feds Killed Plan to Curb Medicare Overbilling After Industry Opposition in 2014".)