Jump to content

Talk:Healthcare industry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tzc0725.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pinecone1500. Peer reviewers: Kseses14, Taylor O'Neil.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why have this page

[edit]

This debate copied from talk:medicine by --Erich gasboy 04:15, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't like it. While the term seems reasonable, I don't think that it is legitimate to make a subject out of it. I don't know that 1) the term has actually been accepted in common usage; 2) the definition given is unsatisfying; 3) it seems to invite content that would better be in other places. Sort of like the problem with an overnormalized database. Kd4ttc 22:38, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I like the article, now. The article was called 'Healthcare professional' and now is 'Healthcare industry'. The definition is now much better. It has not drawn the argumentative medical establishment bashing I was concerned it would, and the content here has been appropriate to the general nature of the topic. Kd4ttc (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I agree it's not a fantastic page, and in reply: 1) I've seen it as a pretty common enough term in any interdisciplinary forum or effort. 2) aggree completely!! 3) yes it will invite content - which is exactly why I think it is best to move it off page - otherwise all these issues get re-debated on multiple pages

  1. what is a profesional?
  2. who are they?jkhjkhkjhklhjklh
  3. what is the hierarchy? (or how are they classified?).

do you see what I mean? I actually dont think this is 'over' normalised at all. I see this is moving a debate that would be repeated at least 5 times elsewhere to a single page (for examples, have a look at how poorly health and Health science handle this!) hey and thanks for fixing my broken link!! e --Erich gasboy 04:15, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the purpose of this page should be to characterize the finances of hte health care industry as it exists. This would be an invaluable resource for the small investor. Mrdthree 15:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

I don't know where to put this, so here seems best. Many of the articles on the various health care professions read like essays, or promotional articles written by practitioners, and violate POV and encyclopedic style of writting. A number beging with something like "x's are highly trained health care professionals..." - is anyone moderately trained? A lot just read like pamphlets. - Matthew238 08:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree the use "highly" is not only non NPOV, but just unnecessary. If I find it, as I did in this article, I'll remove it. Feel free to do the same and thanks for pointing this out. Chupper 18:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

06.17.07 edit

[edit]

I've moved this page from Health profession to Health care industry so that it is a new subarticle for the Health care article. I've bolded the text in the lead section using both terms of health professional and health care industry. To differentiate between the profession and professionals, I've also moved much of the "professional" and "practioner" stuff to Health care provider. Chupper 18:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I want to write a section about the finances (macroeconomic scale) of the pharamceutical, biotech, and healthcare providers. Maybe later fill in micro details later. This seems like a good page to do it. The first project is investment dollars. The easiest way to answer the healthcare investment question is to look at pharmaceutical industry association data. IN the US there is Phrma [1] , in europe there is EFPIA [2] . For old long term stats on the US there is the NIH report [3].:NIH stopped producing annual estimates of national support for health R&D by source and performer (including state and local government funding) after 1995, when it discontinued publication of its annual Data Book.[4] I havent looked at Japan yet.Mrdthree 16:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Japan: JPMA [5]Mrdthree 16:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal is to gather these facts and rework the current outline, whose form is: 0. Intro 1. History 1.1 Growth 2 Providers and professionals 2.1 Delivery of services 3 See also 4 References 4.1 Notes. GOAL: incorporate Finance and Economic data to characterize industry, concentrating on market traded companies. Rework outline to reflect Market analysis outline (e.g. industry: industry sector: divisions: companies, etc (see yahoo finance for details; various business references). Facts to be included: Share of health care industry accounted for by public traded companies (public traded companies must publish financial statements and so will form the majority of info in article). List major industry sectors (probably intro). List commonly recognized divisions of Health care industry (references for division). List economic shares of sectors, divisions. Health care industry share of GDP (by country) (overall?). Examine division revenues and expenditures; in particular I will work on the pharmaceutical manufacturers division of the health care industry, primarily relying on industry association data.Mrdthree 16:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Future question: Health care economics vs. Health care industry. what goes where? Mrdthree 16:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed material into a second sub-section of _History_ entitled _Transformation_. In the case of the Chinese healthcare industry, it would appear that Growth and Transformation are running side-by-side, but it is the Transformation that is having the greatest impact on patients and healthcare providers (based on the citation I have added to the article). I am not personally familiar with the Chinese healthcare industry; so input from physicians and other personnel embedded in that industry would be good to ensure that the message presented is not skew. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

Health care systems and Health field seem to cover the same territory. I think that one merged page (with all the appropriate redirects) would be the best option. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. I think it is a good thing that the health care systems article gives an separate overvieuw of how these particulair systems work. -- Mdd (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The Health field article is about something else completely! --Tom (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I agree with Tom. --Historian 1000 (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three users opposed this proposal, so I have removed the proposal templates. -- Mdd (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

In the 'See Also' section there is a link to 'Stellar Search'; this seems to be a recruitment company and perhaps has been put there as advertising? Not sure if I should have opened a talk topic or just deleted it (sorry I'm not a frequent editor!). Pete (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Health care industry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

classroom project stuff, salvaged to here

[edit]

Maybe someone can come up with clarifications and more specific language:

[edit]

In any case, there are pockets of development that can be the main edge of changing the U.S. framework. Some of these include:

  • A developing accentuation on pay for result as opposed to pay for benefit.
  • People in general private organization of Medicare Advantage—a procedure where government defines objectives, yet privately owned businesses go after participation and utilize diverse methods to control results and cost.
  • The changing society and preparing of suppliers that looks more to underlying driver and long haul results.
  • A moving concentration from clinic based care to care gave in substitute settings—tending to palliative care needs and end-of-life issues.
  • A developing accentuation on "entire individual" care coordinated with mental and physical health.[1]

Recommendations

[edit]

To accomplish this brighter future, a few things are required:

  • General society and the members in the framework must teach themselves to the basic drivers of expenses and results including social determinants of health.
  • We should recognize that the present state of affairs isn't feasible in the long haul.
  • The legislature all by itself ought not be viewed as the friend in need or an ultimate villain, yet a key factor in the development from healthcare to health results
  • Innovation picks up in numerous territories, for example, quiet checking and surgical methods, that prompt better results and lower costs.
  • More prominent comprehension of genomics prompting more customized and ideally, practical medications.
  • Proceeded with picks up in understanding mind capacity and its impact on health status.
  • Development in goal pharmaceutical
  • Greater affirmation of the psychosocial parts of care and acknowledgment of their effect on cost and results.[2]

References

  1. ^ Schmidt, David (2017-03-11). "The future of United States healthcare". Managed Healthcare Executive. Retrieved 2018-03-14.
  2. ^ Schmidt, David (2017-03-11). "The future of United States healthcare". Managed Healthcare Executive. Retrieved 2018-03-14.

Large Edits

[edit]

Hello,

I am a university student who has recently conducted some major editing to this page. I have tried my best to port information from my sandbox to the main space progressively so that the edit history can be clearly seen. If there are any questions on the edits made please do not hesitate to message me or ask questions.

Regards, Pinecone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinecone1500 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Healthcare_industry&oldid=1204148925"