Talk:HCA Healthcare

HCA and Bill Frist

I'm taking a break from Wikibreak because this article had problems. First, there was some vandalism by an IP user. Second, there was some related nonsense about Bill Frist in this article. Maybe there was some actual revelance between Bill Frist and HCA, but all we have is uncited assertions. Specifically:

On June 13, 2005, Senator Frist reportedly instructed the trustee managing his HCA shares to sell all of his stock. The sale took place in July, two weeks before disappointing earnings sent the stock on a 15-point plunge.

Now, first, "reportedly" needs a citation. But given the subsequent sentence, which also would need a citation or link to the stock's fall, the first is horrendously libelous. Why? Stock sales by significant shareholders and officers are subject to prior SEC disclosure. It's also not noted when he instructed the trustee to sell his shares. He might have instructed the trustee to sell them in, say, February, and the transaction (especially if it was a lot of shares) might have taken several weeks to unload. Finally, a "15-point" plunge sounds like a lot, but that all depends on the share price. A 15 point pluge of shares in Berkshire Hathaway class A is nothing. (Each stock is worth over $80,000 USD). So a percentage should instead be noted.

Finally, there was the statement that "most of" Bill Frist's wealth came from his family's stake in HCA. That needs some sort of reliable source backing that up. Twenty million is certainly a lot to me, but it may or may not have comprised "most of" Frist's wealth without very detailed insight into Frist's finances (unless Frist himself said so).

Disclaimer: I believe I held shares in HCA at one time in 2002-2003; however, these holdings would have been short-term.

--Otheus 14:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HCALogo.PNG

Image:HCALogo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

locations in switzerland

Near the bottom of the article, it mentions locations for the hospitals. Quote from article, As of December 31, 2006, HCA operated 173 hospitals and 107 freestanding surgery centers located in 20 states, London, England and Geneva, Switzerland. In August 2007, HCA sold its hospitals in Switzerland due to decreasing revenue. Why would locations in Switzerland be mentioned twice? In the first sentence, it says that HCA owns facilities in Geneva. But, in the next sentence, it says that it has sold its facilities in Switzerland. So, I am going to delete the mention of facilities in Geneva, until I get a reference that there are facilities still in Geneva. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your changes make the sentence factually inaccurate, because the sentence starts with "As of December 31, 2006". So with the changes it seems like they had no hospitals in Switzerland in December 2006, and then sold some in August 2007 even though they didn't have any. I agree the whole section is in need of updating, but your change makes it incorrect (Assuming it was previously correct). I'll wait a few days for a response and change it back if I don't see anything. 98.243.65.191 (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Rick Scott

The first reference to Rick Scott is in regard to his resignation following the FBI raid. He was referred to simply as "Scott," as if he had already been mentioned in the article. I added his first name and linked the name to his entry, but there should probably be some introduction to him as the founder of Columbia and CEO of Columbia/HCA prior to this reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.15.157 (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I now see that that section of the article was directly copied from the "Rick Scott" entry, which is why it referred to him just by his last name and assumed some prior knowledge. So probably some additional information from that entry should be inserted to provide background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.15.157 (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Excessive Negative Information

I am concerned about how negative this "History" section is; author(s) seem to dwell on violation and controversial events - as to diminish credibility of the author(s). Through the history this organization has had positive influence which are not reported here. Other type of true "historic" facts and figures may be more beneficial and interesting - e.g., # of hospitals and employees and locations at various points in the company's existence, key innovations, primary competitors, etc. Then break out sections separately titled "controversies", "lawsuits", may make this section for structured and objective. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.214.14.23 (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hospital Corporation of American = HCA

As far as I am aware, the corporation changed its name to just HCA without meaning for the abbreviation. Pulmonological (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

History intro

Just made a couple minor edits. I added the number of HCA facilities in the intro at the top. Also added Dr. Thomas Frist, Jr. as a founder and corrected the sentence that said Dr. Frist Sr. was the grandfather of Senator Bill Frist. Bill Frist is his son. Disclaimer: I am an HCA employee. Christop79 (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Made a couple other edits to add a couple of earlier events to the company history - first hospital, first IPO and first office space. I cited a photo on HCA's Facebook page for their first office space. I'll look for a more verifiable source but thought it was an interesting tidbit. If there's any concern over the Facebook cite, let me know and I can remove it. Disclaimer: I am an HCA employee. Christop79 (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I added some early company pictures to the top of the history section and added a paragraph about HCA's response at Tulane during hurricane Katrina in 2005. I also removed the paragraph that talked about Centerpoint since that info belongs on a page dedicated to Centerpoint. I added some info about a couple of recognitions in 2011 and 2012 and updated the number of facilities listed at the bottom based on the HCA fact sheet. The link to the Switzerland hospital info since it was broken too so I fixed it and also changed the text because it said HCA sold those hospitals due to decreasing revenue. I think that's opinion since I couldn't find a source that listed that as a reason. Disclaimer: I am an HCA employee. (Christop79 (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC))

Pricing

According to a recent investigation, the prices of the HCA services are 19 to 22 times higher than the urgent care facilities. These are called "free standing ER, located strategically close to hospitals and actual ER. A father brought his daughter for a cough and fever, the first bill he received for ECG was 2000, and a later bill from doctor was for 1200. Heard this story on the radio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.80.44 (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Furniture Controversy

I removed this section for two reasons. First, the paragraph misrepresents the situation as reported in the source document. While it is true that the city council member (Ms. Gilmore) who introduced the resolution to provide HCA with $1 million for moving expenses said she did not expect the funds to be used to buy furniture, the source report says specifically that furniture was included in the resolution. The report says:

“But the resolution that Gilmore sponsored, and the council approved, specifically mentioned ‘office furniture’ as something HCA could buy with the million dollars

“NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked, ‘You voted for a stimulus?’

"’Right,’ Gilmore responded.

“NewsChannel 5 Investigates followed, ‘But you also voted for furniture.’

“Gilmore responded, ‘No I didn't vote for... I voted for the economic stimulus and MDHA is accountable for oversight.’”

Second, if the source is properly used, it is difficult to understand how this information meets the Wikipedia standard for significance and encyclopedic content as long as HCA complied with the terms of the package approved by the City Council. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amost42n81 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Bias, Repetition and Unnecessary Detail in Covering Controversies

I found the section on “Fraud Investigations” to be confused and a bit biased. The information was presented as if there were separate investigations into different frauds occurring at different times, when, in fact, it was one investigation that lasted ten years. Much information was repeated, perhaps the result of too many contributors adding the same ingredients to the pot. In any case, it seems fair to me to consolidate all of this, to spare the gruesome details in order to maintain Wikipedia’s encyclopedic style, and to try to use neutral language whenever possible (i.e., “Frist said” instead of “Frist claimed”).

I also thought there was too much detail, and that it was unnecessary, in the context of providing an encyclopedic account, to go into Rick Scott’s departure package when he left the company. That might well be appropriate for the rick Scott page, but it seems like too much detail for this one.

Finally, it seems to me that there is an element of seeking out the negative, with loaded terms such as “union busting,” when it is more neutral to describe the company as attempting to dissuade employees from forming a union. “Union busting” conjures up extremely negative images from history and should be reserved for particularly aggressive corporate activities, not competition for the employees’ hearts and minds. To make things worse, someone has added this sentence: “The nurses filed for an election in March, with 70 percent of them deciding to join National Nurses United, a union that could protect them from HCA.” The bias is clear. I have no basis for disputing facts or charges by nurses and others in North Carolina, nor would I wish to, but they nevertheless are based almost entirely on coverage by a news organization that describes itself openly as adversarial and an organization affiliated with organized labor. Again, I’m not necessarily disputing the facts, but I think extra effort needs to be taken to avoid accepting the sources’ slant without question. Wikipedia shouldn’t be used for ax-grinding or promoting one side of a dispute. Amost42n81 (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is again devolving into recentism. I am citing from the WP:RECENT article: "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. When dealing with contemporary subjects, editors should consider whether they are simply regurgitating media coverage of an issue or actually adding well-sourced information that will remain notable over time. Yes, unneeded content can be eliminated later, but a cluttered "first draft" of an article may degrade its eventual quality and a coherent orientation may not always be attained."

There is no need to continue with this "breaking-news" approach. We need to clean the article to maintain controversies that may pass the ten-year test. A lot of comments like: "minor news organization x" reported y about company Z. But then no follow up, no further mentions, no lawsuits, no consequences, no alternate opinion from anyone. That, folks, is not a controversy. Was it really a controversy or something that the editor saw in the news, and he/she considered to be controversial? MedGME (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I broke down the controversy section into subsections so we can all evaluate the merit of each so-called controversy independently and clean this section.MedGME (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Sections on Nurses' Union and Corona Virus Controversies Should Be Removed

I strongly believe the sections titled “Nurses’ union controversy” and “Corona virus response controversy” should be removed because they are presented not as reports on a controversy but arguments in the controversy. The language itself is tendentious, and in many cases, the sourcing does not support the assertions made in the text. Also, this amounts to coverage of one side of an ongoing story and does not seem to be appropriate for a Wikipedia article that is supposed to be encyclopedic in style. This may merit inclusion in the article at some time in the future after the dust settles and the facts are known, but not now. Perhaps by then the subject can be treated in two or three sentences with some measure of objectivity.

Some specific problems:

• “The union also reported that nurses were dying because of the lack of protection being provided.” This appears to refer to the nurses at Mission Health; in fact, the article stated that 100 nurses had died across the US.
• “In 2020, HCA was reported to be laying off nurses in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, despite receiving over $700 million in federal aid.” The sources all state that no layoffs had taken place and that HCA said none were planned. So why include this?
• “Under federal law, the hospital's actions were illegal and unlawful.” This is a conclusion reached by the contributor based on definitions of union busting by an advocacy organization related to organized labor. It cannot be considered true documentation. There is no documentation that the company did anything illegal in this regard, and the source does not say that HCA engaged in illegal activity.
• “…70 percent of them deciding to join National Nurses United, a union that could protect them from HCA.” This is highly tendentious and inappropriate.Amost42n81 (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Article reworked/fixed

The article has been reworked, and the content has been removed from the objective sections along with clarifying many points from each section. Both the coronavirus and Mission sections now relate to the article more relevantly,and most bias has been edited out. Numerous editors have revamped the article since this issue was noticed,and I believe the problem is gone now. Heyoostorm (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The above section's points about the fraud sections were correct,and I think the section has been redone to a satisfactory degree. bhe information has been condensed,and now is more objective and has a neutral POV.Heyoostorm (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Sections on Mission Nurses and Coronavirus

I have tried to find a way to revise the two sections on the Mission nurses and the Coronavirus issue so that they have an objective POV and contain information that is appropriate for an encyclopedia, but I have found it impossible. These sections are clearly part of a controversy and, in my opinion, contributed by persons or persons who have strong opinions about the issues. I obviously have no way of knowing if the contributors are personally involved, but the language is contentious and clearly advocates one side of the controversies. The information from mainstream news sources is sometimes mischaracterized or used selectively, and almost the entire section on the unionization issue is sourced to one publication that describes itself as adversarial and clearly has an adversarial POV about the hospital. That doesn’t necessarily disqualify it as a source, but it would certainly disqualify it as the ONLY source. I still fail to see why these sections belong in the HCA entry. I don’t like to remove whoe sections, but I can’t see any way around that. Amost42n81 (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Section on Dental Insurance

I removed the section that asserted that HCA had offered dental insurance in New Jersey in 1974. The New York Times articles that were cited are about a company called Health Corporation of America. HCA was known as Hospital Corporation of America in 1974, only six years after its founding in Tennessee, and there is no indication anywhere in the public record that HCA has ever offered dental insurance or has ever been known as Health Corporation of America. This is clearly in error, and the only remedy is to remove it. Amost42n81 (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Breach?

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/10/hca-healthcare-patient-data-stolen-and-for-sale-by-hackers.html 70.99.119.134 (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent events removed

Removed the following content as undue weight. Some may be readded in the future if relevant enough:

"In May 2020, the Intercept reported that HCA hired professional union busters costing $400 an hour—to break up proposed union actions by nurses in North Carolina complaining of cuts in staff, poor communication, and lack of PPE.

In February 2022 cleaners at HCA's London Bridge Hospital launched a campaign calling for living wages, fair treatment, provision of PPE and an end to the bullying and overwork culture at the hospital.

In April 2022 Corporate Watch collated a list of HCA scandals and controversies in the US and UK including privatisation lobbying, discrimination employment tribunals, complaints from workers, and fraud.

Physicians at HCA Bayonet Point allege that cost-cutting by HCA executives has made the hospital an unsafe environment for patients. In January 2022, there were 18 near misses among patients about to undergo surgery. In 2021, HCA executives cut the number of full-time anesthesiologists from 15 to 1. Doctors have noted unsanitary conditions, such as cockroaches in the operating room."

"===Palliative Care Program=== In 2023, NBC News published an investigation based on interviews with hospital personnel at 16 HCA hospitals across seven states that alleged HCA pushes patients into palliative and end-of-life care to deceptively improve the mortality rates at their facilities. HCA declined to comment on the allegation and denied having an enterprise-wide palliative care program. "

References