Talk:Health care industry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
e·h·w·Stock post message.svg To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Expand : use the Yuan, 2007 news article (in References) to expand content; only a small amount of potentially useful information has been drawn from this article.
WikiProject Business (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  Quality: Start-Class
 High  Importance: High
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  Quality: Start-Class
 Low  Importance: Low

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)

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)


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)

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)

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)

Investment Trends in Healthcare industry[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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
Disagree. The Health field article is about something else completely! --Tom (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: I agree with Tom. --Historian 1000 (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Unrelated 'See Also' link[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)