Talk:Health care industry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. |
| Start | rated as start-Class on the assessment scale |
| High | rated as high-importance on the assessment scale |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. |
| Start | This page has been rated as start-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance assessment scale |
 |
|
| Archives | |
|
|
|
| About archives • Edit this box |
Contents |
[edit] Why have this page
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)
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
- what is a profesional?
- who are they?jkhjkhkjhklhjklh
- 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)
[edit] Cleanup
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)
[edit] 06.17.07 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)
[edit] Investment Trends in Healthcare industry
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)
[edit] Merger proposal
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)
