Talk:Health economics/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I only browsed through the bickering below, but in general, the page in question appears to be more "healthcare economics" than "health economics". Health economics has to do with everything health related, from substance abuse and epidemiology and health outcomes to insurance and gov't policies (those are what is considered by most to be "healthcare" topics). It comes down to markets. There is a market for "health" (if people eat big macs, do they have more heart attackts) and a market for "healthcare" (how will medicare change rx consumption). The boundry isn't discrete, but in a lot of cases they are easy to identify. This page could use a collaboration to rewrite from scratch.


"Health economics is a branch of economics concerned with the formal analysis of costs, benefits, management and consequences of health care. Health economics often uses mathematical models to synthesise data from biostatistics and epidemiology for support of medical decision making, both for individuals and for wider health policy."


An important note on the above definition

The health economics branch analyses both microeconomic and macroeconomic issues. The former include the factors shaping the demand for health and health care, the elasticity of demand with respect to the price of health services, the income and the individual preferences of the counsumer, the production process of goods and services related to health, and the various costs and the factors that influencing them. The latter,among other, include the problems of the health system as a whole, the health expenditures and their impact on the economy of a country, and the equilibrium of demand and supply at a macroeconomic level.


With this in mind the above definition, except of the fact that it is not a complete definition of health economics, it is also wrong and hence misleading. The author of the above definition provides a (wrong) definition of health economic evaluation which aims to inform the decision maker of the most efficient ways to use health care resources by weighting benefits against costs, and not of health economics. In addition, health economics despite the fact that it uses data from biostatistics and epidimiology is a distinctive discipline. Health management is also a different discipline. Mathematical analysis in health economics is used in theoretical health economics extensively such as hospital economics, and incentives and contracts. Decision analytic modelling in contrast which is used extensively in health economic evaluation uses statistical and econometric methods to evaluate individual interventions and public health programmes.


Obviously the author who insists in restoring this definition of health economics, is either someone who has his background in clinical sciences and naturally has no idea what he is talking about, or somebody whose ego is hurt. In either case the fact that he insists to include this definition on the main page, it does not keep pace with the team spirit and the principle of an accurate information source.


--etronic 20:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

First of all, your previous edits included deleting appropriate links as well as adding non-working links (i.e. health economic evaluation), inappropriate non-encyclopedic remarks (i.e. "note the distinction!"), and your signature to the actual article. You are a smart guy, but you have a bit to learn yourself.
Secondly, I was about to comment that you have good information to add, then I read your last paragraph. Your tirade indicates fully who has the bruised ego. Perhaps you should read these before you presume to lecture others:
Edwardian 23:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)



Obviously this is the way that some moderators (?) of this site greet their new members.


I had just created an account and tried to write for the first time. It is natural to make some mistakes at the beginning such as deleting some links by accident. The dead link was there because i had to stop writing the article for awhile but i would continue it later. You could had removed the link and not the entire paragraph and then restore the missing links. The same goes for the remark "note the distinction!" which only aimed to draw the attention of the reader to distinguish between the two closely related concepts. The same also goes for the signature. I do not see what is wrong with having my signature there. Anybody in this way can e-mail me and discuss any issues or ask any questions that he/she may have. If this is inappropriate you could have erased it and indicated it here in the discussion area or you could have just sent an e-mail.


Finally i know very well that i have good information to add and i certainly don't need you to confirm this. This is what i do for a living. The fact that you kept erasing the entire paragraph without having a clue of what i am talking about is at least strange (and irritating i may add), especially after i provided the relevant reference. I'm glad i wrote only one paragraph and not the entire article i was intending to submit. It would all be for nothing. For the sake of this site i would recommend you to erase the first definition as it is really misleading and to be honest only as comical it can be characterised.


--etronic 00:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

  • First, don't edit anyone else's entries in the Talk pages but your own.
  • Second, I'm not a moderator.
  • Third, it seems you expect benevolence from others but you don't intend to grant it in return.
  • Fourth, it appears someone gave you useful information in your talk page - reading through that should give you information as to why why the signature and the exclamatory remark were not warranted.
  • Fifth, despite what you may think, the comment regarding your good information wasn't intended to be a confirmation of your expertise, but rather to draw attention that your expertise contrasts with your manners (see the third point).
  • Sixth, keep in mind that your expertise in a particular area doesn't automatically grant you expertise in writing an encyclopedia article.
  • Seventh, you wrote within the text of the article: "The above definition is at least incomplete and hence misleading and should be removed". According to Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes: "Deleting useful content. A piece of content may be written poorly, yet still have a purpose. Consider what a sentence or paragraph tries to say. Clarify it instead of throwing it away. If the material seems miscategorized or out of place, consider moving the wayward material to another page, or creating a new page for it. If all else fails, and you can't resist removing a good chunk of content, it's usually best to move it to the article's "Talk page", which can be accessed using the "discussion" button at the top of each page. The author of the text once thought it valuable, so it is polite to preserve it for later discussion." Edwardian 00:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


Bullet 1: Nonsense. I did not edit your entry, i just put a space between my answer and yours. Bullet 2: That's why i put the question mark after the word "moderator". Bullet 3: I do not see where i asked for benevolence or why i should expect it from you. Again nonsense. Bullet 4: My honest mistake. Apologies for not doing so. Bullet 5: Nonsense. I am not the one who was erasing the entire paragraph repeatedly without any explanation. Bullet 6: My additional 4 year expertise in journalism gives me sufficient expertise in writing an encyclopedia article. Bullet 7: I had to finally do something for the fact that you were erasing what i was writing. At this stage i was not aware of the talk page. I would also like to point out that i only wanted to contribute an article on health economics. If i have to read a 200 page encyclopedia handbook first to do so then it certainly does not worth the effort.

NB: This is the last time that i am answering to your nonsense.


--etronic 01:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Bullet 1: The "History" section does not lie.
  • Bullet 2: That's why I answered.
  • Bullet 3: You seemed indignant about the way you were "greeted".
  • Bullet 4: See Bullet 6.
  • Bullet 5: In fact, you did. The "History" section does not lie.
  • Bullet 6: Evidently not.
  • Bullet 7: You shouldn't need to read a handbook to have common sense... or common courtesy. Edwardian 03:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


Anyone can see in the history that i only placed a line between your answer and mine. The entire text is untouched. You are either blind or a lier (or something else - use your imagination!) In addition, you are the one who was deleting the correct definition on the main page. I was deleting the wrong one - the one that you were unable to understand that was wrong. Again you are either blind or a lier (or something else - again use your imagination as it is obvious that you have plenty of that).

I have also noted (as everybody can also see from your contributions) that you had been writing in completely irrelevant topics. Obviously you are from those who write a bit of everything without knowing much (or anything) about it. In addition, most of your work on here is rewording, and some minor editing work (links etc) - you have no significant contributions. Despite all that you can still judge which definition of health economics is correct and rule it out accordingly.

And because you seem to be particularly good in plagiarising the encyclopedia manual you may want to have a look again in the Wikipedia:Assume good faith where it says that existing members should treat new members with patience. One cannot learn how to use the whole website within an hour.

Finally as regards your final comment then i have to say that people like you do not deserve courtesy - only disregard. The person that doesn't actually have common sense and was talking crap can be seen clearly seen from the history of these pages. Now go and do your minor editing elsewhere and leave me in peace.


--etronic 04:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


If you insist on the cowardly way of having your say but dismissing mine, so be it. Go in peace. Otherwise, I've placed my reply on my Talk page. Edwardian 06:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

A real kindergarten here!!! -- Brenda, 10/1/2005 _____________________________________________________________________________________________


The article ommits one notable contributor (if not founder) of the field of Health Economics, Victor R. Fuchs, who is the Henry J. Kaiser Jr professor emeritus at Stanford University. I took a course in Health Economics and I think I may make one or two edits to the main article soon. I prefer to work offline, do my homework, and then edit.Kyamz 14:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Kyamz