![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
How should the "Standards" field be filled out for U.S. Hospitals? The explanation on the Template page is unclear to me. What is the standard that is supposed to be used for U.S. hospitals ( Joint Commission, ISO, etc) and how should it be worded in the infobox?-- Daveswagon 16:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Can someone look at University Medical Center of Southern Nevada and see why it is not converting to display the Level 1 trauma center link? I copied the line from another hospital that is working without any luck. Vegaswikian 22:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Can we update the template to add an optional parameter to accept the heliport identification, at least in the US. This is an official FAA registration number so it is important since it identifies which hospitals have air transport capabilities. In the US the coding example would be {{airport codes|||NV34}} which displays as ( FAA LID: NV34). Vegaswikian 22:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the articles using this template seem to have:
which appears to be the default value if the affiliation= parameter is not specified.
The implication of this default behaviour is that we know that all hospitals are affiliated to universities, and hence the lack of an affiliation= parameter is because WP knowledge is incomplete. But I'm not sure that is the case. Do non-teaching hospitals have such an affiliation?. If not then I would suggest that the default behaviour if no affiliation= parameter is presented should be not to report an affiliation at all. -- Chris j wood 13:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hallo, I've just used this template to expand the record for Chapel Allerton Hospital in the UK, and have a few comments on how it could be improved. PamD ( talk) 13:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Infobox hospital/Archive 3 | |
---|---|
Geography | |
Location | Montreal, Quebec, Canada |
Organization | |
Care system | RAMQ (Quebec medicare) |
Affiliated university | McGill University Faculty of Medicine |
Services | |
Emergency department | Psychiatric hospital |
History | |
Opened | July 19, 1881 |
Links | |
Website | (in English) Official Website |
Lists | Hospitals in Canada |
This template appears to be either defective or incomplete, or both, and may need "tweaking". See what happens when Psychiatric hospital is inserted. Strange.... Peter Horn 17:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Is "HealthCare" supposed to represent the ownership of the hospital? I'm not sure what "US:Medicare/Medicaid/Charity/Public" means. Medicare and Medicaid are just insurance programs, which are accepted in almost all hospitals, just like most private insurance plans. This is distinct from Veterans Health Administration-owned hospitals. It should be clarified if "Public" means government-owned, or open to the public, and if "Private" means privately owned or restricted-use. -- Beland ( talk) 00:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I suppose you could classify hospitals in the U.S. by ownership:
There are a number of different government entities that own hospitals.
Medicaid is a nationally funded program operated separately by each state (sometimes with supplemental local funds), which covers poor children, the disabled, and very poor adults, and various other eligibility restrictions including immigration status. Medicare (United States) is an entitlement for almost everyone over 65 years old, with caveats depending on immigration status. Both are simply government-operated health insurance plans (and Medicare requires small payments from participants for drugs and many services).
Yes, whether you have government or private insurance, you must generally find a public, for-profit, or non-profit hospital that accepts your insurance, or bear the cost yourself. Any for-profit, non-profit, or government hospital can choose to accept or not accept either type of government health insurance, just as they choose to accept or not accept each private insurance plan (though there might be strings attached in some cases).
I believe the way reimbursement rates are set is that the insurance plans negotiate the amount they will pay for any given type of service. This amount is fixed, and usually lower than the rate that people with no insurance are billed by the hospital. If the rate is lower than the cost of providing the service, the hospital is expected to eat the difference. Hospitals have the option to refuse to accept patients with any given type of insurance, if they feel the rates are too low or they are unable to reach agreement with the insurance provider. But this also means fewer patients for the hospitals, since the insurance company usually won't reimburse patients who get non-emergency care at non-participating hospitals, or they expect the patient to bear a larger percentage of the cost of service than they would at an "in network" hospital.
I think Medicare and Medicaid are "take it or leave it" deals. It seems like Congress is constantly fiddling with reimbursement rates, and they are reportedly set very low to save the government money. This does create situations where no local doctors will accept Medicare or Medicaid, and patients must either travel long distances to get certain types of care, or go without it.
I don't know of any hospitals that provide free care to just anyone who shows up like the NHS in the UK does. If you have health insurance of a type the hospital accepts, or if you can afford to pay on your own, you will be charged for services, even by a hospital that would provide free care to someone who can't pay. As far as I know, there are no hospitals dedicated solely to Medicare and Medicaid patients, though obviously hospitals that choose to provide care to people who cannot afford to pay will generally accept these types of insurance.
If you don't have health insurance or are unable to pay for your health care, you can show up at any emergency room, where I believe by federal law you must be seen by a doctor. This creates problems whereby people who should be seeing a primary care physician or visiting an urgent care clinic, end up getting expensive emergency room care instead. And the emergency room isn't necessarily going to provide you the long-term care you might need, or do complicated surgery you don't need right this minute.
For non-emergency medical care, if you are unable to pay, you can try to find a local hospital or doctor that will provide you free care. You might find a local government-owned hospital that will do this, such as San Francisco General. You may also find a private hospital that will take care of you, which relies on federal assistance (e.g. disproportionate share hospital program), local government assistance (e.g. the New Jersey indigent care program described by charity care, or Boston Medical Center which got funding from the city of Boston - at least before universal health insurance in Massachusetts), or private donations (often through a foundation, bequest, or religious order).
Government assistance doesn't necessarily cover the cost of providing emergency room or non-emergency hospital care to people who can't pay for it, which is creating financial problems for hospitals. Many emergency rooms are overcrowded with very long wait times, and many are so full that they must be put on "diversion" on a regular basis, meaning that ambulances are directed to bring patients elsewhere.
Not everyone who cannot afford to pay for needed medical care is eligible for Medicaid. Only Massachusetts has a universal health insurance policy, where everyone is supposed to have access to health insurance, paid for by their employer, themselves, or with full or partial government subsidy. In many cases across the country, people are simply screwed and have to go without needed medical care. Lots of people are aghast that this can happen in such a highly developed country, and universal health care is one of the top five most important national political issues right now.
As for the use of the word "system", because of the diversity of ownership, unlike the UK, there is no nationwide "system" into which government-owned hospitals open to the general public fall.
Confusingly the word is also used in other ways here:
Health care in the United States should probably be updated to make all of this clear. -- Beland ( talk) 00:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
As for the template parameters, I think the parameter "Care System" is confusing when applied internationally. I think an "owner" parameter would be useful to show the actual owner of a hospital, since from what I can tell in the UK that would be something like "University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust" rather than simply "NHS" and in the U.S. there are lots of small independent chains and individual hospitals. A second parameter showing "owner type" as either public hospital, non-profit hospital, or private hospital might be a good supplement.
It looks like in the UK and Canada, you can either go to a free government-funded hospital, or a payment-expected private hospital, but in the U.S. most hospitals are payment-expected regardless of ownership type. I think a separate parameter for payment model would be useful. Some illustrative examples:
UK:
Canada:
( Medicare (Canada) says that outside of Quebec, it is illegal to buy basic health insurance.)
U.S.:
Details about when "free" doesn't mean "free" (eyeglasses, non-citizens, etc.) can be left to the linked articles.
-- Beland ( talk) 00:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
We also need to make sure we can cope with the future shape of the NHS. With Monitor (the body that oversees foundation trusts) saying that these organisations will be independent of the NHS within two years, we need to be clear that the NHS won't own the FT hospital buildings - the NHS will (through PCTs) fund the services that are run there, through Payment By Results. That's not to say that all UK hospitals will be non-NHS, since community hospitals run by PCTs will still be very much in NHS ownership. waggers ( talk) 09:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone given further thought to this issue?
What do others think about changing HealthCare to Model, Org/Group to Owner, and adding Network? -- Scott Alter 02:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
System is defined by AHA as either a multihospital or a diversified single hospital system. A multihospital system is two or more hospitals owned, leased, sponsored, or contract managed by a central organization. Single, freestanding hospitals may be categorized as a system by bringing into membership three or more, and at least 25 percent, of their owned or leased non-hospital preacute or postacute health care organizations. System affiliation does not preclude network participation. Network is a group of hospitals, physicians, other providers, insurers and/or community agencies that work together to coordinate and deliver a broad spectrum of services to their community. Network participation does not preclude system affiliation.
Does anyone have any comments regarding the changes I made in the sandbox? If not, I'll implement it soon. -- Scott Alter 04:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Please note that there has been significant cleanup work performed on this template since the sandbox was forked. Please ensure that the changes required are merged to the new code rather than simply replacing it. Thanks folks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
How should the "Standards" field be filled out for U.S. Hospitals? The explanation on the Template page is unclear to me. What is the standard that is supposed to be used for U.S. hospitals ( Joint Commission, ISO, etc) and how should it be worded in the infobox?-- Daveswagon 16:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Can someone look at University Medical Center of Southern Nevada and see why it is not converting to display the Level 1 trauma center link? I copied the line from another hospital that is working without any luck. Vegaswikian 22:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Can we update the template to add an optional parameter to accept the heliport identification, at least in the US. This is an official FAA registration number so it is important since it identifies which hospitals have air transport capabilities. In the US the coding example would be {{airport codes|||NV34}} which displays as ( FAA LID: NV34). Vegaswikian 22:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the articles using this template seem to have:
which appears to be the default value if the affiliation= parameter is not specified.
The implication of this default behaviour is that we know that all hospitals are affiliated to universities, and hence the lack of an affiliation= parameter is because WP knowledge is incomplete. But I'm not sure that is the case. Do non-teaching hospitals have such an affiliation?. If not then I would suggest that the default behaviour if no affiliation= parameter is presented should be not to report an affiliation at all. -- Chris j wood 13:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hallo, I've just used this template to expand the record for Chapel Allerton Hospital in the UK, and have a few comments on how it could be improved. PamD ( talk) 13:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Infobox hospital/Archive 3 | |
---|---|
Geography | |
Location | Montreal, Quebec, Canada |
Organization | |
Care system | RAMQ (Quebec medicare) |
Affiliated university | McGill University Faculty of Medicine |
Services | |
Emergency department | Psychiatric hospital |
History | |
Opened | July 19, 1881 |
Links | |
Website | (in English) Official Website |
Lists | Hospitals in Canada |
This template appears to be either defective or incomplete, or both, and may need "tweaking". See what happens when Psychiatric hospital is inserted. Strange.... Peter Horn 17:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Is "HealthCare" supposed to represent the ownership of the hospital? I'm not sure what "US:Medicare/Medicaid/Charity/Public" means. Medicare and Medicaid are just insurance programs, which are accepted in almost all hospitals, just like most private insurance plans. This is distinct from Veterans Health Administration-owned hospitals. It should be clarified if "Public" means government-owned, or open to the public, and if "Private" means privately owned or restricted-use. -- Beland ( talk) 00:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I suppose you could classify hospitals in the U.S. by ownership:
There are a number of different government entities that own hospitals.
Medicaid is a nationally funded program operated separately by each state (sometimes with supplemental local funds), which covers poor children, the disabled, and very poor adults, and various other eligibility restrictions including immigration status. Medicare (United States) is an entitlement for almost everyone over 65 years old, with caveats depending on immigration status. Both are simply government-operated health insurance plans (and Medicare requires small payments from participants for drugs and many services).
Yes, whether you have government or private insurance, you must generally find a public, for-profit, or non-profit hospital that accepts your insurance, or bear the cost yourself. Any for-profit, non-profit, or government hospital can choose to accept or not accept either type of government health insurance, just as they choose to accept or not accept each private insurance plan (though there might be strings attached in some cases).
I believe the way reimbursement rates are set is that the insurance plans negotiate the amount they will pay for any given type of service. This amount is fixed, and usually lower than the rate that people with no insurance are billed by the hospital. If the rate is lower than the cost of providing the service, the hospital is expected to eat the difference. Hospitals have the option to refuse to accept patients with any given type of insurance, if they feel the rates are too low or they are unable to reach agreement with the insurance provider. But this also means fewer patients for the hospitals, since the insurance company usually won't reimburse patients who get non-emergency care at non-participating hospitals, or they expect the patient to bear a larger percentage of the cost of service than they would at an "in network" hospital.
I think Medicare and Medicaid are "take it or leave it" deals. It seems like Congress is constantly fiddling with reimbursement rates, and they are reportedly set very low to save the government money. This does create situations where no local doctors will accept Medicare or Medicaid, and patients must either travel long distances to get certain types of care, or go without it.
I don't know of any hospitals that provide free care to just anyone who shows up like the NHS in the UK does. If you have health insurance of a type the hospital accepts, or if you can afford to pay on your own, you will be charged for services, even by a hospital that would provide free care to someone who can't pay. As far as I know, there are no hospitals dedicated solely to Medicare and Medicaid patients, though obviously hospitals that choose to provide care to people who cannot afford to pay will generally accept these types of insurance.
If you don't have health insurance or are unable to pay for your health care, you can show up at any emergency room, where I believe by federal law you must be seen by a doctor. This creates problems whereby people who should be seeing a primary care physician or visiting an urgent care clinic, end up getting expensive emergency room care instead. And the emergency room isn't necessarily going to provide you the long-term care you might need, or do complicated surgery you don't need right this minute.
For non-emergency medical care, if you are unable to pay, you can try to find a local hospital or doctor that will provide you free care. You might find a local government-owned hospital that will do this, such as San Francisco General. You may also find a private hospital that will take care of you, which relies on federal assistance (e.g. disproportionate share hospital program), local government assistance (e.g. the New Jersey indigent care program described by charity care, or Boston Medical Center which got funding from the city of Boston - at least before universal health insurance in Massachusetts), or private donations (often through a foundation, bequest, or religious order).
Government assistance doesn't necessarily cover the cost of providing emergency room or non-emergency hospital care to people who can't pay for it, which is creating financial problems for hospitals. Many emergency rooms are overcrowded with very long wait times, and many are so full that they must be put on "diversion" on a regular basis, meaning that ambulances are directed to bring patients elsewhere.
Not everyone who cannot afford to pay for needed medical care is eligible for Medicaid. Only Massachusetts has a universal health insurance policy, where everyone is supposed to have access to health insurance, paid for by their employer, themselves, or with full or partial government subsidy. In many cases across the country, people are simply screwed and have to go without needed medical care. Lots of people are aghast that this can happen in such a highly developed country, and universal health care is one of the top five most important national political issues right now.
As for the use of the word "system", because of the diversity of ownership, unlike the UK, there is no nationwide "system" into which government-owned hospitals open to the general public fall.
Confusingly the word is also used in other ways here:
Health care in the United States should probably be updated to make all of this clear. -- Beland ( talk) 00:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
As for the template parameters, I think the parameter "Care System" is confusing when applied internationally. I think an "owner" parameter would be useful to show the actual owner of a hospital, since from what I can tell in the UK that would be something like "University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust" rather than simply "NHS" and in the U.S. there are lots of small independent chains and individual hospitals. A second parameter showing "owner type" as either public hospital, non-profit hospital, or private hospital might be a good supplement.
It looks like in the UK and Canada, you can either go to a free government-funded hospital, or a payment-expected private hospital, but in the U.S. most hospitals are payment-expected regardless of ownership type. I think a separate parameter for payment model would be useful. Some illustrative examples:
UK:
Canada:
( Medicare (Canada) says that outside of Quebec, it is illegal to buy basic health insurance.)
U.S.:
Details about when "free" doesn't mean "free" (eyeglasses, non-citizens, etc.) can be left to the linked articles.
-- Beland ( talk) 00:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
We also need to make sure we can cope with the future shape of the NHS. With Monitor (the body that oversees foundation trusts) saying that these organisations will be independent of the NHS within two years, we need to be clear that the NHS won't own the FT hospital buildings - the NHS will (through PCTs) fund the services that are run there, through Payment By Results. That's not to say that all UK hospitals will be non-NHS, since community hospitals run by PCTs will still be very much in NHS ownership. waggers ( talk) 09:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone given further thought to this issue?
What do others think about changing HealthCare to Model, Org/Group to Owner, and adding Network? -- Scott Alter 02:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
System is defined by AHA as either a multihospital or a diversified single hospital system. A multihospital system is two or more hospitals owned, leased, sponsored, or contract managed by a central organization. Single, freestanding hospitals may be categorized as a system by bringing into membership three or more, and at least 25 percent, of their owned or leased non-hospital preacute or postacute health care organizations. System affiliation does not preclude network participation. Network is a group of hospitals, physicians, other providers, insurers and/or community agencies that work together to coordinate and deliver a broad spectrum of services to their community. Network participation does not preclude system affiliation.
Does anyone have any comments regarding the changes I made in the sandbox? If not, I'll implement it soon. -- Scott Alter 04:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Please note that there has been significant cleanup work performed on this template since the sandbox was forked. Please ensure that the changes required are merged to the new code rather than simply replacing it. Thanks folks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)