Talk:Tenet Healthcare

message: Regancy's version of this page includes no information past 2007. It's now 2010. Much of the information he includes is about things that happend in the early 2000s and late 1990s. Also, the list of hospitals is incomplete. Delilah0719's entry is much more updated, well-sourced and more complete. Delilah0719 (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very well, but you can "update" an article without removing the existing, relevant, well referenced content. Also the addition of the 'awards' section fails WP:VERIFY. Unless you can provide a reliable source to back it up, the section should not be on the article. -Regancy42 (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Actually, what Delilah0719 wrote was essentially company propaganda and not well referenced and not from reliable sources.  Delilah0719 is probably a PR person from Tenet Healthcare.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.26.89 (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Another correction for Delilah0719, 2007 is not early 2000's.  I noticed a number of references for the New York Times.  Are you saying your references are more reliable than those?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.26.89 (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Re

message: Re the history section. This reads like the company's news release. The "legacy" issues referred to happen to include settling the largest fraud case in U.S. history, a huge national investigation, an item I would feel would be relevant. Much has been written about HCA's massive fraud.
<“LARGEST HEALTH CARE FRAUD CASE IN U.S. HISTORY SETTLED, HCA INVESTIGATION NETS RECORD TOTAL OF $1.7 BILLION” DOJ press release, 26 June 2003. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2003/June/03_civ_386.htm.>
Also involved were multiple criminal pleas.
Also, the then head of HCA, Richard Scott, is now heading the effort to derail President Obama's health proposals. Scott now heads "Conservatives for Patient Rights". <“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/10/AR2009051002243.html>
Really, this article is quite far off the mark of a proper and balanced piece on HCA's very bad record. HCA is, afterall, this country's largest or second largest hospital chain.
(98.246.163.250 (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this article needs a more neutral tone, and the controversy section needs to be organized with some subheadings. It is just a jumble of anything negative now, without much order. Madridrealy (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree it would be nice if the article was more neutral.  However, I think the problem is with the culture of Tenet Healthcare.  The company needs to stay out of the news in a negative sense and stop committing outright and borderline fraud.  Perhaps, Tenet Healthcare could do something really novel like save Medicare money and not finding loopholes in the law to overcharge patients (e.g. outlier payments).  Because of all the bad publicity that they have generated themselves, I wonder if they are going to change their name again. It won't matter because we will certainly make a note of it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.15.123 (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

text: After the above statement, I researched HCA.  I found the 1.7 billion that they paid to settle fraud charges, but other than that I didn't find much in the news, when compared to Tenet Healthcare.  The things that tenet was accused of are certainly more poignant than HCA like giving people unnecessary heart operations and admitting people into psychiatric institutions without their consent in addition to committing medicare fraud.  In addition, HCA as far as I can tell had only 1 corporate integrity agreement in 2001 with HHS, while Tenet had two: one in 1994 and one in 2006.  Also, the amount paid by tenet in total ($900 milllion+$400 million+$400 million) is close to the amount paid by HCA, despite the fact the company is 1/3 the size.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.71.139.94 (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Re

message: I undid the revisions of January 11, 2010, by Helen Humphrey, who is a PR person for Tenent.  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/helenhumphrey>  XLinkBot tried to protect the page, but she overrode the bot's revision.  Perhaps the article needs some more content about aspects of Tenent besides the fraud, but it certainly does not need to be replaced by a press release.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aatforwiki (talk • contribs) 02:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: XLinkBot tried to protect this page but Helen Humphrey undid it

message: Far too much of the article relies on blogs and unreliable sources.  The article needs a scrubbing, and there needs to be an expansion of the article so it isn't so unbalanced.  Tenet Healthcare is more than its controversies, and any healthcare corporation of this size is going to have a substantial number of lawsuits.  THF (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *No, I'm saying that blogs and lawyer-websites are unreliable sources.  Why did Yum Foods change its name?  Lots of companies change their names, lots of companies dealing with complex Medicare regulations face lawsuits with allegations of criminality; DOJ investigations into healthcare fraud have the advantage of threatening draconian penalties such that even an innocent company (and I make no claim that Tenet is innocent or guilty) is forced to settle for hundreds of millions of dollars.  But in any event, WP:NOT#CHAT. THF (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (reply) A large part of the references are from New York Times, Bloomberg and the U.S. Justice Department, which are neither blogs or lawyer websites.  It was probably the timing of the name change after pleading guilty in federal court in 1994 that made me think it was related, which is referenced to an article in "Pediatrics", which is neither a blog or lawyers website.  Furthermore, when you check the Tenet healthcare website (http://www.tenethealth.com/pages/home.aspx) and search for "history", you get an article that starts "Since 2003, ....", which seems kind of recent considering the company was founded in 1967.  Perhaps, someone should add something about their recent history (i.e. Since 2003) about overcoming their past controversies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.15.123 (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, now that I've removed most of the blogs and spam-sites, the references look a lot better.  There were also links to Wikipedia mirrors of this article, which isn't quite reliable sourcing. THF (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job.  No need to put blog or lawyer website entries, when there are plenty of other reliable sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.15.123 (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and RS problems 

message: Reads like a PR release from the company  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.147.28.77 (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: After a careful read, I have to say it does not read like a PR release. I did however find some soft spots which I'll act upon shortly. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any comments about my edits. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute Summary 

message: Found this one as 404 http://www.tenethealth.com/Community/Documents/2013%20Corporate%20Sustainability%20Report/2013Tenet-SustainabilityReport-PUBLISH.pdf  If there are any more list them here.Yojimbo1941 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links 

message: Removing stale COI tag from 2016 according to tag instructions. Content looks pretty good as is: well sourced, controversy section plump and well balanced, and it looks like swathes of corporate drivel have been purged since 2016. I think the best way to improve it now would be moving minor M&A details to side pages. 71.163.163.163 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI template 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: not enough for sep article  DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that there seem to have been multiple parts to this proposal, a discussion not having been started for any other than Abrazo West. Given this, I'd oppose the set unless a coherent plan for the set was proposed; those tagged include:
*Abrazo Arizona Heart Hospital
*Abrazo Arrowhead Campus
*Abrazo Central Campus
*Abrazo Scottsdale Campus
*Abrazo West Campus
Klbrain (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Oppose merging hospital articles into a health network article is a bad idea. Catfurball (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Abrazo West Campus]] into [[Tenet Healthcare]]