Talk:Kaiser Permanente

Archive

I have created an archive of the old discussions. There were no current discussions about improving this article, and the talk page was really long. In case anyone needs to know in the future, I used the Move Page method. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC) . [Written by a new (?) editor.]

"As a physician who has studied Kaiser for 20 years - some 30,000 hours - this summary is completely misleading. I have tried to correct things in the past - erased in the same hour. But if crap is what you want ... that is what you will get. If you find an editor who is not in Kaiser's pocket, let me know.

"Charles Phillips, MD - cphil49401@aoo.com - aka Hospital Cop.

"It is now June 2018. While I see my note from the past put first, I do not take this to mean that you want real facts. So, best of luck. CP" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.210.213.129 (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kaiser Permanente.png

Image:Kaiser Permanente.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lupoe murders

We have to be careful what we write. BLP is for people, not entities, but even entities deserve fair consideration. We don't know if a clerk told Lupoe to kill himself. Disclaimer: I don't have any relationship, past or present, with Kaiser. In fact, I don't think particularly highly of them Spevw (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We do know what we read in reliable sources. We can report what they say, but need to make sure we don't go beyond what they say. However I'm not sure that this tragedy belongs in the article. I'm sure that, unfortunately, many corporations have fired people who've gone on to commit suicide. Even if the boss did make the alleged comment, it does not make the corporation culpable.   Will Beback  talk  02:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Good point. Agree. Ucla90024 (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone deleted the material, and it was restored, so I looked into it to see if there was more reporting - if the story had "legs". The only two reports in the past week have been a general editorial about seeking assistance before situations become desperate [1] and a report about the funerals.[2] The latter includes the information that the parents were fired "for trying to defraud their employer". Rather than fill out the story with this unhappy detail, I again think it's better to remove the material from this article so that's what I'm goping to do. It's a sad case, but it really isn't about Kaiser.   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So I am not sure who is behind the IP that has multiple times cut the story and references both from the KP article and from the current event page when the story happened. I personally am fine with Lupoe not being in the KP article, feel that as they are dead, they cannot defend against the charge of "trying to defraud their employer" (which I feel is suspect, but what ever), and believe that Kaiser did not pull the trigger on Lupoe to pull the trigger on his family. I do believe it is part of a larger story reflective of Kaiser's handling and support of it's employees as well as reflective of the economy of Wilmington. But that is not what the Wikipedia article is about.

Thank you for letting me having my say. Peace, rkmlai (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Dubious?

"One of the most dubious ventures of the Permanente Company is Kaiser Permanente Ventures, a venture capital firm that invests in emerging medical technologies.[4]" Why is this dubious? Magmagoblin2 (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's weasely at best, and likely just a random editor's opinion. I suspect the editor that inserted it may find it "dubious" that a not-for-profit health plan has a for-profit investment arm, but it's unsourced and ought to be removed. jæs (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Article not NPOV

In reading through this article, it appears to have a flavor more like a polemic antipathetic to Henry Kaiser and appears editorial and very POV in nature, especially in the HISTORY section. I would suggest the following: 1) if there is serious evidence that Henry Kaiser's re-involvement with the organization caused problems, then remove judgmental words like 'micromanaged' and cite sources with hard numbers, ie show with properly footnoted citations that revenue X1 and membership X2 went to some lower levels Y1 and Y2. 2) while some of the language used here may be quoted from footnoted sources, it is still clearly judgmental in nature and needs to be toned down to meet the NPOV criterion "Prefer non-judgmental language"; 3 Follow the NPOV standards throughout the article... I see from a preceding post here that much of the editing here has been done by a former KP employee with an ax grind... perhaps a more neutral editor who has access to the mentioned and footnoted sources and to other citations on the subject that balances the OPINION shown here can come up with a reasonable re-wording L. Greg (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is neutral; you're reading too much into it. I drafted most of the first part of the history section, which was based on a history of Kaiser Permanente that was done with KP's cooperation (but was not sponsored by it) and was clearly pro-KP and pro-HMO. There was a LOT of detail in there about how Henry Kaiser came in and along with the hapless Garfield nearly ran KP into the ground until Clifford Keene took over. But I didn't have the time or energy to put all that in, plus 90% of people aren't interested in reading all that tedious detail (this is an encyclopedia, not a compendium). That's why I wrote that section the way I did, to summarize the content of the book so readers interested in the gory details can go pursue them if they need it. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Kaiser Foundation

This Canadian mental health organization shares a logo, thus is somehow connected. a link should be provided, not sure where, or whether it deserves a full section.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The "somehow connected" appears to be via people, and disclaims any institutional links. The Canadian group's "about the founder" page states

"In 1985, Mr. Kaiser established and funded the Kaiser Foundation as a separate and distinct entity from other Kaiser family endeavours."

"Mr. Kaiser and his family have a long history in the not-for-profit health care field through the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and through the Kaiser Permanente HMO. Kaiser Permanente was the first HMO established in the United States. Mr. Kaiser is Chairman Emeritus of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation."

So there may be some linkage to the Kaiser Family Foundation, but there appears to be no formal connection to Kaiser Permanente. Argyriou (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Medical centers

with 35 medical centers (hospitals), i think we should have them included in the article. any of them which offer Emergency Services should have their own articles, esp. if they have high trauma center ratings.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

UK/British health service (NHS)

The reference to the NHS and UK Department of Health is too favourable to Kaiser Permanente (KP). The study was conducted more than 10 years ago and its impact on NHS/UK health services is vastly overstated. The issue of health care reform in the UK is extremely politically sensitive at the moment and the KP/UK health connection here is written in a manner which seems to overstate its influence, coming across as politically biased towards certain party political ideas. It's just not very objective.

Adding Board of Directors and National Leadership

Greetings. The "Governance" section is a bit outdated and I would like to add a listing for Kaiser Permanente's current Boards of Directors and national leadership. I have included URLs for each leader's executive biography from Kaiser Permanente's corporate news website; in addition, this URL can serve as a third-party citation for this data: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/people.asp?privcapId=173830

The suggested addition begins below. Thank you for your consideration.

Board of Directors Bernard J. Tyson Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Christine K. Cassel, MD, MACP

Thomas W. Chapman, MPH, EdD

Jeff Epstein

Daniel P. Garcia, JD Senior vice president and chief compliance and privacy officer

William R. Graber

J. Eugene Grigsby

Judith A. Johansen, JD

Kim J. Kaiser

Philip A. Marineau

Edward Pei

Meg Porfido, JD

Richard P. Shannon, MD

Cynthia A. Telles, PhD

Kaiser Permanente National Leaders

Bernard J. Tyson Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Jack Cochran, MD, FACS Executive director, The Permanente Federation, LLC

Gregory A. Adams Executive vice president, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and Health Plan; Group president, Kaiser Permanente Northern California and Mid-Atlantic States; President, Kaiser Permanente Northern California

Benjamin K. Chu, MD, MPH, MACP Executive vice president, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and Health Plan; Group president, Kaiser Permanente Southern California and Hawaii; President, Kaiser Permanente Southern California

Patrick Courneya, MD Executive vice president, Hospitals, Quality and Care Delivery Excellence; chief medical officer, Medicare Advantage, Cost and Prescription Drug Plans

Philip Fasano Executive vice president and chief information officer

Kathy Lancaster Executive vice president and chief financial officer, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and Health Plan

Donna Lynne, DrPH Executive vice president Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and Health Plan, Inc.; Group president, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Northwest and Georgia; President, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Colorado

Arthur M. Southam, MD, MBA, MPH Executive vice president, Health Plan Operations

Anthony A. Barrueta Senior vice president, Government Relations Raymond J. Baxter, PhD Senior vice president, Community Benefit, Research and Health Policy

Chuck Columbus Senior vice president and chief Human Resources officer, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and Health Plan

Amy Compton-Phillips, MD Associate executive director, Quality, The Permanente Federation

Chris Grant Senior vice president, Corporate Development, Care Delivery Strategy and Venture Investments

Scott Young, MD Associate executive director, Clinical Care and Innovation, The Permanente Federation, Senior medical director and executive director, Care Management Institute

Mark Zemelman Senior vice president and general counsel

vggolla (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added a section for the board of directors. I didn't find Wikipedia bios for any of the directors. I'm not sure the rest of the org chart would add much to the article. Given limited resources, keeping this sort of information up-to-date is a challenge for Wikipedia. It might be more useful to direct users to an official Kaiser website where they could find this info. Best regards,—Stepheng3 (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NOR detected

The following sentence appears to violate Wikipedia:No original research: "Historians now believe then-President Richard Nixon specifically had Kaiser Permanente in mind when he signed the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, as the organization was mentioned in an Oval Office discussion of the Act, where John Ehrlichman characterized Kaiser's philosophy thus: "All the incentives are toward less medical care, because the less care they give them, the more money they make." The first clause of this sentence is not actually stated in the source cited and is thus clearly original research. No particular "historian" is specifically quoted or cited as drawing that inference about what Nixon was thinking. Any objections before I remove this clear violation of Wikipedia policy? --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a lot about this on the archive page of this page, Coolcaesar. Are you saying [3] is a false transcript? It has a source - an audio file it links to. Only that would make it a "clear violation of Wikipedia policy", no? ... Oh, I guess you're saying "no particular historian" is unsupported - the quote is accurate but the attribution to "historians" isn't supported by a RS? --Elvey^(t•c) 14:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

"Historians" is a weasel word. Cite to specific historians and then rephrase it to say, "Several historians, such as A, B, and C, now believe..." Otherwise the statement is unsupported. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen any movement on this issue for over five years. The weasel word issue I pointed out above is a problem, but now that I've noticed this again five years later, what strikes me as indefensible is the clear violation of WP:NOR.

It's one thing to say that Ehrlichman said X in Nixon's presence. Fair enough. That is a fair statement supported by the transcript and the underlying audio recording. But it's another to articulate an inference that Nixon therefore had X in mind at the time he signed the HMO Act. That's original research in clear violation of WP:NOR and it has to go unless it's supported by a citation to a published reliable source that makes that inference based on the underlying recording, or unless it can be supported by a direct quote from Nixon himself. Any objections before I take out the trash? --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I just took out the trash. Unless you've got a signing statement to point to, or an unequivocal admission by Nixon that he did have Kaiser Permanente in mind in signing the bill, the statement is speculative and hence original research in violation of WP:NOR. Anyone who has studied the history of American politics is aware that lots of people say lots of things all the time to politicians to lobby for or against proposed legislation. We require lobbyists to register just to keep track of all the stuff coming out of their mouths. As a result, it's very difficult to say for certain that a politician had any particular sentiment in mind at the time they signed a bill, unless the relevant discussions immediately preceded the signing of the bill. In this case, the quoted sentence was from a conversation in February 1971, but Nixon didn't sign the bill until December 1973. A much bigger thing started to happen to Nixon in between. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Non-neutral POV content?

Hi. Vince from KP here. I’ve noticed that there’s an awful lot of editorializing that has crept into this article within the last week. More specifically, the section “Grossly Inadequate Mental Health Care” strikes me as very non-NPOV.

As I look at the article more, it also looks like someone copied the veterans section from a KP source. Most folks in my position probably wouldn’t complain, but I want to make sure we do right by Wikipedia just as much as we might seek fair treatment here.

Anyone willing to help here? Alternatively, I can author suggested text in my Sandbox for you all to evaluate. Let me know, and thank you. vggolla (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd love to hear from Kaiser's current drug purchasing manager [4] about why the Kaiser pharmacy charges 5-10 times as much for some generics compared to, say, Target. --Elvey^(t•c) 14:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you follow the link I added? There's some encyclopedic content there. Certainly enlightening (in conjunction with the for-profit/not-for-profit split info) that Kaiser charges 5-10 TIMES as much <sic> as for-profit Target does to provide the same generic drug. Anyone willing to help flesh out some encyclopedic content about that?--Elvey^(t•c) 19:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Elvey what is the content you are proposing? Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog Clarification regarding what parts of KP are/aren't for-profit, such as Kaiser's labs and pharmacies. Information I don't have access to, but Vince may.--Elvey^(t•c) 00:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That is a different question. In any case, an answer from the drug purchasing manager posted here would not be a reliable source from which to create content. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You really frequently misinterpret/misrepresent - I didn't imply Vince was the drug purchasing manager or a RS. Rather, I said Kaiser's drug purchasing manager is discussed here: [5]. It's not a 'different question'. It's not a question at all. Again you misinterpret/misrepresent. Please stop doing that. If you have nothing constructive to say, please be quiet! --Elvey^(t•c) 17:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

we seem to miscommunicate frequently, yes. you started this thread wanting to ask their drug purchasing manager questions and when I asked what that had to do with content, you replied with the comment about clarifying their profit vs nonprofit business. Now you say that is not why you wanted to hear from their drug manager. Going around in circles here. Anyway, don't know what more there is to say here. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You say that you don't know what more there is to say. Just keep your mouth shut when it comes to commenting about what I do or don't do or say or think or want. Please. I'm sick and tired of you really frequently misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I've said. I didn't imply Vince was the drug purchasing manager or a RS. Period. Now you try to tell me why I started this thread, when I didn't start it at all. Vggolla did. Please. Don't. Reply. --Elvey^(t•c) 19:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

daaaamnnn this got intense!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.75.247.125 (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Whitewashing

Example: I noticed that the section “Grossly Inadequate Mental Health Care” seems to have been removed from the article entirely. Seems hard to see the imposition and unappealed payment of "a $4 million fine against Kaiser for not providing adequate health care to its customers" and a strike over the care failures as entirely unworthy of mention. The section above suggests a possible COI issue. User:Jytdog, please comment on your edit and suggest solution. --Elvey^(t•c) 07:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

i don't know if you are aware but there is a labor dispute between Kaiser and some of their staff. One of the union's arguments is that Kaiser is hurting patients by not providing enough staff to give adequate care. That content was clearly driven by that conflict and clearly violated NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Addressed/resolved. Discussion is here.--Elvey^(t•c) 09:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Still a lot of whitewashing needs remediation. E.g. no longer any mention of the $20-30 Billion in reserves KP has stashed away. http://www.marinij.com/health/20150319/california-drops-hammer-on-blue-shield-tax-exempt-status/1 says "Kaiser Permanente ... has $21.7 billion in cash reserves, more than 1,600 times the amount required by state regulations."--Elvey^(t•c) 15:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

are you for some reason unable to edit the article? Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Again: The WP:DR POLICY states, "always explain your changes in the edit summary." and "If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself". Will you agree to start honoring that?--Elvey^(t•c) 23:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• I did and do. Like i said, if there is NPOV well-sourced content you want to add, WP:FIXIT. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Black hat SEO - search engine optimization

The source code of the page that is the #1 hit at https://www.google.com/search?q=kaiser+for-profit+pharmacies includes the text "for-profit, retail pharmacies filled 73% of U.S. prescriptions in the first half of 2011, and many have to answer to shareholders. They’re more focused on turning a profit than helping you reduce your pharmacy costs." but the web page does not include that content. It appears to be invisible and appears backward when in-page searching is used. Screen shot. --Elvey^(t•c) 07:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

What does this have to do, with the content or sourcing of this article? Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

See blinders.--Elvey^(t•c) 00:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not contributors. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking for Help with Non-NPOV Content

Hello. Vince from KP here. We continue to see additional editorializing in this article. A link has been added here to a Mercury News article that is 90-plus percent about another health plan with which Kaiser Permanente has zero affiliation. It appears to be an effort to link our organizations in a 'guilt by association' method, seems to be non-NPOV, and very much resembles previous non-NPOV content that I've flagged previously. Thank you for your consideration.vggolla (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Mr Golla. Who owns Kaiser's labs and pharmacies? Are they for-profit or not-for profit? Can you point us to any Reliable Sources for that information, or for the information from the source that you don't like? I'm curious as to why the Kaiser pharmacy charges 5-10 times as much for some generics compared to, say, Target for prescriptions, or Dollar Tree for OTC meds. Have any answers? I'd be more keen to address your concerns if you'd made some effort to address mine, which I asked a month ago. --Elvey^(t•c) 07:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Again Elvey those questions are not appropriate, as you cannot use the answers to build content. Do not use Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy, per WP:SOAP Jytdog (talk) 3:03 am, Today (UTC−7)

OK, so you added a question about sources for part of it You should WP:REDACT when changing a comment after someone responds to it, per WP:TPG. You are still asking him directly about pricing, which remains an abuse of Wikipedia per WP:SOAP. Please don't do that. Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Some things I think the article could use reliably sourced content to cover: A 'Convenience of care' section. (You can walk from doctor to specialist to pharmacist. Prescriptions are online. Etc.) Feel free to post some to a sandbox. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Issue with this Mercury News article addressed by burying it far down the page in a Cash Reserves section. --Elvey^(t•c) 16:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It is also against the TPG to mischaracterize what other people do and say. In this series of edits I moved content into the body that was only in the lead into a new section, which I gave more WEIGHT to by adding yet more content from that source and from another source that wasn't used in the article before, and then i went to the lead and summarized the whole "Concerns and violations" which wasn't summarized there before. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you did those things too. Belated kudos for that. And what I said was true - you moved the http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci_27749247/california-drops-hammer-blue-shield-tax-exempt-status link far down the page to a Cash Reserves section.--Elvey^(t•c) 22:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Updating annual report data

Greetings - Vince from Kaiser Permanente. We've just released our new annual report and all of the demographic data in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry is significantly out of date. Could I offer this URL as the basis to change these items? Below is the data in the current entry, followed by the updated data in our most recent annual report.

9.1 million members >> 9.6 million members 174,425 employees >> 177,445 employees 17,425 physicians >> 17,791 physicians 49,778 nurses ((new data, would offer that the audience would likely be interested in this specific measure)) 38 medical centers >> 38 medical centers 608 medical offices >> 620 medical offices $53.1 billion operating revenue >> $56.4 billion operating revenue $2.7 billion net income >> $3.1 billion net income

While I recognize that some will see an annual report reference as NNPOV, I would offer that this merely replaces out-of-date data with the most current annual report data we have available.

Alternatively, as User:StephEng3 suggested here on 00:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC), would you prefer to link to our website so that users have up-to-the-minute information for these sorts of important organizational facts? vggolla (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

References

please make those simple, factual updates yourself and update the source. I will check when you are done. Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, that was good. Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

New Annual Report; New Topline Data

Greetings. Vince from Kaiser Permanente here. Thank you for your assistance one year ago in updating the basic data for our organization via our annual report. Our latest report is now out -

and I would like to update the basic information in the first two paragraphs of this page, and the callout box in the right margin. We've recently had a journalist hit this page and ask about the differences in the data; thus, it would be helpful to update this as soon as convenient. I'm also happy to make those basic edits and ask user:Jytdog or others to review, as I did 00:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC). Please advise, and thank you.

References

vggolla (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

comments

Sept. 6, 2016 - I do not understand this "Talk" section or how it might relate to improvement of the master document on Kaiser Permanente - wkipedia; that is missing all of the following:

1. in 1997 after budget shortfalls related to the Balanced Budget Act, the Permanente physicians staged a coup in Oakland where they presented the Permanente Federation as the new, central MD organization with an MD to sit permanently near (same floor of the Ordway Building) the KP charities CEO, created the Kaiser Permanente Partnership Group (KPPG) with Dr. Crosson as the lead "co-chair" that met monthly for ten years under Dr. Crosson and told the public, charity boards - Plan and Hospitals - what to do; as Dr. Crosson dictated for the KP Oral History at the Bancroft Library, the charity Boards followed the KPPG advice "99 %";

2. The purpose of the physicians demanding more control is that since 1960 in the KP Medical Service Agreement - copy in Library of Congress - Article K - there has been a profit split of 50:50 between the Plan and the MDs which comes out for each of perhaps 6000 partners over $5000 a month in delayed income, and the MDs explained in the Permanente Journal that if the money dipped this created for KP "near death" situations - the clear implication was that if there was no massive MD profit and the partners would quit;

3. This KP Wikipedia article (we are "talk"-ing" about) tells many fibs, e.g. that the MDs are still primarily regional in governance (No) and that they are only "salaried" (No), - the latter "salaried" term misses the whole profit split; that profit split was called in 1956 the "Tahoe Agreement," reflected in every MSA and regional derivatives (Kansas Courthouse), and was updated after the coup to become "Tahoe Two" though "Kaiser" Public Relations has tried to hide or minimize the profit split ever since;

4. Any attempt to "edit" the main KP-Wikipedia document lasts less than 24 hours without explanation - so it is than really just another Public Relations document for Kaiser Permanente fooling the readers in the first half and then losing the readers in the second half with minutia about less global contests; even their the large renal transplant debacle fine is not mentioned - perhaps $5 million (though Kaiser has many ways to pay such things through shifting charity donations);

5. The Kaiser Health News is the main product of the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) the latter which is closely related - despite protestations - to the Kaiser Permanente three headed organization, e.g. Kim Kaiser was on the KFF Board as trustee and is now on the KP Board (there is always a family member); KHN in Washington, DC has swallowed up many of the best health care reporters who previously would report both sides of real issues;

6. The Affordable Care Act - Obamacare - has created a Blue Ribbon Panel called PCORI - Patient Centered Outcome Research Institute - which is controlled by Kaiser through CEO Joe Selby, MD and Board Member Sharon Levine (both of which are at risk like all current or past MD partners with having their huge vested retirements withdraw because they are "alienable" or removable if loyalty to KP is ever disputed); Dr. Selby was with Kaiser for 27 years and Dr. Levine (plus her MD husband Dr. Crosson) for 35 years - of these three only Dr. Levine is still there in the number two position - The Associate Director of The Permanente Medical Group with the Director always being Dr. Mark Robert Pearl.

So, who is the TALK "editor" and how long will this short note last on "TALK"? Even the "save" step can be hard to find. I do not expect this Talk note to survive 24 hours - so I dated it. I picked "Archive" so it might be read and improve the reputation of Wikipedia to properly inform the public.

Gator, MD Gator.MD (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC) ````

Thanks for writing here! Please see your Talk page: User talk:Gator.MD. Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Would Like to Correct to Reflect Our Acquisition of Group Health; OK?

Greetings. Vince from Kaiser Permanente here. Group Health Cooperative is now Kaiser Permanente, and Kaiser Permanente now serves more than 11.3 million members. I would like to update the first two paragraphs of the entry with this simple, factual information, citing articles such as this one:

Would that be OK? Thank you for your consideration. vggolla (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

We don't just update the lead, ever. The lead just summarizes the body of the article. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kaiser Permanente. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140609200542/http://diversity-executive.com/articles/view/tyson-named-chairman-and-ceo-of-kaiser-permanente to http://diversity-executive.com/articles/view/tyson-named-chairman-and-ceo-of-kaiser-permanente
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140129194904/http://www.kpventures.com/about-us.aspx to http://www.kpventures.com/about-us.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Citation needed

This is from the third paragraph

However, Kaiser has had disputes with its employees' unions, repeatedly faced civil and criminal charges for falsification of records and patient dumping, faced action by regulators over the quality of care it provided, especially to patients with mental health issues, and has faced criticism from activists and action from regulators over the size of its cash reserves.

Where are the citations?

Group Health acquisition

Shouldn’t there be some mention of the acquisition (if that’s the right term) of Group Health?

(I see one earlier mention of doing so here on the Talk page, from 2017, but it didn’t get implemented.) Rob Cranfill (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate "See also" entry?

This is the only entry under "see also" --

"Heather O'Rourke (1975–1988) – child actress who became ill in 1987 and was misdiagnosed by doctors of Kaiser Permanente Hospital. She died on February 1, 1988, and a lawsuit followed shortly thereafter."

Isn't that a little random? Is that the proper use of the "see also" section?

Maybe it's appropriate. I'm just bringing it up.

Middleground1 (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Labor Unions Conclusion

The section on controversies concludes with a substantial paragraph about the measures being taken by the firm to address the union's issues. While it does contain some easily-verified statistics, such as the number of individuals involved and the timeframe of negotiations, much of the paragraph is dedicated to promoting Kaiser as making substantial changes very much in favor of the company. The fact that there is no citation but the is a direct link to Kaiser's Labor Management Partnership website leads me to believe at best this is an irresponsible addition and at worst a press release added in bad-faith. In either case until a citation is added I believe everything after the fourth sentence needs to be removed. TenantSea (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The section was challenged FOUR years ago. I removed it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 01:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

This article needs semi-protection

This article is about to get more a lot more attention because Kamala Harris is the current Democratic Party candidate for President of the United States and was born at Kaiser Oakland Medical Center in 1964. This article is seeing vandalism on average about once a month but I suspect that is about to go way up.

I just caught and reverted apparent vandalism to the infobox in January 2024, which no one had caught. (Kaiser was founded in Oakland, not Fontana.) This article needs to be put under semi-protection so that only established users can edit it. Coolcaesar (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar: You can request protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection but typically, protection is a reaction to problems and not preventative for anticipated problems. Feel free to make the request and try the system out though. It cannot hurt and making a case always helps.

The reason is that in Wikipedia vandalism is often a benefit. Usually Wikipedia editors or the bots detect it quickly and remove it, and letting vandals edit things is often a signal that other people are interested in seeing an article developed also.

As to the vandalism you questioned, I know nothing about this. KP reports that it offered health services at the Kaiser Steel Mill in Fontana. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)