That's just bullshit bingo material. They try to get attention by throwing a few buzzwords around. It happens all the time with other terms. Not long until some politician tells a sentence like this:
I'm expecting exponential, rapid market growth in our big data IoT
blockchain technology system solution tightly scheduled as a low-risk
low-cost sales-driven facility revolutionizing the way we think about
proactive, granular approaches to problems concerning the whole of
humanity in the digital millennium.
You see, "blockchain" is merely one term in there, composing that bullshit.
Blockchains don't necessarily have to use proof of work but all blockchains contain the entire history of their entries in a way which wastes storage space.
In the case of Bitcoin, that's okay because all of the advantages of blockchains can be used and no better solution is available. But if the data isn't going to be disputed (e.g. because the data is stored by and retrieved from a single entity anyway or because only trusted participants can modify the data), it's just useless.
Banks won't be able to use blockchains because they are centralized entities. They are better off with normal databases. Like relational databases, NoSQL databases, etc. Heck, even just storing files with JSON or even CSV data in them on a file system would be better. And they currently use normal databases. However, they see themselves threatened by Bitcoin as people begin to dislike banks and centralized financial control more and more and Bitcoin subsequently rises in popularity. This is why they write articles, claiming they are researching how they can use blockchains.
If someone has a problem, what they ought to to is to find a solution to it. However, banks take blockchains (which is a solution) and try to find a problem fitting the solution. Not to actually solve the problem but to solve their problem of them losing popularity and trust.
In health care, there may actually be a problem which can be fixed by blockchains. That is, how does a doctor make sure they got all of a patients data with no records having been thrown out because they are unpleasant for the patient but potentially constitute relevant information?
You can imagine a scenario in which all health records of each patient are stored digitally. Each health record has a parent health record, except for the initial one. To add a new record, the record's contents together with the previous record's signature is hashed with a cryptographic hash function and signed by an authority which every day uses a different private key which is then discarded at the end of the day and only the cryptographically related public key is kept and even made public.
It then is impossible to retroactively remove health records from the chain without losing newer records, too.
However, you can easily see how people wouldn't be happy with this and would sue against it. Furthermore, there are obvious problems like people newly entering the system because they used to live in a different country which doesn't use the system.
They may be other uses but right now, most uses of the term "blockchain" other than in regards to crypto currencies are only for the sake of having used a buzzword.
Because it has almost become a tradition to link to this article in such a situation, have the link and give the article a read.