4 ms·

Errr, I wouldn't say they're that close to having a "near-monopoly". Or at least, back in 2011 I chose a Medicare Part D plan that used them, and they were so

by hga 11y ago

Errr, I wouldn't say they're that close to having a "near-monopoly". Or at least, back in 2011 I chose a Medicare Part D plan that used them, and they were so horrible I've made a point to never use a plan that uses them again, and that hasn't been difficult. For example, they didn't succeed in buying Caremark, bought by CVS, and that's whom I'm using this year, although I was not pleased when they bought Medco recently.

lbhnact 11y ago
Apologies, it was an early morning... I meant to point out the Express Scripts-Surescripts connection (and CVS, other pharmacy stakeholders...), which is part of why I think they may have dropped PillPack. PillPack, and some of the other startups and smaller actors in the space, are potetial threats to the established players, like Express Scripts, that essentially collude through Surescripts to protect their access to the patient-provider origination channel. It's the Surescripts network that has the near-monopoly on prescription EDI, and it acts to protect it's members interests. The tech is ancient and entrenched in a way that I imagine would greatly upset the HN crowd if they looked at it more closely. Regulatory actors have not been paying enough attention here IMHO, and the nature of the market has led to an opaque situation that's prevented opportunities to advance research on important questions for social issues and patient care. [1] http://surescripts.com/support/faqs/general/detail/who-owns-surescripts http://surescripts.com/support/faqs/general/detail/who-owns-...
- Gratsby 11y ago
  The amount of overprotective entrenched businesses in the medical industry is insane. But that's also one of the reasons the industry is attractive to new ventures and businesses -- it's just plain lucrative. Opportunity abounds for people who have the wherewithall and resources to fight the long battle it takes to earn a stable spot in the crowd.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Is there even a regulator that would have jurisdiction to do something meaningful? Or is it more of a legislative issue?
  - hga 11y ago
    Wouldn't both the FTC and the DoJ Antitrust units have this in their remit?

by hga 11y ago

lbhnact 11y ago

Apologies, it was an early morning... I meant to point out the Express Scripts-Surescripts connection (and CVS, other pharmacy stakeholders...), which is part of why I think they may have dropped PillPack. PillPack, and some of the other startups and smaller actors in the space, are potetial threats to the established players, like Express Scripts, that essentially collude through Surescripts to protect their access to the patient-provider origination channel. It's the Surescripts network that has the near-monopoly on prescription EDI, and it acts to protect it's members interests. The tech is ancient and entrenched in a way that I imagine would greatly upset the HN crowd if they looked at it more closely. Regulatory actors have not been paying enough attention here IMHO, and the nature of the market has led to an opaque situation that's prevented opportunities to advance research on important questions for social issues and patient care. [1] http://surescripts.com/support/faqs/general/detail/who-owns-surescripts http://surescripts.com/support/faqs/general/detail/who-owns-...

Gratsby 11y ago
The amount of overprotective entrenched businesses in the medical industry is insane. But that's also one of the reasons the industry is attractive to new ventures and businesses -- it's just plain lucrative. Opportunity abounds for people who have the wherewithall and resources to fight the long battle it takes to earn a stable spot in the crowd.
maxerickson 11y ago
Is there even a regulator that would have jurisdiction to do something meaningful? Or is it more of a legislative issue?
- hga 11y ago
  Wouldn't both the FTC and the DoJ Antitrust units have this in their remit?