38 ms·
Amazon, Berkshire, JPMorgan to Create Healthcare Company
- sasadw 9y ago“Success is going to require talented experts, a beginner’s mind, and a long-term orientation.” - Jeff Bezos Solid start-up tips
- lukeqsee 9y agoI read it as "Apple, Berkshire and JPMorgan" at first, and I was very excited to see such a customer-first company finally taking on healthcare. Then I read the top comment and saw Bezos. Oh. It's Amazon. I do not want my medical provider and experience to be optimized to the point of insanity. Healthcare needs to be fixed, but I'm pretty sure these three companies will create a monster worse than the one we currently endure. (Profits or not.)
- praneshp 9y agoYes, Apple is better. They'll slowly reduce dosage as you grow older so you can get a more expensive medicine. Amazon is much more customer-first than Apple is.
- yeukhon 9y agoI feel there will be a series of HC acquisitions ranging from unicorn startups to major HC providers. I don’t have to name the qualified startups, they are too well known... Great time to join an insurance startup!!!
- brudgers 9y agoOne reason this is likely to be less expensive is that the employees of those companies tend to be well paid and to have had ongoing access to health care. Essential tasks ordinarily done by the working poor are usually outsourced. In the case of Amazon, it's not just things like facilities maintenance and janitorial workers that won't fall under its health care umbrella, it's all those warehouse workers engaged in physical work. Essentially, the costs will be lower because the new company will cherry pick. And again in the case of Amazon, the tendency to hire young workers also works in favor of lower costs. This is disruption in the same sense that Amazon's pillaging the public purse for its new headquarters is disruption.
- taurath 9y agoI’d join that company. First thing I’d do is properly line item every coded expense and expose it to the end user, and compare it with averages of other providers. Expose people to where they are being ripped off and where they can get better prices.
- justjash 9y agoAfter my wife giving birth last year, I would say there is quite a bit of room for improvement. The whole billing process is such a mess when you receive different bills from doctors, the hospital, labs, etc. It seemed like the bills rolled in for months afterward, some going through insurance and some not even being billed to insurance. Happy to have insurance after I saw the total bill, but man is it a huge headache. I hope they figure something out if we never make it to a single payer type system.
- shadyrudy 9y agoIt's worse if you get the surprise "Out of Network" doctor that assisted in the delivery. Nothing like getting a surprise $1,200 bill when you're sleep deprived. Long story short, we didn't have to pay any of that $1,200. But the last thing we needed with a new born was more stress.
- CodeSheikh 9y agoIt is a welcoming move. I hope they make it available for public sector as well. I would be more than happy to have my prescriptions delivered using Amazon Prime same day/2nd day service.
- sova 9y agoWhat about a series of free top notch clinics? Or do these three combined not have enough global revenue yet?
- qaq 9y agoThis sounds very promising especially considering Amazon's logistical expertise and amount of financial resources these 3 companies have.
- _r_o_y_ 9y agoHopefully it can materialize into something that can have an impact on the healthcare industry, but it's disheartening seeing no doctors or anyone with medical expertise in the mix.
- criddell 9y agoI think you have more faith in doctors than me. The way the California Medical Association (and the AMA) resist expanding the role of nurses really damaged their reputation for me. Rising medical costs and increased consumption of medical services is good for physicians. Freakonomics did a pretty good podcast[1] on the subject. [1]: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/nurses-to-the-rescue/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/nurses-to-the-rescue/
- jrowley 9y agoIndepdent healthcare providers like IPAs / MSOs provide a large chunk of healthcare in the US. I wouldn't be surprised if they are looking to partner with these groups directly.
- humanrebar 9y agoUnless the business model looks more like Amazon Prime Video than AWS. And looks exactly that way to me: fixed-rate subscription fees, upselling add-ons, heavy bespoke negotiation with suppliers, etc. EDIT: Do downvoters care to explain their views?
- arcanus 9y ago> they plan to collaborate on a way to offer health-care services to their U.S. employees. Is it clear that they will be offering these services to outside clients? Or is this just a way to keep down Healthcare costs across their organizations?
- janesvilleseo 9y agoI don’t know. But a quick Google search indicates that these 3 companies have over 1 million employees. But that’s world wide. Still that’s an impressive number.
- kikoreis 9y agoTragedy of the commons much? It's disturbing to see corporations occupy the vacuum US policy has left here.
- jonwachob91 9y ago>> occupy the vacuum US policy has left Others might argue this is free market at work.
- adventured 9y agoIt's market participants, with a huge stake, trying to fix a disastrously broken government-corporate healthcare system that has gradually failed for about a dozen big reasons over the last 20 years.
- ninkendo 9y agoIt depends on whether or not you view healthcare as a basic right for citizens (in the same sense as education and law enforcement etc.) The free market coming up with a co-op approach that may only benefit the handful of companies involved only benefits me if I’m in one of those companies.
- jumbopapa 9y agoAny one who is arguing that this is the free market at work doesn't believe that healthcare is a right. You can have access to healthcare, but that doesn't guarantee that you will.
- grasshopperpurp 9y ago>Any one who is arguing that this is the free market at work doesn't believe that healthcare is a right. You can have access to healthcare, but that doesn't guarantee that you will. This country has socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor. - MLK
- throwaway5752 9y ago
- tabeth 9y agoI've always wondered what's stopping someone from creating a non-profit and just having people join it in order to give the non-profit ability to negotiate lower prices. I imagine there's a cost to set this up, but is that cost less than the marginal cost of each employee and the savings they would (presumably) receive if enough people joined?
- rgoddard 9y agoThe cost of insurance is largely driven by the underlying cost of what you are insuring. Unless they are able to lower the cost of care significantly, the price difference between a non-profit and for-profit is marginal.
- didgeoridoo 9y agoBlue Cross Blue Shield is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit. Doesn’t seem to help.
- clarkevans 9y agoSome regional BCBS are nonprofit; Anthem BCBS isn't. Even so, your main point is taken. There's a broad directorship problem with many non-profits, higher eduction, and mutuals. General users of these public services either have no say -or- have no reasonable way to exercise their limited authority. For example, State Farm Mutual permits its subscribers to show up in person on a particular day once per year in order to vote from a set of directors that was selected by... the previous directors. I'm curious what sort of legal/social/technology solutions could be put to use in addressing this administrative capture.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- djsumdog 9y agoMany BlueCrosses (they're not one company, they're all independent) are _non-for-profits_ which is totally different from a _non-profit_ or 501(c)(3). They can still lobby as a non-for-profit and the whole model is pretty much weird legal bullshit anyway. Also another reason you couldn't start a big non-profit is because insurance companies are limited in reach by state/region. Sadly, that's one of the few things keeping them in check. If that regulation was removed, you'd see all the Blues and other companies start to merge into only two to three mega companies, similar to cell phone providers.
- jawns 9y ago> The three companies said they plan to set up a new independent company "that is free from profit-making incentives and constraints." I wonder if they will be setting it up as a health insurance cooperative, an organizational structure in which the primary goal is to serve its members, rather than to generate value for external shareholders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_cooperative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_cooperative It's not at all unprecedented for publicly traded companies to create cooperatives for their employees. Employee credit unions are one example. Co-ops were part of an early proposal while the ACA was still shaping out, but unfortunately, due to pressure from for-profit health insurers, they were later shot down: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/health/policy/17talkshows.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/health/policy/17talkshows.... As a fan of distributism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism, I would love to see an increase in health insurance cooperatives, and cooperatives in general. Under a cooperative structure, the members/policyholders fully own the company, so it's not beholden to outside shareholders seeking to profit at the expense of its members. Any profits that a cooperative generates are returned back to the members/policyholders in the form of lower premiums, or improvements to services.
- robbiemitchell 9y agoOne of the benefits a profit motive brings to insurance companies is pushing back on improper billing by providers (doctors/hospitals) and negotiating lowest possible care and drug rates. Tech-focused insurers like Oscar also invest heavily to help guide members toward better care paths, which if done well lead to better care at less expense (for both the member and insurer). Unrelated: one of the worst parts of insurance is the customer service quality. How does an internal, non-profit insurer staff itself to do this well? If they commit to this even at the risk of it being unprofitable, that would be most awesome —- but I’m skeptical.
- jawns 9y agoYou're correct that a profit motive leads for-profit health insurance companies to push back on improper billing and negotiate prices, because whatever profit they are able to eek out goes to its shareholders. But the same motive applies to co-ops. The member-owners of a co-op don't want their costs to be inflated by improper billing or inflated prices, because if they are able to reduce their expenses, then the member-owners benefit in the form of lower premiums. In both cases, the shareholders want to get their money's worth, it's just that in the case of a for-profit company, those shareholders are often external investors, but in the case of a cooperative, all shareholders are also members.
- dekhn 9y agoHere's what this is about. Large successful companies contract out their health insurance and care to external companies. Most of those companies are profit centers- they provide a service, but they take a very large profit on it. Much of that profit is just waste- it's money that goes to people who aren't innovating, or providing value, just acting as gatekeepers (note: this is just my opinion, not provable fact). Companies like Amazon know they can provide that same service- or a simplified version of it that focuses on effective treatments that don't cost a lot of money- far more cheaply, because they have willingly forgone short-term profits. Whether this saves money and provides adequate care remains to be seen.
- 013a 9y agoInsurance companies, by and large, are gate keepers to capital. The "best" have a lot of highly innovate algorithms, machine learning, and data collection, but they're all designed to maximize the profit of the company by accurately pricing premiums. An accurately priced premium means customers who don't their services less pay less; in effect, they're using data to increase premiums for the customers who actually use their service, while increasing revenue in order to fund their massive, inefficient bureaucracy.
- dekhn 9y agowe're talkign about HMOs here, not Insurance Companies. There is a big, big difference. Also, the companies aren't particularly inefficient, because that gets in the way of making profit.
- nradov 9y agoThe companies involved in this new venture were already self insured. They were paying for employee health care via third-party administrators, not buying insurance.
- ian0 9y agoThe last few insurance companies Ive delt with seem to act more like banks giving loans. Twice now, they have priced premiums for our company policy low in the first year before increasing them the following year based on how much was claimed. One agent actually admitted it was to "recoup costs". We joked that the meme where actuaries were being replaced by machine learning was actually just the insurer firing actuaries because they figured out they could just demand the money back from the client after a claim.
- tw1010 9y agoI'm neutral on the particulars of this venture (it's probably positive). But how can anyone argue that the market is efficient when it is possible for companies that "is free from profit-making incentives" to exist? Just curious. How does this example fit into that framework?
- antr 9y agoThere is plenty of profit to be made... lower insurance premiums result in higher profits for Amazon, JP Morgan and BH
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> how can anyone argue that the market is efficient when it is possible for companies that "is free from profit-making incentives" to exist? "Commoditise your complements" is an old and true business mantra. It's the reason it's good business for Google to promote an open web or investment banks to promote mutually-owned, virtually profitless settlement & clearing organizations like the DTCC and SWIFT. Much of the robber baron era's drama centred around steel trying to commoditise railroads, railroads steel, and oil the whole lot.
- dredmorbius 9y agoAny references or suggested reading on that?
- dredmorbius 9y agoDoing some research, "Commoditize your complements" (American rather than British spelling) seems to trace to Joel on Software, 2002: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/
- qaq 9y agoAmazon has 500K employees JPM 250K if they can save 20-30% by doing this that's a very healthy profit for them
- gerhardqux 9y agoThis might have sparked it: https://qz.com/1090762/an-open-letter-to-jeff-bezos-you-are-needed-to-disrupt-the-health-care-sector/ https://qz.com/1090762/an-open-letter-to-jeff-bezos-you-are-... (2017)
- avocadoLife 9y agoI always think that it's only a matter of time before some company with vast capital (looking at you Apple) finds their own way to set up a city/country with their own ecosystem (healthcare, transport etc.), with less bureaucracy and more efficiently.
- ballenarosada 9y agoIf that happened, would libertarians begin to regard unpaid surplus labor as theft?
- JustSomeNobody 9y agoI think this is what a lot of politicians think, also. They don't want government run healthcare because it's only a matter of time before the market fixes healthcare. Edit: I think Apple is only interested in medical devices.
- astrange 9y agoApple has their own employee doctor's office, dentist, gyms, etc. Actually, health is the only "tech company" benefit you get as an employee there, since they won't even give you free food or a nap pod.
- oblio 9y agoCompany towns are not a new thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town Your idea was first attempted in the 1880's :)
- zxcb1 9y agoThis concept also seems appropriate (extrapolation): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_republic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_republic
- xir78 9y agoSince this a free market heath care, clearly it should have full bipartisan support in Washington.
- dandare 9y ago27 days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16060201 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16060201 > Could this problem be attacked by a goodwill billionaire with a long-term plan? Open several private medical schools that will offer "free" med education in exchange for multi-year contracts. Open many small copycat clinics. Manufacture your own generics if possible, import whatever is cheapest, focus on things you can do cheap, be transparent about pricing, build awareness and brand. McDonaldize/Amazonize American healthcare.
- 11thEarlOfMar 9y agoIt's not just the cost. It's the incredible inefficiency of the operations, and, the gerrymandering of coverage. Under the ACA, I had to choose between allowing my family to continue to see their lifetime care givers, or, paying in network rates, for the full year, because the insurance company I chose gave me incorrect information when they were trying to get my business (my wife is less kind in evaluating their motives). I paid $30,000 in health care expenses out of pocket that year for what was essentially a healthy family. I was not permitted to change insurance companies once I learned they had misled me. Buffet calls them a tapeworm, I call it the next, ongoing rape of the American middle class.
- ensignavenger 9y agoYou should sue them for fraud.
- OnlyOnlyOnly 9y ago"I paid $30,000 in health care expenses out of pocket that year for what was essentially a healthy family." Outragous, I paid $10,000 in fire insurance for a house THAT WAS NOT BURNING!
- swarnie_ 9y agoHearing the report on Bloomberg news earlier today. Isn't this just for the 900k employees and isn't it just focusing on wearable tech? It sounded more like fitbit with cloud services than insurance.
- citizenkeen 9y agoKaiser Permanente was originally just for employees, so, you know, it could go somewhere.
- runako 9y ago> Isn't this just for the 900k employees and isn't it just focusing on wearable tech? I believe it's initially for the employees of those companies. If they can make it work for them, they have a great team (ecommerce, finance, insurance) to back a larger rollout. The announcement says it's about providing healthcare at lower cost with better results, which sounds like a lot more than wearables.
- bedhead 9y agoI have far more faith that these three companies, more than the government, can improve the catastrophe that is our healthcare system.
- allengeorge 9y agoI could be wrong, but if I understand correctly this healthcare company is for their employees only? (At least at first).
- vpeters25 9y agoRolling their own health care company might solve only part of the issue. I think the largest driver of healthcare costs right now is price gouging by providers with their charge masters, needless exams and procedures.
- noir-york 9y agoThree large employers, realising that for-profit healthcare is expensive and inefficient, create a non-profit that pools healthcare and is driven by its member's interests. This is terrible if it works. Imagine if other employers want to join it. And then even more employers... and what if the scheme becomes so large and covering so much of the population that it ... gasp... looks almost like a government-run non-profit health insurance scheme! You know, like what those Marxists in Europe have. And where it would it end - soon people would be demanding cheaper drug prices and being able to negotiate prices for drugs! Insane (In case its not clear, the above is written ironicly. I am all for a well funded government-run health service)
- dexterdog 9y agoExcept that it's not a monopoly. There are still options that will compete with each other.
- noir-york 9y agoThere will be economies of scale. The bigger the pool of employees the lower the costs, so yes there are options but they could get fewer if this takes off.
- stale2002 9y agoNobody opposes economies of scale. What we oppose is being forced by the government to accept a 1 size fits all plan, and not being allowed to buy the healthcare plan we want. It is the difference between everyone using Facebook because they like the product and the network effect, vs everyone using governmentBook because the government outlawed all competing social networks.
- noir-york 9y agoOne does not preclude the other. In European countries with a national health service you can still buy private coverage. Incidentally, a one-size fits most plan works great for alot of people.
- wslh 9y agoIs there a new wave of innitiatives in the health sector? I was surprised by hospitals working on producing generic drugs [1]. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/18/hospitals-plan-to-create-their-own-generic-drug-company.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/18/hospitals-plan-to-create-the...
- iandanforth 9y agoI hope this new company has a huge lobbying arm from day 1.
- dawhizkid 9y agoI strongly feel that what needs to be changed is employer-based healthcare itself. It is really kind of crazy, if you think about it, how closely the quality of our healthcare and the healthcare of our dependents is tied to the company we choose to be working for at the moment. If you or a dependent take a very specific expensive medication that isn't covered by a plan a new employer might offer, then you pretty much can't take that job unless you want to pay out of pocket. Employers can change the plans they offer every year as well, so really even at the same company you might face the same dilemma at the next open enrollment.
- Someone1234 9y agoI have a choice of exactly two health insurance companies because that's who my employer selected for me. Both are for profit companies, with Aetna just posting record profits, and we see our premiums rise year upon year. But beyond me, the fact that someone working minimum wage, unemployed, or at a startup using the Obamacare exchange pays more than an executive at a fortune 500 makes no rational sense. That's because the market has been silo-ed by employer instead of each individual insured. The US would be in a much better state if everyone had to get their insurance from the exchange. One of the two political parties is constantly drumming the "competition" drum as a magical solution, but they're too scared to actually make the market competitive. - Give everyone in the US a HSA (health savings account). - Increase HSA contribution maximums significantly ($20K/year or more) - Allow employers to give money, tax free, to employees via their HSA - Allow employees to pay their insurance premiums via the HSA - Ban employers from directly picking the employee's insurance or providing the insurance - Employees (and everyone else) would pick insurance from the health insurance marketplace - Medicaid would pay 100% of premiums, but Medicaid recipients still pick their own insurance - The VA would move to a mixed model, help pay for regular insurance (via the HSA), and offer bespoke services specific to former enlisted personnel. Most common services would be received at regular healthcare providers, not VA hospitals. Now instead of employers paying $1000/month for your health insurance they put that $1000 into your HSA, you then go onto the health insurance marketplace find insurance, and use your HSA to pay your premiums. Don't like your insurance company? Change. This is how you spurn competition. Additionally if your employer doesn't help you with health benefits, you can contribute to your HSA yourself tax free and you won't be further punished (i.e. pay the same overall premium, with same tax benefits, as someone with a better employer, unlike now).
- gigatexal 9y agoI work for a healthcare services company. The industry is ripe for disruption just in the way data is handled and managed. What I found interesting in the article is that the new firm would not be “profit seeking”. Interesting. I wonder if Amazon would do what they did for years and put any and all profits back into the new company. But then why partner with an investment bank?
- efields 9y ago> But then why partner with an investment bank? Financial security in exchange for points? Amazon already did the profitless thing for a decade+. It's betting on its ability to do it again in a bigger market, but a market with a ton of unknowns. Having some financial backing by an investment bank might be something of a safety net. Maybe Amazon was never certain AWS would work out, but look where it is now. If you could get in as an investor on Amazon's next AWS, wouldn't you take the risk?
- gigatexal 9y agoOf course I would. I think the world knows not to invest against Bezos.
- enlightenedfool 9y agoEveryone focuses on the wrong problem - the insurance. Why do doctors and hospitals charge exorbitantly? 10 - 25 times for the same quality, equipment elsewhere in the world. There are just not enough doctors and they take advantage of that. Let qualified doctors get in the country. When they undercut these blood suckers, prices go down.
- chrisan 9y agoHospitals, at least, over charge to cover their losses with people without insurance or inadequate insurance.
- losteverything 9y agoWhen i think of disruption i think of uber. Rides where none could happen before. What will their disruption be? How about delinking insurance to healthcare. Let me buy healthcare the day i need it. And nothing the day after i dont. No more having healthy people pay for sick people: no more young pay for the old. Create something we cant imagine; like uber; like Facebook
- dna_polymerase 9y agoDisruption and Uber? What kind of rides were enabled by Uber, that couldn't be done by cab?
- losteverything 9y agoMy thinking. Cab supply and ease. I work at a retailer where 20-30% more probably) use their phone to get to work. Its affordable and allows taking the job. $5 to get home. Cabs were $11 and importantly unreliable. Have a phone; get a ride anytime. And.. A person i work with finishes her shift and turns "on" her Uber driver mode and instantly becomes a cab. Uber is an on/off switch for cab supply. To me that is very different. Imo before uber one could not even think transportation was easy. Its not the Pepsi Generation it's the Uber Generation
- greysonp 9y agoI mean, you can always pay for healthcare the day you need it. It's just incredibly expensive. And don't forget, one day you'll be old or sick, so I hope you have a lot of money saved :)
- losteverything 9y agoIm talking about totally thinking differently, not the current situation. About having a lot of money saved....after a prosthetic implant i added up stuff. $143,000 spent on insurance since 2005. Part employer part me. Up until the prosthetic less than $5k (if that) on health. $143k is almost 3 years pay. I would have rather had it paid to me. Then i would have spent my money for my healthcare
- dawhizkid 9y agoThese companies collectively have hundreds of thousands of employees that cost many billions each year to insure. Large U.S. employers are what you call in the industry "self funded", meaning they collect premiums from their own funds + employee contributions into a big pool and pay out claims from this pool (i.e. they take on all the insurance risk). Any optimizations they can make to plan administration, healthcare utilization (i.e. incentivizing employees to choose less expensive forms of healthcare or get healthier), lower drug costs, lower administrative cost, etc. will save them many billions of dollars annually. Saying this new venture is going to be free of profit-making is a bit like saying water is "sugar free." This is all about lowering their own cost of employing a massive workforce.
- victor106 9y agoBelow is the spend by the major groups from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4638261/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4638261/ All individuals with chronic conditions and functional limitations - $909 billion Individuals aged ≥ 65 y with chronic conditions and functional limitations - $543 billion Individuals at the end of life - $205 billion. I am not sure you can save any healthcare costs unless 1. People change their eating and lifestyle habits. 2. End of life care is about 13% of the entire cost. Not sure how it compares to other countries but I think it can be optimized. 3. Most of the costs are due to Medicare and Medicaid which due to the volume set the prices for the entire healthcare market. Due to a law passed by congress Medicare is prohibited from negotiating prices. The most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
- pxlpshr 9y agoYou're looking at top-line cost to provide care in a very convoluted market. Take chronic for example, a huge chunk is spent on drug treatment. Incentives to use generics are often misaligned from the needs of the patient. Also, about 10-15% of the $3 trillion is administrative waste (payers). There are a lot of areas that we can save.
- mapgrep 9y agoAs some other people have mentioned below, the much lauded[1] vertically integrated health provider Kaiser Permanente started this way, as the health provider caring for the workers of an enlightened large employer, Kaiser Steel, which at the time was a massive shipbuilder for the Navy and others headquartered in California with a major presence in the SF Bay Area. I was briefly covered by a Kaiser plan, and have a lot of old friends who are either covered, work there, or worked there, and can say people really appreciate not only the relatively low costs but also the ability to just come to one place no matter the ailment and know you'll be able to get an appointment quickly and be taken care of, and won't have to haggle to get the care you need or deal with insurance company roadblocks. To the extent there are downsides (and of course there are) they are around not being able to have your own doctor (though I do think there is an approximation of that) and overzealous cost cutting (see the kidney center scandal). My understanding is Kaiser has not spread much beyond California due to regulatory issues. (Interestingly, Kaiser Steel was a major setting for Atlas Shrugged.) [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/business/kaiser-permanente-is-seen-as-face-of-future-health-care.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/business/kaiser-permanente...
- limaoscarjuliet 9y agoI love Kaiser. One stop shop for most things, easy, efficient, unified records. Highly recommended!
- aaronbrethorst 9y agoKaiser is available up and down the west coast, having completed the acquisition of Group Health last year. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/kaiser-permanente-wins-approval-to-buy-group-health/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/kaiser-perm...
- ingsoc79 9y agoThey're mostly based in California, though they recently acquired Group Health Cooperative (largest healthcare provider in Washington State).
- 9y ago
- itissid 9y agoI think one of the big ideas that is being tested out there is getting rid of the adversarial economics of insurance in general. The whole industry is basically optimizing towards paying out as little while maximizing what they can get. Such cynicism is being broken in some sectors. Like Lemonade is really trying a radical new behavioral approach.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- sixdimensional 9y ago"Amazon Prime, now with basic health insurance included in one low yearly or monthly rate"!
- ozten 9y agoAmazonBasics Chemotherapy - 3.8 stars at an unbeatable price.
- bertil 9y agoWith the reach that they would have at a low price point and the ability to match that to your other purchase, I’d love to get that data and look into behaviours that trigger cancer or are correlated with faster remission. Cheap medicine is good medicine because it’s data-rich medicine.
- banashark 9y agoA brief plug for anyone interested in starting in this space. I'm an engineer at RedoxEngine[0] where we build a system to transform the many varying forms of Healthcare data into an easy to use JSON API[1]. This has proven to reduce development time and increase the available pool of Healthcare Organizations that your product can connect with[2]. I'm pretty happy working here and seeing the types of solutions that our product enables/expedites. If you're interested in the space feel free to PM me regarding questions. It's an exciting time to be working in the rewarding field of Healthcare Technology! 0: https://www.redoxengine.com/ https://www.redoxengine.com/ 1: https://developer.redoxengine.com/ https://developer.redoxengine.com/ 2: https://www.redoxengine.com/customer-stories https://www.redoxengine.com/customer-stories
- stevenkovar 9y agoI've long wondered how we've allowed insurance companies to operate as public, for-profit entities—it's a complete conflict of interests. Hopefully this deal creates a ripple effect non-employees of these three companies can benefit from.
- arbitrage 9y ago> how we've allowed Personally, I've always wondered why we blithely accept having incredibly expensive shit services and coverage dictated to us.
- eanzenberg 9y agoWe’ve moved from trying to get to single-payer government provided healthcare all the way to tax cuts. This change of mindshare for the USA means more believe that health issues are more self-inflicted than random unluckiness. There is truth to both sides, and I am in the single payer camp. However, I know that most doctors visits in the US are the result of obesity, lack of exercise, and lack of education. These things need to change much earlier down the funnel, but they don’t.
- kruhft 9y agoJust come to Canada. We already figured out how to do Health Care where everyone pays.
- coldtea 9y agoWhy those weren't not split AT&T style to avoid the 100000ft pound corporatist rule, I don't know. Or rather, I know.
- a3n 9y agoThe beginnings of enclaves.
- skynetv2 9y agoTomorrow's news: Google announces a healthcare initiative where AI & bots will drive consumers mad
- s2g 9y agoIs it too much to ask that my health care isn't beholden to the whims of a bunch of billionaires?
- nevir 9y agoIt's pretty difficult for anyone else to seriously enter the marketplace
- drawkbox 9y agoThis move is very needed competition and is a start to fix pricing and hopefully smarter grouping. But, ultimately health insurance should be something people get on their own like other insurance, healthcare needs to be unbound from employers in our system. Part of the problem with pricing is the health insurance companies are not consumer focused due to their main customers being employers not individuals. Other insurance industries (auto, home, life etc) have to be consumer friendly, you can see it in the marketing you see, they need consumers to buy on their own. Health insurance companies like Aetna/BCBS/etc fix prices in backrooms with employers, medical services, hospitals, doctors and more. Current healthcare players actively price out individuals due to legacy grouping by companies not individuals across many ages/spectrums. Grouping by employer leaves self-proprietors, small companies and more with higher healthcare bills due to them being more risky because they are small. Smart grouping would be across all customers not just by employer/company, that is a game to get prices lower in certain companies that are larger unfairly. Employers should have zero involvement with your health other than paying you enough to go get insurance on your own, whether that is single payer public option or private insurance. Healthcare tied to employment has problems as it makes it harder to change jobs, start a company, ageism, and if you ever do need it, if you lose your job you are out of luck. ACA started the process to unbind health insurance from employers and hopefully this Amazon/Berkshire/JPM product/company will be consumer focused unlike current health insurance companies, and start to fix healthcare to be consumer focused like products should be. At this point both the Amazon and CVS ventures are adding needed competition, as healthcare costs are starting to cut into consumer funds heavily. Healthcare is stealing other industries profits via this encroachment. Health insurance companies used every excuse and love the legislative turmoil because they can raise prices without checks in the chaos. Hopefully the unbinding of healthcare from employment continues, whether through better consumer focused healthcare companies or a single payer public option like Medicare-for-all that the consumer can choose between, as that is the only thing that will start to fix pricing and grouping. This is very smart for Amazon as healthcare is still completely undisrupted and ripe for competition, tons of technology and product opportunities and literally any effort is better than what we currently have for health insurance, the only product that gets worse every year and goes up by a minimum of 20-30% yearly in some cases 120% which is impossible to continue.
- jrcii 9y agoGet rid of all health insurance except for major medical, and all forms of government-provided health insurance. Veterans get a voucher. Promote HSAs for everything else. Major medical insurance companies are not-for-profit only. These not-for-profits accept donations for the poor and elderly. All other payments go from the pocket of the patient to the doctor. Health care costs go down dramatically, liberty increases, doctors make more money, preventative health care increases. It's a win across the board. It will never happen.
- hickeygareth 9y agoAs the FT reports (https://app.newsoveraudio.com/article/3324 https://app.newsoveraudio.com/article/3324) isn't this much the same as the Healthcare Transformation Alliance in which IBM, Shell and Verizon (to name a few) are members of? >> http://www.htahealth.com/ http://www.htahealth.com/
- rdm_blackhole 9y agoYou guys can fight how to turn your money hungry insurance companies into decent "patient caring" entities or you can do like the rest of the developed countries and adopt a basic single payer system where everybody pays for everybody and if you so which you can still purchase the best private health insurance for a couple hundred bucks a month. Example: For my wife and I, one insurance company has quoted us $AU600 a month for the top of the line health insurance with no deductible and very little waiting periods. Also if we decide to not go down that road, we can go to the doctor and the hospital for free without any worries about money. How about that?
- tompetry 9y agoI am continually surprised with the focus on attacking the "packaging" of healthcare at the insurance / network / reimbursement level. That isn't the problem that needs to be solved. The problem with healthcare costs is that there is a lack of competition of costly services provided by large hospital and clinics. In many areas, there is a single provider that runs unchecked. Two factors limiting competition are: 1) Huge barriers to entry. How do you start a new hospital or sizable clinic? Regulation, costs, training, etc make it prohibitively difficult 2) Science/data isn't good enough yet. There is not sufficient data to show which providers (hospitals/clinics/treatments) are better than others, enough to allow disruptive entrants into the system. Only breakthroughs in biotechnology that displace incumbents in healthcare services will move the need. Re-shuffling the insurance / network / payment deck of cards aren't enough.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> The problem with healthcare costs is that there is a lack of competition of costly services provided by large hospital and clinics. That doesn't seem to be the problem. Particularly, it is not a differentiator between the US and many systems with better cost-for-outcome profiles.
- jugg1es 9y agoI'm a lead dev at a small, but fast-growing healthcare IT company and I can say that healthcare is nothing like the markets that amazon is currently in. It is so incredibly fragmented and the laws vary state to state. In Maryland, where I live, we have a single, very competent and well-funded HIE called CRISP. California, in contrast, has like 20 different regional HIE's with not much support from the state AFAIK. I think they're going to be surprised how crazy the healthcare markets are.
- NicoJuicy 9y agoSo JPMorgan is helping to create a company "that is free from profit-making incentives and constraints." I don't buy it.
- ThirdFoundation 9y agoWell, I think it could make sense in that this new healthcare company's goal is to lower the costs Amazon, Berkshire, and JPMorgan pay for healthcare for their respective employees. So I think it's possible that the healthcare company exists "free from profit-making incentives and constraints" while also aligning with JPMorgan's goal of increasing profits by lowering their corporate healthcare costs. If this also increases employee happiness by way of lower payments and better service, I see a world where all of the above is possible and it works out better for all (except rival healthcare providers). Though I tend to side with you and am dubious until proven otherwise.
- leoharsha2 9y agoWhat if Amazon could launch a subscription-based Amazon Prime type healthcare offering that would include: - access to telemedicine service. - low-cost drug delivery service. - access to wearables for remote monitoring of patients. Let's see!