Amazon Buys One Medical
onemedical.com
onemedical.com
Not sure whether these FTC statements are routine whenever global megacorps gobble up smaller companies, or whether they're issued based on past performance of the companies in question.
"The Federal Trade Commission issued a statement Feb. 27 warning Amazon and One Medical that it must keep healthcare data safe and is prohibited from using it for advertising or marketing purposes.
Amazon said it would not share One Medical patients' personal health information to sell other Amazon products, and the FTC said the company must uphold that statement.
'Companies that fail to abide by the commitments and representations they have made to consumers can violate Section 5 of the FTC Act,' the FTC wrote.
The FTC also said both companies must make it clear on how they will use protected health information as defined by HIPAA, as well as how Amazon will use One Medical patient data for purposes 'beyond the provision of healthcare.'
Amazon completed its $3.9 billion acquisition of virtual and in-person primary care company One Medical on Feb. 22."
Becker - https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/disruptors/ftc-warns-a...
FTC Statement in full - https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2210191amazonon...
I'm sure the fine will be a real deterrent. Just like the fines have deterred Amazon to stop their anti-union practices. I wonder if we will ever see some antitrust measures ever again, or if it is just going to be a free for all from now on.
> GoodRx will be prohibited from sharing user health data with applicable third parties for advertising purposes, and has agreed to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty for violating the rule.
Meanwhile, GoodRx's revenue in 2021 was $745 million.
So basically, they got something roughly akin to a speeding ticket.
So if the fine were even remotely as impactful as a speeding-ticket is to a normal person then GoodRX would have just earned 3 penalty points on their business-license, have substantially higher business indemnity insurance costs, and once they hit enough points and caught doing-business-while-impetuous (DWI) again then the state would seize their business and crush it under a tank[1] and those at the wheel would be behind bars.
Somehow I doubt anything remotely close to that will happen to GoodRX and its management when this inevitably happens again.
I'm not sure the FTC will be Amazon's primary regulatory concern in this instance. And HIPAA is just the start. The FTC really is the least of your concerns once you start playing in healthcare on a diagnostic level.
Full disclosure, I've exited a diagnostic medical imaging software company and have been through the regulatory proctology exams that are 510(k) and HIPAA.
It's been less than 48 hours since the FTC fined another high-profile healt-tech startup for selling patient data to advertisers, including Facebook and Snapchat: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/02/...
HIPAA provides some very basic protection, but nowhere near what most people think it does, and nowhere near enough.
It applies in very specific situations, and it can be surprising where it can be circumvented.
edit: ah looks like yes https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/01/04/haven-the-amazon-berkshi...
Man, tanked their own venture.
If they want to go vertical the whole way, then retail pharmacies are also not a money maker (see Walgreens’ figures, and CVS pre Caremark and Aetna merger). Then there is getting into the provider side, such as employing doctors and owning and operating hospitals. This side has more margin, but is very liability heavy and very risky to get into.
And Kaiser Permanente already does the entire healthcare vertical, but even they are not able to offer measurably lower premiums.
The biggest margins are in pharmaceuticals, but that requires billions of dollars in investment and many years to develop, all for what? At the end, you might as well sell your own medicines at a high margin.
I feel like a lot of the costs in medicine have to do with liability, and without tort reform, there is not much any business can do about costs.
They wanted to reduce medical costs, and therefore their insurance costs, basically. I worked in a health tech company when this news broke years ago and was skeptical then. Health care is a hard industry with tons of perverse incentives and opposing interests. Any solution for our health care costs will include government regulations and laws. The private sector cannot, on its own, do it.
If there’s multiple huge companies operating with similar, small profit margins over the course of 10+ years, it probably means they have optimized as much as possible within the constraints of the existing system. Hence, I would conclude that any further optimizations would have to come from changing the constraints.
The three companies all self fund their employees insurance, so the goal was to cut out some of this bloat by providing services directly to employees.
The Amazon Care implementation was amazing, it's unclear why it failed. I would speculate its because costs are dominated by services they didn't provide (emergency rooms etc).
Yet other plans are able to compete on the west coast.
People are certainly willing to pay more for PPO plans which give them more options but personally I’ve never run into problems with KP. And the California rule which means hospital charges for HMO patients are capped at the deductible for an out of network ER visit is hugely important. Otherwise you get nickel and dime’d by all sorts of charges for each professional who sees you in the ER and some hospitals even went after patients for $1000s when they charges more than the insurance company would pay. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/In...
The No Surprises Act took care of these issues nationwide as of Jan 1, 2022:
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/02/28/1159786...
> The office told KHN that the "participating provider" contract does not override the laws barring out-of-network charges in emergency situations. "Danielle had an emergency and Regence acknowledges it was an emergency, so she cannot be balance-billed," said Stephanie Marquis, public affairs director for the Washington state Office of the Insurance Commissioner.
Medicine is life-or-death. It would make sense that carelessness and dangerous products would cause serious damages including to the point where certain providers and drugs are not commercially viable because they literally do more harm than good.
The US healthcare market is a complete clusterfuck. Other countries get comparable outcomes from universal healthcare for about the same outlay as we already spend on public healthcare.
It is a good value, and works well for those who 1) aren't particularly involved in directing their own care or 2) are extremely aggressive in asserting themselves. People in the middle get frustrated.
Kaiser has a reputation for being incredibly inflexible and rationing care to a degree that makes it a non-starter for anyone who has any healthcare needs beyond routine care (assuming they have an alternative to choose from). They have incredibly restrictive network rules, and they make it much harder to access non-routine care (additional hoops to jump through, etc). It's a very frustrating experience unless your care needs happen to align exactly with what their actuaries have determined is optimal.
This is not really surprising - it's exactly what you'd expect would happen when an insurer is directly responsible for clinical care (as much as integrated capitated healthcare systems pretend otherwise by using different terms to describe themselves, at the end of the day, that's exactly what they are: medical practices run by health insurance companies).
KP may officially be a non-profit, but their CEO rakes in millions and their physician group is a separate for-profit entity.
There are some providers that make heroic efforts to provide quality care, but the overall culture seems to be very bureaucratic and big-co checkbox exercises.
NowRX does meds regional delivery, ExpressScripts was one of the first by mail, and other US pharmacy chains are sending meds by mail too.
Amazon has PillPack, where they combine meds by time of day.
Q: I don't have insurance, can I still use Galileo? A: Yes! Your monthly or yearly membership fee will cover all the care you receive within the Galileo app.
One Medical - $199/yr ($144 first year)
Galileo - $249/yr (or $348 paid monthly, or $45 single visit)
Is there something else in the pricing that makes Galileo cheaper for poorer people?
Don't know if that's still all true tho, that was 1-1.5 years ago.
> hide | past | favorite | 21 comments
Has that always been here?
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Amazon%20Buys%20One%20Medical&...
edit: to answer my own question, looking at archive.is, "Past" has been around since at least 2019.
This site is so minimal and yet I never clicked that link even though I spend way too much time here. How strange.
There’s also a “past” link in the top bar that allows you to look through the most popular stories from previous dates, so I’d suspect it’s all a bit confusing to most users.
However, today’s link is truly a re-submission of the late February item.
in scifi the megacorp is typically a villain, so having a real life megacorp being a villain is not something i'm looking forward to, and yet the OP was equating Amazon as a scifi like megacorp. are you really unable to make the connection of why i'm asking why the comparison could be more ominous than good?
That being said over the last five years the quality of care has gone down. The good practitioners have left, and now there is quite a bit of turnover. I’ve had to change PCPs 4x in the last three years.
I don't use One Medical any more because I no longer live in an area where they exist. They were a good customer experience for the basics. I will note that they are really just a triage replacement and the people you see are often less experienced. And they don't do specialists, really. If you get into anything complicated you're dealing with the general medical system as normal (annoying trips to random floors in big research hospitals to do weird tests that don't really tell you anything other than you already know type of vibe, not really knowing if you're in network or not because nobody can tell you a straight answer type of vibe, not knowing up front what classifies as a co-pay and what's a covered benefit, why is "hospital" lab work billed more than clinic lab work and why does that mean my insurance covers less of it and I have to pay extra more type of vibe). They're not vertically integrated like a Kaiser.
now that amazon owns it I wouldn't go near it
...only to reactivate it again when my employer questioned why, and have them cancel it again two weeks later.
I haven't even tried to use them or look at their offerings after being de-platformed on repeat for the longest part of a year until my employer dropped them.
Being able to reliably schedule same/next-day appointments is such a breath of fresh air. You might not see your specific primary doctor if it's short notice, but I've always been able to see someone, and they'll have access to all your records.
Also, having my health record available regardless of which doctor, office, or city (within their network) I'm visiting is nice.
So far I've been a huge fan. Things like scheduling appointments, getting labs done, having an easy back-and-forth with a provider when you just have a question and nothing major, is way, way, way better with One Medical than with any of my previous doctors. I will challenge a bit another commenter's statement that "Most of these conveniences have been incorporated into big insurance players platforms by now" - while that's true, other insurance corp apps have generally been absolutely abysmal. One Medical's app is generally excellent IMO.
Of course, the big question has to do with quality of the practitioners. I've found that I really like my doctor at One Medical, but he is only recently out of training, so not sure how long he'll stick around
In my home town, it was relatively trivial to find a competent GP who took my insurance. In the much larger market of DC, totally the opposite! Which led me to using OneMedical for a while.
The main advantages they had a few years ago were:
- Multiple locations (including near my apt and work place)
- easy to schedule appointments on short notice with either my PCP (if available) or anyone else on their staff (if not)
- Very easy to communicate with doctors/etc online, generally their portal was "not shitty"
- Appointments always started on time
The downside was the extra cost (trivial compared to the hassle it was to deal with other services) and the staff being a bit more impersonal -- they really hurried you out of there, which is the flip side of always starting on time. :)
I've actually kept up my account even though I see a different PCP these days, since it felt like it could be useful as a fallback on short notice. I'm thinking about cancelling now that Amazon has bought them, though.
A few months ago I got a stomach bug traveling, and was able to do a quick video visit and get a script for antibiotics sent to a local pharmacy even though I was out of my home state. The ease of that one event is well worth the annual fee. There was no additional charge for the video visit.
During the height of covid, I got some other respiratory thing that I thought might be covid and I was extremely stressed. I did a video visit with a provider who was working (from home) while sick with covid. I thanked her for her service and started to cry.
Define "this"? It looks like they are specific to northern California, in which case they can't really serve the common use case of using One Medical as a pseudo-urgent care (the ability to have medication prescribed in any state when traveling, or to see a provider in any large city on short notice when traveling).
Overall, my experience was pretty good (with the caveat that this is all in the context of the US healthcare system, so the bar is rather low): I was happy with my PCP[0] and the overall level of care provided, and scheduling appointments (with my PCP or otherwise) was always really easy and straightforward[1]. I also never personally ran into any weird/scammy billing issues, something which I have encountered with some frequency at other healthcare providers[2].
That all being said, my work provided access to OneMedical as a perk, and I'm not sure if I'd pay the membership fee out of my own pocket if I ever move back to a city where they offer coverage (even setting aside concerns about its acquisition by Amazon).
[0] n=1, and I'm a white dude without any serious chronic illnesses or ailments, so take with the obvious grains of salt
[1] I was basically always able to schedule appointments within a week, and usually same- or next-day, which IME is unheard of in the American medical system in general. As a contrasting example, when I tried to find a PCP about a year prior to enrolling in OneMedical, but still living in the same metro area, most scheduling offices told me that there would be a 3-6 month waiting period for scheduling a routine physical, assuming they were taking new patients in the first place.
[2] Again, n=1, so I doubt this is really a generalizeable data point.
I've traveled and lived abroad, and IMO One Medical clears even the relatively high European-style medical system quality bar.
Happy for them that they got acquired by Amazon, since the scheduling + online stuff is a big part of what makes One Medical great and Amazon is quite good at that.
I already didn't like it, I like it even less now.
source: I got all of my adderall through them for nearly two years
The video visits are especially useful. Generally if you click "emergency video appointment" in the app you'll be in a video chat with a nurse practitioner in less than five minutes - often faster - no matter what time of day or night it is.
One thing I've used that for is emergency prescriptions: say I'm traveling and I forgot to bring a medication, I usually find that a five minute video chat will result in the medication I need being made available at a pharmacy in whatever town I'm visiting.
I have no idea, but it worked. I went to the One Medical office nearby, and the doctor fixed my problem. All communication after was through the One Medical iPhone app, which was pretty good for medical software but was still complicated for no reason. The relatively few things the doctor wanted to tell me were scattered around different menus, and I missed some. He could've just given me a piece of paper, and it would've been way easier.
Lyme can be super awful in some cases, especially when you’ve had it for a while without knowing. Given my experiences in other care systems, I don’t have a lot of faith they would have tested for it with any rigor.
If you can get through the scammy stuff they’re pretty good though for the convenience
They're just like any other in-network clinic, except they try to provide an above-average experience. They bill your insurance, and you're still on the hook for copays. I suspect that they're more likely to write off stuff that insurance rejects rather than bill you, but all I know is I've directly paid them maybe $40 over the last 3 years.
Their clinics are comfortable and pleasantly decorated. Their front desk workers are all friendly and happily tackle clerical issues like tracking down external lab orders in other networks' systems.
Their app is about as meh as any other, but their scheduling system is actually usable with plenty of available appointments. For labs in particular, I can just drop in without an appointment and be done in 15 minutes. All the phlebotomists I've had have been skilled and empathic. I was able to get a 12-lead ECG there, too.
Their video sessions are very easy and convenient, and I've never had to wait more than 10 minutes or so. They aren't really going to solve any problems unless you just need an obvious prescription filled, but it's very comforting to be able to get a quick opinion from a random nurse practitioner. It's a nice way to help decide whether or not a problem is worth a trip to urgent care.
https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/health-tech/amazon-shells-o...
Just like we need no billionaires - we need no privately owned, for-profit mega-corps.
People need to get out of this very American idea that this aggressive style of capitalistic corporate monopolisation has worked well for the world.
Google was scary enough with so many digital properties tied together, but now a bohemoth expanding into the 'real' world should give everyone pause.
Also need to make sure your startup employers AWS bill is always current in case your work AWS account is linked to your personal Amazon Prime account behind the scenes somehow.
One possible explanation for why we got the ACA instead of open Medicare when Democrats had the power under Obama is open Medicare enrollment has a greater chance of preventing Universal single pair down the road.
Open Medicare enrollment is also in some ways close to the status quo of Medicaid.
Lastly, it is a risky option because it pits Medicare directly against private insurance- what if it isn't cheaper or people don't like it
That would be s/improvement/profit though, right? I bet they absolutely can manage that squeeze, and I bet it won't register as "improvement" from your perspective.
CVS Health Corporation owns almost 10,000 drug stores and fills more than 20% of all US prescriptions. It also owns Aetna, the largest health insurance company in the US. It's the fourth largest US company by revenue. Another health insurance company is number five.
The largest health care operator in the US is HCA Healthcare which runs 187 hospitals, and has $60 billion in revenue.
Wow. I had no idea CVS owns Aetna!
It doesn't really seem like the medical industry is going in any particular direction other than developing more subscription drugs (whos primary sure sign that theyre doing anything is the side effects) and marketing them after using regulatory capture to approve them. One time cures barely get any funding or marketing or regulatory acceleration because they're simply not as profitable.
It's a really deeply cynical industry that I don't foresee fixing itself without near-total or total collapse.
From their 2022 filings:
* Loss from Operations was $419.7 million, or 40% of Net Revenue; Net Loss was $397.8 million, or 38% of Net Revenue.
*2022 Ending Cash and Marketable Securities of $262.4 Million
It had less than one year of runway.
Companies go out of business for a number of reasons including but not limited to -) The inability to compete with or defend against mega-corps such as Amazon, Google, Facebook etc..., -) Being poorly managed, -) Having a product that people don't want/need. It's actually quite rare that smaller companies go out of business competing with their peers.
At the end of the day - what matters more - the success and profits of private companies - or the health and happiness of humans? They're not always diametrically opposed - but they're often not conducive to one another.
Companies now do (and will continue) to go under due to lack of access to capital markets.
One Medical is actually probably one of the top examples of that kind of company. It would be very hard for them to issue new shares or raise debt to fund their operations.
And to the health and happiness of humans point, a bunch of people losing their primary care doctors is again, one of the top examples of bad social outcomes from a company going out of business.
What moral or economic principle determines why one company shouldn't be allowed to buy another, as long as it's not reducing competition (e.g. Amazon buying Barnes and Noble, or Amazon buying Wal-Mart)?
If Amazon simply built its own One Medical that grew to the same size, should that similarly be prohibited? And how are you going to determine the dollar value valuation of a company where it's not allowed to buy companies anymore?
Because conglomerates -- corporations that have products in lots of different industries -- have been around for a long time. They grow when they think they can generate economies of scale and synergies, which is good for consumers.
I've only very rarely seen these sorts of things result in anything good for the general population.
There’s lots of anti-capitalist resources available online. It’s sometimes hard to find them because of the Red Scare and capitalist’s wildly violent suppression winning the Cold War. Cheers!
Take Apple for example. It bought most of Intel's modem business to build its own product.
Does anyone seriously believe that Apple couldn't have built that kind of technology from scratch? How many modem businesses could they build before running out of cash? Wouldn't it have been better for Intel's modem business to go to someone else who might make the product available outside of Apple's closed product ecosystem?
I'm pretty sure Apple would have no problem bootstrapping an oil company or an industrial container ship manufacturing business, that's just how much money they have.
Wonder if maybe they are no longer taking sign ups?