Hacker News Reader

Comment by therobot24 | Hacker News Reader

Just checked out your suggestion, i agree that the aggregation is nice, but $40/month for something i won't actively use but a few times a year is quite expensive.

View on HN

PicnicHealth CEO here and happy to answer questions. We're starting with the people who need the product most, so our customers tend to be pretty sick and have a ton of records going back and forth and sometimes multiple doctors appointments per week. We've brought the price down a lot from the companies that do record collection/aggregation for insurance and pharma (about $1000/patient just to start) but stay tuned for an even lower priced option for those with less intensive needs.

Is there a point for which you don't collect info? For instance is it possible to see records from my birth?

We get records as far back as we can. Unfortunately, records that are more than 10 or 15 years old are often destroyed. Offices are only legally required to keep records for a certain period of time (e.g., for 7 years in California), and so after a patient leaves a practice, the practice will typically clear out that patient's records at some point.

Long story short: we get records any records that still exist.

Since you're happy to answer questions:

* What about data export?

* Why no 2FA? (or sign in via federated identity?)

* What is my guarantee that your price doesn't dynamically adjust, potentially hitting me hardest when I can least afford it?

Agree. This service sounds interesting, but as an infrequent consumer of health care, this subscription model doesn't make sense. I would be interested in paying a flat fee to get my records. Then pay again in a year or two to have them updated. Wondering if the cost of obtaining the records is so high, that they need the subscription to run for x months to recoup? Maybe a hybrid approach would work: $5/mo to keep the account active, and then a user-initiated update feature at $40 a pop.

I agree. Think their price point is too expensive for most healthy consumers, so they are currently positioned for people who have a significant need to use them.

but don't those who would have a significant need be those who wouldn't necessarily have the $40/month for the subscription

When I had back problems, at one point I was doing PT 3x a week, seeing a neurosurgeon and a few other physicians.

All the while I was dealing with recovery actions from a health insurer that assumed that an unrelated ER visit was the root cause (and potentially not my health insurers problem)

Having this type of serve would have been awesome, and I would have gladly paid it!

fair enough, i guess i was thinking more in terms of elderly or those who have a chronic illness where money is heading primarily to medical bills (from the many treatments)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com