Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CVS Is Said to Agree to Buy Aetna

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 155 posts

Re: CVS Is Said to Agree to Buy Aetna

#61

Post by chimeracoder »

conanbatt wrote: post #50
IBM wrote: post #16

A big chunk of the health care industry is the oligopoly of distributors. There's only 3 of them: McKesson, AmerisourceBergen and Cardinal. If Amazon can bring much needed competition to that part of the healthcare market it'd help bring prices down. CVS is moving up the stack because they're afraid of Amazon entering the industry. They're combining a retailer, PBM and now a health insurer. Personally I think it shou…

IF you want to disrupt the pharma market, just let drug importation go free, and instead of debating the effects of a one new player, see the effects of the entire world getting in on it.

> IF you want to disrupt the pharma market, just let drug importation go free,

Yup. Allowing reimports of prescription drugs would be the single easiest way to have a massive effect on the costs of care in the US, with pretty much no negative impact on patients, providers, or pharmaceutical companies in the US.

Re: CVS Is Said to Agree to Buy Aetna

#62

Post by [deleted] »

greenyoda wrote: post #57
rgbrenner wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

probably not more expensive for them... to go to your doctors office, you need to make an appointment, take time off work, etc. To go to a pharmacy, you can stop by on your way home or do it on the weekend. By making it inconvenient, you reduce the number of people getting a flu shot... and I would bet that more people drop out from the inconvenience, than the extra amount it costs aetna when you go to the doctors of…

But if just one of the people insured by Aetna ended up in the hospital due to complications from the flu due to not getting a flu shot, the amount of money they'd have to pay for the hospital stay would pay for hundreds of flu shots.

[deleted]

Re: CVS Is Said to Agree to Buy Aetna

#63

Post by wbl »

dd36 wrote: post #59
etskinner wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it possible that the two companies being under the same management could have a second-order effect of expanding their Minute Clinic business? That is, because Aetna is part of the same company, it would be less costly for patients to visit MC since the prices that insurance providers usually have to negotiate with providers would go down enormously (to cost + profit instead of cost + MC profit + Aetna profit),…

That’s only if MC has huge margins, which is doubtful. They already have to negotiate with every carrier.

Vertical integration cuts costs.

Re: CVS Is Said to Agree to Buy Aetna

#64

Post by dd36 »

bartart wrote: post #35

Does this mean that many CVSs will become magnets for sick people as CVS tries to integrate more basic health services into its stores? I realize that most people going to an expanded minute clinic aren't going to be some sort of walking dead, but it seems that if CVS tries to make its stores too much like primary care with ill people going to get prescriptions from a doctor, then people will avoid buying things at i…

Don’t the walking dead already pick up prescriptions there?

I share your concern. Maybe they could service people out of Tesla Semis in the parking lot? Only half joking.

Re: CVS Is Said to Agree to Buy Aetna

#65

Post by briandear »

dd36 wrote: post #64
bartart wrote: post #35

Does this mean that many CVSs will become magnets for sick people as CVS tries to integrate more basic health services into its stores? I realize that most people going to an expanded minute clinic aren't going to be some sort of walking dead, but it seems that if CVS tries to make its stores too much like primary care with ill people going to get prescriptions from a doctor, then people will avoid buying things at i…

Don’t the walking dead already pick up prescriptions there? I share your concern. Maybe they could service people out of Tesla Semis in the parking lot? Only half joking.

Why do we still have to pick prescriptions up? We have pizza delivery — why not for medicines? Order your drugs with an app and it shows up at your door.

Re: CVS Is Said to Agree to Buy Aetna

#66

Post by Flammy »

chimeracoder wrote: post #61
conanbatt wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IF you want to disrupt the pharma market, just let drug importation go free, and instead of debating the effects of a one new player, see the effects of the entire world getting in on it.

> IF you want to disrupt the pharma market, just let drug importation go free, Yup. Allowing reimports of prescription drugs would be the single easiest way to have a massive effect on the costs of care in the US, with pretty much no negative impact on patients, providers, or pharmaceutical companies in the US.

How would that not significantly harm the pharmaceutical companies? Don't they make a decent percentage of their revenue off of brands which are currently price protected via these tariffs?

Re: CVS Is Said to Agree to Buy Aetna

#67

Post by allenz »

I see this as a move towards providing cheap basic medical care. This is timely now that it's possible that the individual mandate will be repealed. Millions of uninsured people could be treated for rashes or flus by nurses at CVS cheaper and faster than at doctor's offices.

More competition in healthcare could be a good thing--many say it's bloated and overpriced. The risk is that poor people get basic care while rich people get full care, widening health disparities.

It's unclear what the new healthcare economics will look like. Currently, minor procedures are profit centers for doctor's offices and hospitals. They subsidize complicated patients (often elderly with multiple chronic diseases like diabetes or COPD) who are riskier and take more time to treat. If CVS is taking that money, then hospitals may need to do some cost-cutting.

Re: CVS Is Said to Agree to Buy Aetna

#69

Post by throwaway0255 »

leekyle333 wrote: post #53
throwaway0255 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The boomers represent an irresistible pile of money. But they don't smoke. They don't have new households to start. They're getting wise to the whole sugar thing. What is left to tempt them with ? > What if there were a clear imperative on the part of a variety of industries to keep this population as unhealthy as possible - so they can stripmine their assets for "healthcare" ? It's not clear that living a healthy…

More money is spent on diabetes than any other category. https://health.usnews.com/health-care/articles/2016-12-28/di...

I'm not surprised, but eliminating those costs isn't as simple as eliminating diabetes. If diabetes is cured tomorrow, those costs don't just disappear, they get remapped to whatever other health complications and end-of-life events those people run into instead of diabetes. Then it gets complicated even further when you compare the impact to working years vs retiree years, and the resulting default rates and bankruptcies.

Diabetes can represent a massive chunk of healthcare spending, and also be an inexpensive patient outcome relative to many alternatives. Both can be true at the same time.

Post reply on HN