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

121–130 of 155 posts

Re: CVS Is Said to Agree to Buy Aetna

#121

Post by allenz »

guelo wrote: post #119
allenz wrote: post #67

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 This is timely now that it's possible that the individual mandate will be repealed.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 ri…

There's no reason to believe that a return to pre-ACA will make the market behave differently than it did pre-ACA.

ACA without the individual mandate is not the same as no ACA. Plus, lots has changed in the meantime: a growing shortage in physicians, even higher healthcare costs, an expanding role for nurses. The healthcare market is not static.

Re: CVS Is Said to Agree to Buy Aetna

#122

Post by rdl »

mrfusion wrote: post #95
rdl wrote: post #2

If this turns every CVS into a uniform, inexpensive office/urgent care/etc., particularly with telemedicine, I'll be happy -- the "minute clinic" stuff already provides cheaper and more convenient access to care, but CVS+Aetna+some kind of EHR could do something amazing.

Is there a good way to do telemedicine now? I can’t get over the awkward factor but if it saves money.

Telemed from a minute clinic to a specialist is different than telemed from home to a primary care provider. The former is a lot easier to make work.

Re: CVS Is Said to Agree to Buy Aetna

#123

Post by ikeboy »

erebus_rex wrote: post #105
ikeboy wrote: post #102

>Both CVS and Aetna played down the prospects of regulators moving to block their deal. The breakup fee for the transaction is not especially large, reflecting that belief. What's the causality here? Why does a lower chance of being blocked imply a lower fee if blocked?

Takeovers cost time and money to execute (lawyers, consultants, bank fees) beyond just the purchases price. If the deal does not go through it is a loss for the acquirer, hence breakup fees. If the chance of takeover failure is low the acquirer will be willing to accept a smaller insurance.

The fee is only paid if it doesn't go through. So I still fail to see how that reflects the chance of success.

Re: CVS Is Said to Agree to Buy Aetna

#125

Post by guelo »

allenz wrote: post #121
guelo wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no reason to believe that a return to pre-ACA will make the market behave differently than it did pre-ACA.

ACA without the individual mandate is not the same as no ACA. Plus, lots has changed in the meantime: a growing shortage in physicians, even higher healthcare costs, an expanding role for nurses. The healthcare market is not static.

ACA without the individual mandate means that the insurers can't make the exchanges work causing their collapse. One benefit for the insured of millions fewer insured is that it will aliviate the shortage of doctors and nurses, probably to near pre-ACA levels.

Re: CVS Is Said to Agree to Buy Aetna

#126

Post by sithadmin »

chimeracoder wrote: post #90
sithadmin wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Don't they make a decent percentage of their revenue off of brands which are currently price protected via these tariffs? Yes. If consumers and/or pharmacies in the US could easily and reliably source cheaper brand-name drugs from international markets where price ceilings are in effect, it would ruin many drug companies, especially smaller ones.

> Yes. If consumers and/or pharmacies in the US could easily and reliably source cheaper brand-name drugs from international markets where price ceilings are in effect, it would ruin many drug companies, especially smaller ones. Those price ceilings only exist because of the artificial trade barrier between the US and those other countries. Without that trade barrier, pharmaceutical companies would charge roughly equ…

>Without that trade barrier, pharmaceutical companies would charge roughly equivalent prices in the US and other countries.

You do know that many nations impose price controls on pharmaceutical products inside their own borders, right?

Re: CVS Is Said to Agree to Buy Aetna

#127

Post by wils1245 »

libertyEQ wrote: post #116
just1nn wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "Caremark/CVS" insurance that I have for prescriptions allows me to go to Target/CVS for covered medications, but I also have the option to mail-order (from them, of course). I also have Aetna Health Insurance just by chance (we have a choice of 3 companies @work). Amazon is going to buy drugs in major bulk (Walmart, or Mail-order-pharmacy style), and likely will charge low "dispensing fees" (because robots will…

>Amazon is going to buy drugs in major bulk (Walmart, or Mail-order-pharmacy style) All pharmacies, electronic and brick-and-mortar, go through one of 3 wholesalers: Cardinal, AmerisourceBergen, or Mckesson. It's, "which retailer can drive distribution?"

Speaking from the US, it's too bad that pharmacists are so disempowered here. I was just in France, and my friend came down with an eye infection. He went to a pharmacist, who just gave him antibiotics and told him to come back in three days if it didn't go away.

We both agreed it would never have been so easy in the states.

Re: CVS Is Said to Agree to Buy Aetna

#128

Post by WWLink »

phkahler wrote: post #71
gigatexal wrote: post #68

Um wtf. This is akin to comcast buying NBC. This is not good.

Thank you, the top comment and all its follow-up seem to think it's a good thing and may lower cost. It's hard for me to imagine this being anything less than a way to make more money with the combined companies.

It's terrible! The best doctors I've ever had were private practices where they had their own office. Every time I've dealt with anything remotely corporate it was a nightmare.

Re: CVS Is Said to Agree to Buy Aetna

#129

Post by [deleted] »

ropeladder wrote: post #114

The only real upside I see here is that, the more vertically and horizontally concentrated the private sector gets, the more absurd most arguments for privatized, profit-driven healthcare appear. Basically every other developed country has shown that the government can do as good of a job at half the cost. Socialize it all.

[deleted]

Re: CVS Is Said to Agree to Buy Aetna

#130

Post by drawkbox »

It is a consolidation but CVS is a consumer focused company, which is something the US Healthcare system needs more of direly.

Part of the problem with health insurance tied to a job in the US is the fixed market that is shrouded from consumers leading to horrible pricing and service. Employment handling healthcare, in addition to a fixed pricing market, also harms the individual market due to horrible grouping, invades privacy, makes it harder to change jobs or start a company, and on top of that fuels ageism as costs go up with age in health. Employers should have no part in your healthcare, pay people more to go get it is all that should be allowed.

All other insurance types are consumer focused for auto, life, home and more. CVS taking over Aetna could be a great force in the market to make other companies get competitive on the consumer front. Aetna and BCBS are two of the worse non consumer friendly insurers around, they really hate dealing with individuals and small companies.

Post reply on HN