Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by m16ghost 1998 days ago
Healthcare in the United States is complicated with lots of different players. The article seems to hint at a key issue they faced:

>But insiders claim that it will allow the founding companies to implement ideas from the project on their own, tailoring them to the specific needs of their employees, who are mostly concentrated in different cities.

Medical services is mostly a localized service, so each city is its own individual market. As large as Amazon, JPMorgan, and Berkshire are, their employees are spread out geographically, and even in their headquarter cities, they do not represent a significant number of people negotiating for medical services. Without a way to control the actual medical service supply (i.e. doctors and hospitals), their programs will have to negotiate at market rates, meaning there really is no way to achieve significant savings.

Amazon released their pill pack service, which helps because drugs can be shipped across the country, so there are efficiencies to be gained there. However, drug costs are still a smaller percentage of overall costs [0], albeit growing.

[0]https://www.ama-assn.org/about/research/trends-health-care-s...

2 comments

I wonder what the costs/benefits of tele-medicine are like right now. It seems like for certain services like gp visits you could just have a location that scans people to create high detail models for a remote doctor to review during a live call while locally situated support staff handle things like collecting blood, fluids, etc. and feeling for lumps. Probably not ideal for a small practice but if you have a pool of 100,000 employees it seems plausible that you could realize some savings.
I priced Amazon's prescription drug service and it estimated I would be paying my co-pay on each of the drugs. Sounds good if you usually go to CVS but at Walmart I get the four prescriptions I get for $26-30.