Amazon Shelves Plan To Sell Prescription Drugs (cnbc.com) 70
Major Blud writes: CNBC is reporting that Amazon Business, which considered selling pharmaceutical products last year, has put its plans to do so on hiatus. "The change in plan comes partly because Amazon has not been able to convince big hospitals to change their traditional purchasing process, which typically involves a number of middlemen and loyal relationships," reports CNBC. Amazon was able to gain licensing in 47 out of the 50 U.S. states, but has struggled to land contracts with large hospital networks. "The setback illustrates the challenges of getting into the medical supply and pharmaceutical space, even for a company as big as Amazon," reports CNBC. "Several health-care and pharmaceutical distribution companies saw their stock take a nosedive following recent reports of Amazon potentially getting into the space, but it will likely take some time before those concerns turn into real threats."
Re: (Score:1)
much better systems like chinese medicine. its work for thousands of years
When an American gets the flu, they get a prescription for antibiotics which work only as a placebo, with deleterious side effects in breeding antibiotic resistance.
When Chinese get sick, they take some ground up leaves, which also only work only as a placebo, but avoid the drawbacks.
The Chinese way is better.
Re: (Score:2)
"The study analyzed antibiotic use in doctors’ offices and emergency departments throughout the United States. CDC researchers found that most of these unnecessary antibiotics are prescribed for respiratory conditions caused by viruses – including common colds, viral sore throats, bronchitis, and sinus and ear infections – which do not respond to antibiotics"
https://www.cdc.gov/media/rele... [cdc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Addendum
The study also :states that 30% of prescriptions for antibiotics are unnecessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Anecdotally, my wife recently had an onset of acute bronchitis, which is, in most cases, a viral infection. Her doctor prescribed antibiotics "just in case" it was bacterial.
Re: (Score:2)
Anecdotally, my wife recently had an onset of acute bronchitis, which is, in most cases, a viral infection.
This isn't the whole story. Yes, it is quite rare for a bacterial infection to cause bronchitis, but being the "-itis" it is, inflammation often leads to fissures in the bronchi, which bacteria can colonize, regardless of cause (including i.e. dust, cigarette smoke, prolonged coughing from other infection.) If the doc saw a hint of blood, yellow color, or green color in the phlegm (or if your wife told him of it, or sometimes they can tell by looking at your throat,) that means she already had bacterial inf
Re: (Score:2)
If the doc saw a hint of blood, yellow color, or green color in the phlegm (or if your wife told him of it, or sometimes they can tell by looking at your throat,) that means she already had bacterial infection.
Bollocks. That particular pearl has been deprecated for decades. It just means that there is an inflammatory response going on. And viruses are good at getting that pathway going.
Now, there still are lots of practitioners who at least profess to believe that, but they are sadly behind the times.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm doubtful that antibiotics shouldn't ever be prescribed for viral cold or sore throat. The reason why is because in many cases viral infections (especially the more painful variety) cause enough inflammation and coughing that the tissue becomes more susceptible to infection from existing bacteria in the air, so a bacterial illness then follows afterwards. I've had doctors prescribe them to me anyways, even after I brought up the issue of them not working with viral colds, and this was the explanation.
If
Re: dont take that poison (Score:2)
And I'm sure all the offers frm "Amazon Marketplace" sellers will be full potency, guaranteed equivalent generics, and contain absolutely no sawdust, melamine or industrial waste.
Re: dont take that poison (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Big hospitals have no reason to change (Score:1)
Hospital is a middle man (Score:4, Insightful)
Middle men could be cutting prices (Score:2)
Your health insurance and you in the end pay for it!
The story mentions Amazon trying to sell drugs in 47 of the U.S. states. Not Europe. :-D
What is this strange thing called "health insurance" you're speaking about ?~~
Hospital is a middle man - they get markup on what they sell. They have no incentive to lower that cost.
On the other hand, the pharma companies and middle men upstream along the chain have an ultra-strong incentive to dramatically cut their prices and even sell at a loss some of their prescription drugs when making deals with big hospitals :
- Hospital will be interested in making business with the middle man that gives them the biggest volume sal
No incentive for the hospital (Score:2, Flamebait)
Hospitals (for civilian non-veterans) in the USA have no incentive to be efficient. They can put whatever number they like on the invoice and they'll likely get paid.
You people in the USA could get cheaper medical care with cheaper drugs if you would get your hospitals and doctors to find the cheapest supplier - but you seem to think that's some sort of evil socialism and you reject it. You have at least one illness: severe delusion. Maybe you have other illnesses too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hospitals (for civilian non-veterans) in the USA have no incentive to be efficient. They can put whatever number they like on the invoice and they'll likely get paid.
Having dealt with numerous hospital and doctor bills over the past couple decades, I can state with confidence that you're quite wrong.
The hospitals and doctors may bill for a particular amount; but how much they actually receive depends on a rate negotiated with each insurance company. So when you look at a doctor's bill for example, you might see:
2018-02-25 Brain Transplant $100000.00
2018-02-27 Insurance Write-off -55000.00
2018-02-27 Insurance Paid
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And yet,
States consider bringing prescription drugs from Canada to US as costs soar [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's because in Canada and Europe, the state buys from the drug companies. When an entire country is buying the drugs, they buy in bulk because they're buying for everyone in the country. This sheer buying power means they can demand good pricing for drugs. (In Canada, it's actually bought at the provincial level, but many provinces have joined forces to group buy the drugs, again, because it increases their lev
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's because in Canada and Europe, the state buys from the drug companies. When an entire country is buying the drugs, they buy in bulk because they're buying for everyone in the country.
Canada's entire population is less then the number of people served by Medicare. [cms.gov]
And in reality, most of these health systems are actually multiple systems, I know Canada has one for each province, and the UK system is actually 5 systems.
Re: No incentive for the hospital (Score:1)
Isn't that the norm in the USA for non-emergency medicine?
Do you have insurance? Does your insurance cover this?
In any case, medical outcomes in the USA are nothing special compared to the rest of the world and very poor value for money.
Re: (Score:2)
And often if you're not on the approved list for all of the components of a hospital bill, your co-pay is based on the full freight of what's charged.
And if you happen to be uninsured.. well, you're fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
well, you're fucked.
That's the real American Way!
This is a gross invasion of privacy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:No incentive for the hospital (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure if I believe this.
As a physician employed by a fairly large hospital network, I know that my hospital pinches any penny they can.
If they can get 1 cent less per acetaminophen tablet, they would sell their own mother for the opportunity.
Not that they will pass that savings on to the consumer. But it will increase their margins so that they can afford to buy more stuff.
So I can't believe Amazon.com is giving up on this.
The only thing I can think is that the hospitals have multi-year contracts that need to run out and Amazon wasn't willing to wait.
Re: No incentive for the hospital (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Also, since Amazon is being targeted by President Trump right now, it's probably better that it waits until he leaves office. Starting a new business venture in pharmaceuticals when a branch of the government is out to get you is a very bad idea.
So much for draining the swamp (Score:5, Insightful)
If the putative swamp-draiing team in Washington had put John Stossel in charge of the FDA and turned Amazon loose with the ability to buy medications in bulk on the world market and fill US prescriptions for less, Trump's second term would be assured. But apparently, nothing this rompingly popular is even under consideration by the 'populists'.
If anything, the pond scum is getting deeper.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't about selling to consumers like Walmart does. Amazon couldn't compete with the companies that have been selling in bulk to hospitals for many, many years.
Which is a shame. Having the doc E-sign a prescription and the meds automagically popping up in my Amazon cart and auto charged against my HSA with prime shipping would be several billion times better than schlepping to Walgreens and waiting while they force you to spend 20 minutes in their store in the hope you buy something.
Disappointing (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
More competition in this space would be good. It's disheartening that such a big player as Amazon can't break in.
The problem isn't the US retail sector. Do you honestly think CVS, Walgreens, et al. wouldn't jump at the chance to sell medications for less. The problem is the US health care industry and laws that end up locking generics out of the market. The whole thing is designed to sell medications for the maximum price. Amazon have taken a look at the razor thin retail margins and said nothankyou.jpg.
GPOs own that business (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
From your link: In 1986, Congress granted GPOs in healthcare "Safe Harbor" from federal anti-kickback statutes"
I suspect that means they are dug in like ticks regardless of their efficiency
Why would Amazon be good for this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Amazon is pretty good at consumer delivery, but they're B2B service for repeated mass deliveries doesn't really exist yet. Nor is it in their area of competency. Those supply chains are already pretty well optimized, the ordering will be done via boring forms (for legal reasons), and there's no upselling/tracking of people's desires, and things are moved by the box, not the item. Also, big hospital chains already get bulk discounts.
My guess is they really just weren't able to compete on price and service, not that "there are longstanding relationships that made hospitals decide to lose money.:
Re: (Score:1)
All of that, plus the medical field will not accept a failure in delivery - they need the supply of drugs and material to be very, very, reliable. The consumer market doesn't put so much value on reliability.
Re: (Score:2)
Your entire "sunday USPS delivery" think misses the point. Next day delivery is unimportant in drugs. 100% reliability is. With whatever you order on Prime, it arriving in 1 day (or 2 or 2 hours) is the important thing. If something goes wrong 1% of the time, they give you an apology and a free month of Prime. If drugs don't arrive 1% of the time, that can cost people their lives.
I don't dispute Amazon has a great chain for consumers. It's just not who I would order recurring shipments of 55 gallon ch
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you can go to a pharmacy if for some reason you need a drug you weren't expecting. It's great for individuals. It's different for hospitals/major consumers.
You know who probably could get into that business - WalMart. They are excellent at making sure several thousand locations have the materials they need on-site. Amazon has a few dozen fulfillment centers and trucks to UPS. They just don't have the infrastructure to do B2B (yet). And it seems like Whole Foods, etc. are attempts to buy that infra
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon's B2C logistics are fine. They can get a random piece of crap sold and delivered. However, they aren't great at say quality assurance (look at the eclipse glasses) and have no demonstrated skill at maintaining the appropriate levels at thousands of retail locations (yet, they're developing them.)
As for long-standing relationships, I'm not 100% sure I buy your explanation. While I believe that the MDs/RNs they promoted made bad IT decisions based on relationships, I'd hope their knowledge of medici
Re: (Score:2)
Middlemen?!?!?! (Score:2)
The change in plan comes partly because Amazon has not been able to convince big hospitals to change their traditional purchasing process, which typically involves a number of middlemen and loyal relationships
How I read that is that there are a whole slew of weasels between my check to the doctor or hospital and the medication provider. I'd have to say that America already has a form of "socialized medicine". It's just not cost sharing between end-users; it's end-users supporting middleman. CORRECTION: Make that "middleman that give kickbacks and handjobs to the hospital purchasing agents but offer no value to the end user".
So here's my suggestion: Every bill has to include an itemized list of where the mon
Re: (Score:2)
Unless Amazon is planning on producing drugs, aren't they just trying to be additional middlemen?
Re: (Score:1)
My insurance doesn't just blindly pay the hospital (Score:1)
Start with end user delivery in Canada (Score:2)