Category Archives: Consumer Focus

Big pharma entering the direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription fray

Posted on by • Posted in Big Pharma, Consumer Focus, Consumer Marketing, Consumer Needs, Consumer Preferences, Consumerism, Pharmaceutical Industry, Pharmacy Benefits Management, Telemedicine, Virtual Prescription • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/cd8b8b492027/the-weekly-gist-january-26-2024?e=d1e747d2d8

Recently published in Stat, this article outlines how the launch of telehealth platforms by pharmaceutical companies, most notably Eli Lilly’s LillyDirect, portends a gamechanger for DTC prescription marketing. 

Spurred by the escalating demand for Eli Lilly’s Zepbound and Mounjaro GLP-1 drugs, LillyDirect connects consumers with a third-party telehealth provider for prescriptions, an online pharmacy for fulfillment, and in-house payment support through streamlined coupon applications and prior authorization troubleshooting. In exchange, Eli Lilly gets access to reams of patient data, in addition to boosted sales. Pharma companies insist that the platforms have proper firewalls in place, as no money directly changes hands between them and their affiliated telehealth providers.

The Gist: With so manyothercompanies hopping on the GLP-1 virtual prescription bandwagon, it’s no wonder why pharma companies are opting to enter the market directly. What LillyDirect offers is not fundamentally different than platforms like Ro or Teladoc: using telehealth to blur the lines between prescription and over-the-counter medications by empowering consumers to seek out the care they want. 

However, Eli Lilly’s control of the drug supply, ability to offer coupons, relationships with pharmacy benefit managers, and inherent brand association with the drugs give it a leg up on the competition. 

By replacing “talk to your doctor about” with “visit our website for”, these consumer-focused platforms perpetuate the ongoing fragmentation of care and risk tapping into the potentially harmful side of consumerization in healthcare.

Amazon announces One Medical membership discount for Prime members

Posted on by • Posted in Affordability, Amazon, Amazon Care, Amazon Clinic, Amazon Pharmacy, Consumer Focus, Consumer Marketing, Consumer Value Proposition, Consumerism, Convenient Access, Innovative Care Models, Primary Care, Primary Care Strategy, Urgent Care, Urgent Response, Virtual Care Strategy, Virtual Healthcare, Virtual Office, Virtual Visit • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/f12ce6f07b28/the-weekly-gist-november-10-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

On Wednesday, e-commerce giant Amazon announced that its 167M US-based Prime members can now access One Medical primary care services for $9 per month, or $99 per year, which amounts to a 50 percent annual discount on One Medical membership. (Additional Prime family members can join for $6/month or $66/year.) 

One Medical, which Amazon purchased for $3.9B last year, provides its 800K members with 24/7 virtual care as well as app-based provider communication and access to expedited in-person care, though clinic visits are either billed through insurance or incur additional charges. Amazon also recently started offering virtual care services through its Amazon Clinic platform, at cash prices ranging from $30 to $95 per visit. 

The Gist: After teasing this type of bundle with a Prime Day sale earlier this year, Amazon has made the long-expected move to integrate One Medical into its suite of Prime add-ons, using a similar pricing model as its $5-per-month RxPass for generic prescription medications.

At such a low price, Amazon risks flooding One Medical’s patient population with demand it may struggle to meet. But if Amazon can scale One Medical, while maintaining its quality and convenience, it may be able to make the provider organization profitable. 

Known for its willingness to take risks and absorb financial losses, Amazon is continuing to build a healthcare ecosystem focused on hybrid primary care and pharmacy services that delivers a strong consumer value proposition based on convenience and low cost. 

Failing to earn the consumer’s referral

Posted on by • Posted in Consumer Experience, Consumer Focus, Consumer Preferences, Consumer-Centric, Consumerism, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Patient Experience, Patient Referrals, Patient Satisfaction, Referral • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/9fd97f114e7a/the-weekly-gist-october-6-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

There is a local urgent care chain that we frequented regularly when my kids were young and cycling through rounds of ear infections and strep throat. The experience was always solid, driven by online scheduling, efficient operations, and good customer service.

A few years ago, the clinics were bought by a local health system. We recently visited one for the first time post-acquisition, when my now teenage son needed to rule out a broken bone from a sports injury. This experience at the same urgent care left a very different impression.

In contrast to the “easy in, easy out” experience I expected, we sat in an exam room for hours, even though the place was not crowded. While this could be due to the staffing challenges pervasive across the industry, other elements of the acquisition left a different impression.

Gone was the advertised cash pricing (and I’m anticipating a higher bill once we get one). The new patient self-registration system was overly complex, built for a hospital, not an immediate care setting. 

The only signs of “systemness”? Multiple prompts to sign up for the health system’s MyChart patient portal (not interested, they have few facilities close by), and a printed referral to an employed orthopedic surgeon a forty-minute drive from home (with no guidance as to whether or when we should seek it, given that no bones were broken). 
 
A few days ago, a scheduler from the system called to book the appointment. With no inquiry as to whether my son’s pain had improved, the interaction felt like a business transaction, not clinical follow-up. I declined.

Just because a care site is acquired by a health system, that doesn’t mean that patients will feel any value from its being part of a system.

Right or wrong, my impression was that health system ownership has made for a worse experience: inefficient, more complicated, and possibly more expensive. 

Nothing about the visit gave me confidence that there was a benefit to following up with an affiliated provider. The health system had failed to earn our referral.

Systems buy assets like urgent care to create entry points that will generate downstream demand and hopefully build loyalty to the brand. But capturing that must start with delivering an excellent experience in every encounter, not merely changing the name on the building. 

Amazon Clinic expands nationwide

Posted on by • Posted in Amazon, Amazon Care, Amazon Clinic, Competition, Consumer Experience, Consumer Focus, Consumerism, Innovation, Virtual Care Strategy, Virtual Health Storefront, Virtual Visit • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/377fb3b9ea0c/the-weekly-gist-august-4-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

Amazon announced that it has expanded its direct-to-consumer virtual care platform to all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Amazon Clinic, which the e-commerce giant launched in 32 states last November, connects consumers to third-party clinicians via Amazon’s website or mobile app. Through video call or message-based visits (the latter of which are only available in some states), it offers diagnosis and treatment for a range of low-acuity, common health conditions like pink eye and sinus infections. The clinic features flat, upfront cash pricing, and doesn’t currently accept insurance. On the provider side, Amazon is partnering with telehealth companies Wheel, SteadyMD, Curai Health, and Hello Alpha.   

The Gist: This is the kind of venture at which Amazon excels: creating a marketplace convenient for buyers and sellers (patients and telemedicine providers, respectively), pricing it competitively to pursue scale over margins, and upselling customers by pairing care with Amazon’s other products or services (like Amazon Pharmacy). 

We’ll be watching for how Amazon builds on this service, and whether it connects Amazon Clinic to its Prime membership and One Medical assets. In the meantime, in addition to its consumer-focused offerings, Amazon is also simultaneously expanding its enterprise workflow offerings through its AWS for Health division, recently launching HealthScribe and HealthImaging.

The false promise of “no regrets” investments

Posted on by • Posted in Consumer Focus, Consumer-Centric, Consumerism, False Hope, False Promise, Fee for Service Reimbursement, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Innovation, Investment, No Regrets, Strategy, Value-Based Healthcare • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/a93cd0b56a21/the-weekly-gist-june-9-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

At the end of a meeting last week with a health system executive team, the system’s COO asked us a question: “Your concept of a consumer-focused health system centered around treating patients as members describes exactly how we want to relate to our patients, but we’re not sure about the timing. Could you give us a list of the ‘no regrets’ investments you’d recommend for health systems looking to do this?”
 
We frequently get asked about “no regrets” strategies:

decisions or investments that will be accretive in both the current fee-for-service system as well as a future payment and operational model oriented around consumer value. The idea is understandably appealing for systems concerned about changing their delivery model too quickly in advance of payment change. And there is a long list of strategies that would make a system stronger in both fee-for-service and value: cost reduction, value-driven referral management, and online scheduling, just to name a few.

But as we pointed out, the decision to pursue only the no-regrets moves is a clear signal that the organization’s strategy is still tied to the current payment model. 

If the system is truly ready to change, strategy development should start with identifying the most important investments for delivering consumer value. It’s fine to acknowledge that a health system is not yet ready, but we cautioned the team that they should not rely on the external market to provide signals for when they should undertake real change in strategy. 

External signals—from payers, competitors, or disruptors—will come too slowly, or perhaps never. At some point, the health system should be prepared to lead innovation, introduce a new model of value to the market, and define and promote the incentives to support it.

Real change will require disruption of parts of the current business and cannot be accomplished with “no-regrets investments” alone.

Questioning the value of the “medical mall”

Posted on by • Posted in Consumer Experience, Consumer Focus, Consumer Preferences, Consumerism, Medical Malls, Strategy, Value Proposition • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/6f4bb5a2183a/the-weekly-gist-march-24-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

The concept of the “medical mall” is not new. Health systems and physician groups have long looked to build larger outpatient facilities that include several physician specialties, diagnostics, and outpatient procedure all under one roof—sometimes even converting defunct shopping malls. But recently some providers have questioned whether this “one stop shop” approach is delivering the value expected.

One CFO shared, the cost to build and operate these large facilities can be daunting: “we had two of these in our capital plan, but the real estate and construction costs are enormous. Given where margins are this year, we just couldn’t justify them.” 
 
Others have also questioned whether their medical malls provide the value they anticipated. Another leader noted that “it seemed to make sense to put 15 primary care docs under one roof, which let us co-locate a host of other services. But patients told us they’d rather have primary care close to home. And a more distributed ‘low-key’ footprint might have been cheaper.” He also mentioned their operations fell short of the vision: “just because we have primary care and CT under one roof, doesn’t mean we can get a patient on the scanner right after their appointment.”

A physician group with two medical malls found that while they expected the vision to appeal to busy, commercially-insured patients, “it turned out that people with transportation issues or a lot of chronic conditions were the ones who chose to go there…it ended up being primarily a public-pay population, and we can’t support the cost.”

Consumers have rejected shopping malls for more distributed and technology-driven retail options. Given the cost of the medical mall, it’s worth considering whether they’ll apply the same logic to healthcare. 

The analog reality beneath a patina of digital care 

Posted on by • Posted in Consumer Centered Experience, Consumer Experience, Consumer Focus, Digital Health, Prescription Drugs, Telemedicine, Virtual Care Strategy, Virtual Healthcare, Virtual Office • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/4b683d764cf3/the-weekly-gist-november-18-2022?e=d1e747d2d8

Telemedicine is supposed to make consumers’ lives easier, right? One of us had the opposite experience when managing a sick kid this week. My 14-year-old has been sick with a bad respiratory illness for over a week. We saw her pediatrician in-person, testing negative for COVID (multiple times), flu, and strep. Over the week, her symptoms worsened, and rather than haul her back to the doctor, we decided to give our health plan’s telemedicine service a try. To the plan’s credit, the video visit was easy to schedule, and we were connected to a doctor within minutes. He agreed that symptoms and timeline warranted an antibiotic, and said he was sending the prescription to our pharmacy as we wrapped up the call. 
 
Here’s where the challenges began. We went to our usual CVS a few hours later, and they had no record of the prescription. (Note to telemedicine users: write down the name of your provider. The pharmacy asked to search for the script by the doctor’s name, which I didn’t remember—and holding up the line of a dozen other customers to fumble with the app seemed like the wrong call.)

We left and contacted the telemedicine service to see if the prescription had been transmitted, and after a half hour on hold, were finally transferred to pharmacy support. It turns out that the telemedicine service transmits their prescriptions via “e-fax”, so it was difficult to confirm if the pharmacy had received it. Not to be confused with e-prescribing, e-fax is literally an emailed image of a prescription, with none of the safeguards and communication capabilities of true electronic prescribing. 

The helpful service representative kindly offered to call the pharmacy and placed us on hold—only to get a message that the pharmacy was closed for lunch and not accepting calls! Several hours later, which included being on hold for 75 minutes (!!!) with our CVS, my daughter finally got her medication. 

Despite the slick app and teleconferencing system, the operations behind the virtual visit still relied on the very analog processes of phone trees and faxes—which created a level of irritation that rivaled trying to land Taylor Swift tickets for the same kid. It was a stark reminder of how far healthcare has to go to deliver a truly digital, consumer-centered experience. 

Amazon launches direct-to-consumer virtual care platform

Posted on by • Posted in Amazon, Amazon Care, Amazonification of Healthcare, Consumer Engagement, Consumer Focus, Consumer Marketing, Consumer Preferences, Consumer-Centered Care Pathway, Consumerism, Direct-to-Consumer Virtual Care Platform, Elective Health Conditions, Elective Procedures, Lower Acuity Care Services, Telemedicine, Telemedicine Strategy, Virtual Care Strategy, Virtual Health Storefront, Virtual Healthcare, Virtual Visit • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/4b683d764cf3/the-weekly-gist-november-18-2022?e=d1e747d2d8

On Tuesday, the e-commerce giant unveiled its latest healthcare endeavor, Amazon Clinic, a “virtual health storefront” that can asynchronously connect patients to third-party telemedicine providers. It offers diagnosis and treatment for roughly 20 low-acuity, elective health conditions—including acne, birth control, hair loss, and seasonal allergies—at flat, out-of-pocket rates. (The service does not currently accept insurance.) It also refills prescriptions, which customers can send to any pharmacy, including Amazon’s. At its launch, Amazon Clinic is available in 32 states. 

The Gist: This is exactly the kind of venture at which Amazon excels: creating a marketplace that’s convenient for buyers and sellers (patients and telemedicine providers), pricing it competitively to pursue scale over margins, and upselling customers by pairing care with Amazon’s other products or services (like Amazon Pharmacy). 

Its existing customer base and logistics expertise could position it to replace telemedicine storefront competitors, including Ro and Hims & Hers, as the leading direct-to-consumer healthcare platform, at least among those that don’t take insurance.

It bears watching to see how Amazon builds on this service, including whether it eventually incorporates insurance coverage, partners with health systems (similar to Hims & Hers), or connects Amazon Clinic to Prime in order to attract greater numbers of—generally young, healthy, and relatively wealthy—consumers.

In Defense of Value: A Response to Ken Kaufman

Posted on by • Posted in Business Model, Change, Consumer Focus, Consumer Preferences, Consumer-Centric, Consumerism, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Leadership, Restructure, Strategic Change, Strategy, Value Proposition, Value-Based Healthcare • Leave a comment
https://mcusercontent.com/8a4bf5d1617f86a90e5a909f0/files/9ab01dec-37fb-e32e-1fe2-55f1869be8a3/4sightHealth.A_Response_to_Kaufman.MCC.10_11_22.03.pdf?utm_source=4sight+Health+Readers&utm_campaign=b15a593847-CMS+Misdirection_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_96b6d85309-b15a593847-147498402
In an Oct. 5, 2022, commentary, Ken Kaufman offers a full-throated and heartfelt defense of non-profit healthcare during a time of significant financial hardship. Ken describes 2022 as “the worst financial year for hospitals in memory.” His concern is legitimate. The foundations of the nonprofit healthcare business model appear to be collapsing. I’ve known and worked with Ken Kaufman for decades. He is the life force behind Kaufman Hall, a premier financial and strategic advisor to nonprofit hospitals and health systems. The American Hospital Association uses Kaufman Hall’s analysis of hospitals’ underlying financial trends to support its plea for Congressional funding. Beyond the red ink, Ken laments the “media free-for-all challenging the tax-exempt status, financial practices, and ostensible market power of not-for-profit hospitals and health systems.” He is referring to three recent investigative reports on nonprofits’ skimpy levels of charity care (Wall Street Journal), aggressive collection tactics (New York Times) and 340B drug purchasing program abuses (New York Times). Ken has never been timid about expressing his opinions. He’s passionate, partisan and proud. His defense of nonprofit healthcare chronicles their selfless care of critically ill patients, the 24/7 demands on their resources and their commitment to treating the uninsured. These “must have clinical services…don’t just magically appear.” Nonprofit healthcare needs “our support and validation in the face of extreme economic conditions and organizational headwinds. ”Given his personality, it’s not surprising that Ken’s strident rhetoric in defending nonprofit healthcare reminds me of the famous “You can’t handle the truth” exchange between Lieutenant Kaffee (Tom Cruise) and Colonel Jessup (Jack Nicholson) from the 1992 movie “A Few Good Men.” Kaffee presses Jessup on whether he ordered a “code red” that led to the death of a soldier under his command. When Kaffee declares he’s entitled to the truth, Jessup erupts,… I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man that rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you say, “thank you” and be on your way. Should American society just say “thank you” to nonprofit healthcare and provide the massive incremental funding required to sustain their current operations?
Truth and Consequences
(Download PDF here)The social theorist Thomas Sowell astutely observed, “If you want to help someone, tell them the truth. If you want to help yourself, tell them what they want to hear.” In this commentary, Ken Kaufman is telling nonprofit healthcare exactly what they want to hear. The truth is more nuanced, troubling and inconvenient. Healthcare now consumes 20 percent of the national economy and the American people are sicker than ever. Despite the high healthcare funding levels, the CDC recently reported in U.S. life expectancy dropped almost a full year in 2021. Other wealthy nations experienced increases in life expectancy. Combining 2020 and 2021, the 2.7-year drop in U.S. life expectancy is the largest since the early 1920s. During an interview regarding the September 28, 2022, White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health, Senator Cory Booker highlighted two facts that capture America’s healthcare dilemma. One in three government dollars funds healthcare expenditure. Half of Americans suffer from diabetes or pre-diabetes.As a nation, we’re chasing our tail by prioritizing treatment over prevention. Particularly in low-income rural and urban communities, there is a breathtaking lack of vital primary care, disease management and mental health services. Instead of preventing disease, our healthcare system has become adept at keeping sick people alive with a diminished life quality. There is plenty of money in the system to amputate a foot but little to manage the diabetes that necessitates the amputation. Despite mission statements to the contrary, nonprofit healthcare follows the money. The only meaningful difference between nonprofit and for-profit healthcare is tax status. Each seeks to maximize treatment revenues by manipulating complex payment formularies and using market leverage to negotiate higher commercial payment rates. According to Grandview Research, the market for revenue cycle management in 2022 is $140.4 billion and forecasted to grow at a 10% annual rate through 2030. By contrast, Ibis World forecasts the U.S. automobile market to grow 2.6% in 2022 to reach $100.9 billion. Unbelievably, in today’s America, processing medical claims is far more lucrative than manufacturing and selling cars and trucks. According to CMS’s National Expenditure Report for 2020, hospitals (31%) and physicians and clinical services (20%) accounted for over half of national healthcare expenditures. This included $175 billion allocated to providers through the CARES Act. Despite the massive waste embedded within healthcare delivery, the CARES Act funding gave providers the illusion that America would continue to fund its profligate and often ineffective operations. It’s not at all surprising that healthcare providers now want, even expect, more emergency funding. Change is hard. Not even during COVID did providers give up their insistence on volume-based payment. Providers did not embrace proven virtual care and hospital-at-home business practices until CMS guaranteed equivalent payment to existing in-hospital/clinic service provision. Even with parity payment and the massive CARES Act funding, there was uneven care access for COVID patients. Particularly in low-income communities, tens of thousands died because they did not receive appropriate care. More of the same approach to healthcare delivery will yield more of the same dismal results. Healthcare providers have had over a decade to advance value-based care (VBC). I define VBC as the right care at the right time in the right place at the right price. Instead of pursuing VBC, providers have doubled-down on volume-driven business models that attract higher-paying commercially-insured patients. Despite the relative ease of migrating service provision to lower-cost settings, providers insist on operating high-cost, centralized delivery models (think hospitals). They want society, writ large, to continue paying premium prices for routine care. It’s time to stop. As a country, we need less healthcare and more health.
A Fourth Question
(Download PDF here)

When I give speeches to healthcare audiences, I typically begin with three yes-or-no questions about U.S. healthcare to establish the foundation for my subsequent observations. Here they are. Question #1: The U.S. spends 20% of its economy on healthcare. The big country with the next highest percentage spend is France at 12%. How many believe we need to spend more than 20% of our economy to provide great healthcare to everyone in the country? No one ever raises their hand. Question #2: The CDC estimates that 90% of healthcare expenditure goes to treat individuals with chronic disease and mental health conditions. How many believe we’re winning the war against chronic disease and mental health conditions? No one ever raises their hand. Question #3: Given the answer to the previous two questions, how many believe the system needs to shift resources from acute and specialty care into health promotion, primary care, chronic disease management and behavioral health? Everyone raises their hands. This short exercise is quite revealing. It demonstrates that healthcare doesn’t have a funding problem. It has a distribution problem. It also demonstrates that providers aren’t adequately addressing our most critical healthcare challenge, exploding chronic disease and mental health conditions. Finally, the industry needs major restructuring.

The real questions about reforming healthcare are less about what to reform and more about how to undertake reform. The increasing media scrutiny that Ken Kaufman references as well as growing consumer frustrations with healthcare service provision, demonstrate that healthcare is losing the battle for America’s hearts and minds.

Markets are unforgiving. The operating losses most nonprofit providers are experiencing reflect a harsh reality. Their current business models are not sustainable. An economic reckoning is underway. The long arc of economics points toward value. As healthcare deconstructs, the nation’s acute care footprint will shrink, hospitals will close and value-based care delivery will advance. The process will be messy.

The devolving healthcare marketplace led me to ask a fourth question recently in Nashville during a keynote speech to the Council of Pharmacy Executives and Suppliers. Here it is. Question #4: As the healthcare system reforms, will that process be evolutionary (reflecting incremental change) or revolutionary (reflecting fundamental change). Two-thirds voted that the change would be revolutionary. That response is just one data point but it reflects why post-COVID healthcare reform is different than the reform efforts that have preceded it. The costs of maintaining status-quo healthcare are simply too high. From a policy perspective, either market-driven healthcare reforms will drive better outcomes at lower costs (that’s my hope) or America will shift to a government-managed healthcare system like those in Germany, France and Japan.

Like Ken Kaufman, I admire frontline healthcare workers and believe we need to make their vital work less burdensome. I also sympathize with health system executives who are struggling to overcome legacy business practices and massive operating deficits. Unfortunately, most are relying on revenue-maximizing playbooks rather than reconfiguring their operations to advance consumerism and value-based care delivery.

Unlike Ken Kaufman, I believe it’s time for some tough love with nonprofit healthcare providers. Payers must tie new incremental funding to concrete movement into value-based care delivery. This was the argument Zeke Emanuel, Merrill Goozner and I made in a two-part commentary (part 1; part 2) in Health Affairs earlier this year. It’s also why the HFMA, where I serve on the Board, has made “cost effectiveness of health (CEoH)” its new operating mantra.

While this truth may be hard, it also is liberating. Freeing nonprofit organizations from their attachment to perverse payment incentives can create the impetus to embrace consumerism and value. Kinder, smarter and affordable care for all Americans will follow.