Uber Health expands prescription delivery to 37 states with ScriptDrop deal

Dive Brief:

  • Uber Health is partnering with e-prescription startup ScriptDrop in a deal expanding the ride-hailing giant’s prescription delivery footprint from a few cities to dozens of U.S. states.
  • Uber first forayed into medication delivery in several metro areas in August through a deal with digital delivery marketplace NimbleRx, as the pandemic caused a surge in patient demand for the service.
  • With this latest deal, Uber’s hundreds of thousands of drivers will be accessible to pharmacies using ScriptDrop in 37 states across the U.S. ScriptDrop, a third-party tech platform connecting patients and pharmacies with couriers nationwide, will pay Uber for the cost of each delivery.

Dive Insight:

Uber’s main thrust in the healthcare sector is non-emergency medical transportation, and it has netted some 1,500 partners, including major health systems and payers, since launching in the space three years ago.

But the San Francisco-based company is also hoping the crowded but lucrative at-home prescription drug delivery market will be profitable, following mounting losses last year as the coronavirus pandemic pummeled ride-hailing companies.

Growth in Uber’s delivery business has outpaced plummeting ridesharing revenue during COVID-19. In fourth quarter earnings released February, Uber’s gross bookings in its mobility business were down 50% year over year, while gross bookings in its delivery segment were up 130%.

This latest deal suggests Uber is doubling down on delivery, banking that demand for at-home drug delivery remains high beyond COVID-19.  

ScriptDrop integrates with a pharmacy’s software system to provide same-day shipping medication delivery options, and also has a consumer-facing portal for drop-offs. As of today, Uber is integrated with ScriptDrop via an application programming interface, and will become the default option for select pharmacies depending on location and driver availability, the companies said.

ScriptDrop doesn’t share the exact number of U.S. pharmacies working with its platform, but a spokesperson told Healthcare Dive they partner with thousands. ScriptDrop clients include prominent pharmacies like Albertsons, Kmart and Safeway; pharmacy systems such as PDX and a number of courier companies, health systems and insurers.

The partnership is operational in 37 states as of today, including California, Florida, New York and Texas. Uber and ScriptDrop have additional plans for near-term expansion, in some cases in new states in the next couple of weeks, the spokesperson said.

Uber first launched consumer-facing prescription delivery in several U.S. cities through the Uber Eats app, in the partnership with NimbleRx. That’s grown from a pilot in Seattle and Dallas to cities including New York, Miami, Austin and Houston, with more metro areas to come, according to Uber.

Prescription drug delivery companies have reported skyrocketing utilization during COVID-19. Columbus, Ohio-based ScriptDrop has said delivery volume jumped 363% from February to April last year, while revenue tripled between October 2019 and October 2020. The startup announced a $15 million funding round in October to drive growth, bringing its total funding to $27 million since launching in 2017.

Partially as a result of COVID-19 tailwinds, the prescription tech sector, which includes e-prescription vendors like NimbleRx and ScriptDrop, is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 16%, the quickest of the enterprise health and wellness segments, according to a February report from Pitchbook.

Despite consumer demand for at-home prescription delivery, it’s a crowded market. Most major pharmacies, including CVS Health and Walgreens, have hustled to build out their delivery networks in the past few years, facing potential disruption from outside entrants, notably Amazon.

But there’s ample room for competition: The U.S. prescription drug market accounted for $335 billion in health spending in 2018 and sees some 3.8 billion prescriptions filled each year.

Are new moms really the key to health system loyalty?

https://mailchi.mp/d88637d819ee/the-weekly-gist-march-19-2021?e=d1e747d2d8

Healthcare Marketing Blog for Hospitals and Health Systems | BPD Advertising

It’s long been accepted as a truism that “moms” make most of a family’s healthcare choices. This has led many health systems to invest in high-end women’s services, especially labor and delivery facilities, with the hope of winning the entire family’s long-term healthcare loyalty.

This conventional wisdom has existed since the middle of the last century, when the postwar Baby Boom coincided with the rise of commercial insurance. But it’s hard to find real evidence that these investments deliver on their intent—and we think the argument deserves to be reexamined.

An expectant mother is likely years away from her family’s major healthcare spending events. Giving her a fantastic virtual care experience, or taking great care of her teenager who blows out a knee playing soccer, is likely to engender greater loyalty to the health system when she’s looking for her first mammogram, than her labor and delivery experience from a decade earlier. That’s not to say that top-notch obstetrics isn’t important—but market-leading labor and delivery facilities are likely more critical for wholesale purchasers, such as an employer considering a narrow network, or for physicians choosing where to build an OB practice.

Direct-to-consumer strategies should be built on more sophisticated consumer research that takes into account the preferences of a new generation of consumers, for whom not all healthcare choices are equal—that same consumer will be in different “segments” and make different choices for different problems over time, not all pre-determined by one memorable birthing experience.

Primary care—Ex uno plures

https://mailchi.mp/d88637d819ee/the-weekly-gist-march-19-2021?e=d1e747d2d8

Ex Uno Plures. Out of One, Many | HR Examiner

We had occasion this week, when asked to weigh in on a health system’s “primary care strategy”, to assert once again that primary care is not a thing.

We were being intentionally provocative to make a point: what we traditionally refer to as “primary care” is actually a collection of different services, or “jobs to be done” for a patient (to borrow a Clayton Christensen term).

These include a range of things: urgent care, chronic disease management, medication management, virtual care, women’s health services, pediatrics, routine maintenance, and on and on. What they have in common is that they’re a patient’s “first call”: the initial point of contact in the healthcare system for most things that most patients need. It’s a distinction with a difference, in our view. 

If you set out to address “primary care strategy”, you’re going to end up in a discussion about physician manpower, practices, and economics at a level of generalization that often misses what patients really need. Rather than the traditional E pluribus unum (out of many, one) approach that many take, we’d advise an Ex uno plures (out of one, many) perspective.

Ask the question “What problems do patients have when they first contact the healthcare system?” and then strategize around and resource each of those problems in the way that best solves them. That doesn’t mean taking a completely fragmented approach—it’s essential to link each of those solutions together in a coherent ecosystem of care that helps with navigation and information flow (and reimbursement).

But continuing to perpetuate an entity called “primary care” increasingly seems like an antiquated endeavor, particularly as technology, payment, and consumer preferences all point to a more distributed and easily accessible model of care delivery.

9 numbers that show how big Walmart’s role in healthcare is

Georgia Is First State For Walmart's 'Health Center' | 90.1 FM WABE

Walmart has continued to grow its presence in healthcare over the past few years, with expansions of its primary care clinics and the launch of its new insurance arm.

Here are nine numbers that show how big Walmart is in healthcare and how it plans to grow:

Walmart has opened 20 standalone healthcare centers and plans to open at least 15 more in 2021. The health centers offer primary care, urgent care, labs, counseling and other services.

Walmart’s board approved a plan in 2018 to scale to 4,000 clinics by 2029. However, that plan is in flux as the retail giant may be rolling back its clinic strategy, according to a February Insider report.

Walmart in January confirmed plans to offer COVID-19 vaccines in 11 states and Puerto Rico.

In 2020, Walmart established 600 COVID-19 testing sites.

Walmart said it believes expanding its standalone clinics will help bring affordable, quality healthcare to more Americans because 90 percent of Americans live within 10 miles of a Walmart store.

The Walmart Health model lowers the cost of delivering healthcare services by about 40 percent for patients, according to Walmart’s former health and wellness president Sean Slovenski.

In October, Walmart partnered with Medicare Advantage insurer Clover Health on its first health insurance plans, which will be available to 500,000 people in eight Georgia counties. 

Walmart’s insurance arm, Walmart Insurance Services, partnered with eight payers during the Medicare open enrollment period in 2020 to sell its Medicare products. Humana, UnitedHealthcre and Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield were among the insurers offering the products.

4 of the biggest healthcare trends CVS Health says to watch in 2021

COVID-19 accelerated a number of trends already brewing in the healthcare industry, and that’s not likely to change this year, according to a new report from CVS Health.

The healthcare giant released its annual Health Trends Report on Tuesday, and the analysis projects several industry trends that are likely to define 2021 in healthcare, ranging from technology to behavioral health to affordability.

“We are facing a challenging time, but also one of great hope and promise,” CVS CEO Karen Lynch said in the report. “As the pandemic eventually passes, its lessons will serve to make our health system more agile and more responsive to the needs of consumers.”

Here’s a look at four of CVS’ predictions:

1. A looming mental health crisis

Behavioral health needs were a significant challenge in healthcare prior to COVID-19, but the number of people reporting declining mental health jumped under the pandemic.

Cara McNulty, president of Aetna Behavioral Health, said in a video attached to the report that it will be critical to “continue the conversation around mental health and well-being” as we emerge from the pandemic and to reduce stigma so people who need help seek it out.

“We’re normalizing that it’s important to take care of our mental well-being,” she said.

Data released in December by GoodRx found that prescription fills for depression and anxiety medications hit an all-time high in 2020. GoodRx researchers polled 1,000 people with behavioral health conditions on how they were navigating the pandemic, and 63% said their depression and/or anxiety symptoms worsened.

McNulty said symptoms to look for when assessing whether someone is struggling with declining mental health include whether they’re withdrawn or agitated or if there’s a notable difference in their self-care routine.

2. Pharmacists take center stage

CVS dubbed 2021 “the year of the pharmacist” in its report.

The company expects pharmacists to be a key player in a number of areas, especially in vaccine distribution as that process inches toward broader access. They also offer a key touchpoint to counsel patients about their care and direct them to appropriate services, CVS said.

CVS executives said in the report that they see a significant opportunity for pharmacists to have a positive impact on the social determinants of health. 

“We’ve found people are not only open and willing to share social needs with their pharmacists but in many cases, they listen to and act on the advice and recommendations of pharmacists,” Peter Simmons, vice president of transformation, pharmacy delivery and innovation at CVS Health, said in the report.

3. Finding ways to mitigate the cost of high-price therapies

Revolutionary drugs and therapies are coming to market with eye-popping price tags; it’s not uncommon to see new pharmaceuticals priced at $1 million or more. For pharmacy benefit managers, this poses a major cost challenge.

To address those prices, CVS expects value-based contracting to take off in a big way. And drugmakers are comfortable with the idea, according to the report. Novartis, for example, is offering insurers a five-year payment plan for its $2 million gene therapy Zolgensma, with refunds available if the drug doesn’t achieve desired results.

CVS said the potential for these therapies is clear, but many payers want to see some type of results before they fork over hundreds of thousands.

“Though the drug may promise to cure these patients for life, these are early days in their use,” said Joanne Armstrong, M.D., enterprise head of women’s health and genomics at CVS Health, in the report. “What we’re saying is, show us the clinical value proposition first.”

CVS said it’s also offering a stop-loss program for gene therapy to self-funded employers contracted with Aetna and/or Caremark to assist them in capping the expenses associated with these drugs.

4. Getting into the community to address diabetes

Diabetes risk is higher among vulnerable populations, such as Black patients, and addressing it will require local and community-based solutions, CVS executives said in the report. Groups at the highest risk for the disease are less likely to live in areas with easy access to a supermarket, for example, which boosts their risk of unhealthy eating, according to the report.

The two key hurdles to addressing this issue are access and affordability. The rise in retail clinics and ambulatory care centers can get at the access issue, as they can offer a way to better meet patients where they are.

At CVS’ MinuteClinics, patients can walk in and receive a number of services to assist them in managing diabetes, including screenings, consultations with providers and connections to diabetes educators who can assist with lifestyle changes.

Retail locations can also assist with medication costs, creating a one-stop-shop experience that’s easier for many diabetes patients to slot into their daily lives, CVS said.

“Diabetes is a case study in how a more connected experience can translate to simpler, affordable and more accessible care for underserved communities,” said Dan Finke, executive vice president of CVS Health and president of its healthcare benefits division.

The home-based care space heats up

https://mailchi.mp/05e4ff455445/the-weekly-gist-february-26-2021?e=d1e747d2d8

Home Healthcare Market Size, Growth Report, 2020-2027

This week Brookdale Senior Living, the nation’s largest operator of senior housing, with 726 communities across 43 states and annual revenues of about $3B, announced the sale of 80 percent of its hospice and home-based care division to hospital operator HCA Healthcare for $400M. The transaction gives HCA control of Brookdale’s 57 home health agencies, 22 hospice agencies, and 84 outpatient therapy locations across a 26-state footprint, marking its entry into new lines of business, and allowing it to expand revenue streams by continuing to treat patients post-discharge, in home-based settings.

Like other senior living providers, Brookdale has struggled economically during the COVID pandemic; its home and hospice care division, which serves 17,000 patients, saw revenue drop more than 16 percent last year. HCA, meanwhile, has recovered quickly from the COVID downturn, and has signaled its intention to focus on continued growth by acquisition across 2021.
 
In separate news, Optum, the services division of insurance giant UnitedHealth Group, was reported to have struck a deal to acquire Landmark Health, a fast-growing home care company whose services are aimed at Medicare Advantage-enrolled, frail elderly patients. Landmark, founded in 2014, also participates in Medicare’s Direct Contracting program.

The transaction is reportedly valued at $3.5B, although neither party would confirm or comment on the deal. The acquisition would greatly expand Optum’s home-based care delivery services, which today include physician home visits through its HouseCalls program, and remote monitoring through its Vivify Health unit.

The Brookdale and Landmark deals, along with earlier acquisitions by Humana and others, indicate that the home-based care space is heating up significantly, reflecting a broader shift in the nexus of care to patients’ homes—a growing preference among consumers spooked by the COVID pandemic. 

Along with telemedicine, home-based care may represent a new front in the tug-of-war between providers and payers for the loyalty of increasingly empowered healthcare consumers.

How Transparent is Price Transparency?

With nearly 30% of workers now having a high deductible health plan
and a typical family being responsible for on average the first $8,000 of
costs,
consumers are increasingly weighing care versus cost.
Historically, with a small copay, you would conveniently take care of an
ailment without shopping around, but with the average person now bearing the brunt of the initial
costs, wouldn’t you want to know how much a service costs and what other providers are
charging before you “buy” the service?


CMS believes “consumers should be able to know, long before they open a medical bill, roughly
how much a hospital will charge for items and services it provides.
” Cue the hospital price
transparency rule that just went into effect January 1, 2021. Hospitals are now required to post
their standard charges, including the rates they negotiate with insurers, and the discounted price a
hospital is willing to accept directly from a patient if paid in cash. As a consumer, the intent is to
make it “easier to shop and compare prices across hospitals and estimate the cost of care before
going to the hospital.”


There are a few different angles to analyze here:


Are hospitals following the rules?

Each hospital must post online a comprehensive machine readable file with all items and services, including gross charges, actual negotiated prices with insurers, and the cash price for patients who are uninsured. Additionally, hospitals must post the
costs for 300 common “shoppable” services in a “consumer-friendly format
.” Some hospitals and
health systems have done a good job at posting these prices in a digestible format, like the
Cleveland Clinic or Sutter Health, but others have posted complicated spreadsheets, relied on
online cost estimator tools, or simply not posted them at all. An analysis from consulting firm
ADVI of the top 20 largest hospitals in the U.S. found that not all of them appeared to completely
comply with this mandate. In some instances, data was not able to be downloaded in a useable
format, others did not post the DRG or service codes, and the variability in the terms/categories
used simply created difficulty in comparing pricing information across hospitals. CMS has stated
that a failure to comply with the rules could result in a fine of up to $300 per day. As with most
new rules, there are growing pains, and hospitals will likely get better at this over time, assuming
the data is being used for its original intent.


Is this helpful to consumers?

Consumers will able to see the variation in prices for the exact
same service or procedure between hospitals and get an estimate of what they will be charged
before getting the care. But how likely is the average person to go to their hospital’s website, look
at a price, and change their decision about where to get care?
In addition, awareness of these
price transparency tools is still low among consumers. Frankly, it is competitors and insurers that
have been first in line to review the data.
Looking through a number of hospital websites, and even certain state agency sites that have done a good job at summarizing the costs, like Florida Health Price Finder, the price transparency tools are helpful, but appear to be much more suited for relatively standardized services that can be scheduled in advance, like a knee replacement. It’s highly unlikely you will be telling your ambulance driver what hospital to go to based on cost while in cardiac arrest…Plus, it’s all still confusing – even physicians have shared their bewilderment, when trying to decipher and compare pricing. Conceptually, price transparency should be beneficial to consumers, but it will take time; and it will need to involve not just the hospitals posting rates, but the outpatient care facilities as well. Knowing what you will pay before you decide to go to a physician’s office or a clinic or an urgent care or an ED will hopefully help drive consumers to make more educated decisions in the future.


Will this ultimately drive down costs?

I sure hope so. Revealing actual negotiated prices between hospitals and insurers should
push the more expensive hospitals in the area to reduce prices, especially if consumers start using the other hospitals, instead.
However, it could also have an inverse effect, with lower cost hospitals insisting on a payment increase from insurers; thereby driving up costs. In the end, as has historically been the case, the market power of certain providers will likely dictate the direction of costs in a given region. That is, until both price AND quality become fully transparent and the consumer is armed with the tools to shop for the best care at the lowest cost – consumerism here we come.

One-third of US adults postponed care during pandemic: reports

Image result for One-third of US adults postponed care during pandemic: reports

Dive Brief:

  • About 36% of nonelderly adults and 29% of children in the U.S. have delayed or foregone care because of concerns of being exposed to COVID-19 or providers limiting services due to the pandemic, according to new reports from the Urban Institute and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
  • Of those who put off care, more than three-quarters had one or more chronic health conditions and one in three said the result of not getting treatment was worsening health or limiting their ability to work and perform regular daily activities, the research based on polling in September showed.
  • However, the types of care being delayed are fairly routine. Among those surveyed, 25% put off dental care, while 21% put off checkups and 16% put off screenings or medical tests.

Dive Insight:

The early days of the pandemic saw widespread halts in non-emergency care, with big hits to provider finances. 

In recent months, health systems have emphasized the services can be provided in hospitals and doctors offices safely as long as certain protocols are followed, and at least some research has backed them up. Groups like the American Hospital Association have launched ad campaigns urging people to return for preventive and routine care as well as emergencies.

But patients are apparently still wary, according to the findings based on surveys of about 4,000 adults conducted in September.

The research shows another facet of the systemic inequities harshly spotlighted by the pandemic. People of color are more likely to put off care than other groups. While 34% of Whites said they put off care, that percentage rose to 40% among Blacks and 36% among Latinos.

Income also played a role, as 37% of those with household incomes at or below 250% of the poverty level put off care, compared to 25% of those with incomes above that threshold.

Putting off care has had an impact industrywide, as the normally robust healthcare sector lost 30,000 jobs in January. Molina Healthcare warned last week that utilization will remain depressed for the foreseeable future.

Younger Americans were also impacted, with nearly 30% of parents saying they delayed at least one type of care for their children, while 16% delayed multiple types of care. As with adults, dental care was the most common procedure that was put off, followed by checkups or other preventative healthcare screenings.

The researchers recommended improving communications among providers and patients.

“Patients must be reassured that providers’ safety precautions follow public health guidelines, and that these precautions effectively prevent transmission in offices, clinics, and hospitals,” they wrote. “More data showing healthcare settings are not common sources of transmission and better communication with the public to promote the importance of seeking needed and routine care are also needed.”

Stop thinking of telemedicine as a “substitute” for the office visit

https://mailchi.mp/41540f595c92/the-weekly-gist-february-12-2021?e=d1e747d2d8

Image result for thinking

“I don’t think we have good enough information to show how we should be deploying telemedicine,” a physician leader recently told us. “If we can’t show that a virtual visit can adequately substitute for an in-person visit, then we should be focusing on making sure patients know it’s safe to come in.” It struck us that viewing telemedicine as a direct substitute for an office visit was a narrow and antiquated way to think about virtual care.

Moreover, the argument that telemedicine visits are potentially cost-increasing if they are “additive” to other care interactions, rather than “substitutive”, is rooted in fee-for-service payment: more patient-provider interactions equals more billable visits, and with more visits, we run the risk of increasing costs.

Telemedicine (both video and phone visits) likely taps into pent-up demand for access by patients who would otherwise not seek care. Some patients could be aided by more frequent, brief encounters; this is considered a failure only when viewed through the lens of fee-for-service payment. (Honestly, with primary care accounting for less than 6 percent of total healthcare spending, it’s hard to argue that additional telemedicine visits will be responsible for supercharging the cost of care.) Of course, there are many clinical situations in which in-person interaction—to perform a physical exam, measure vitals, observe a patient—is fundamental. Patients know this, and understand that sometimes they’ll need to be seen in person. But hopefully that next encounter will be more efficient, having already covered the basics. 

The ideal care model will look different for different patients, and different kinds of clinical problems—but will likely be a blend of both virtual and in-person interactions, maximizing communication, information-gathering, and patient convenience. 

More evidence that cost-sharing doesn’t work

Image result for axios More evidence that cost-sharing doesn't work

A growing body of research keeps undermining a key tenet of health economics, Axios’ Sam Baker writes — the belief that requiring patients to pay more out of their own pockets will make them smarter consumers, forcing the health care system to deliver value.

Driving the news: Even a seemingly modest increase in out-of-pocket costs will cause many patients to stop taking drugs they need, according to a new working paper from Harvard economist Amitabh Chandra.

  • Raising Medicare recipients’ out-of-pocket costs by just $10 per prescription led to a 23% drop in overall drug consumption, and to a 33% increase in mortality. 
  • And seniors weren’t simply ditching “low-value” drugs. People at high risk for heart attacks or strokes cut back on statins and blood-pressure medications even more than lower-risk patients.

Between the lines: This research focuses on Medicare’s drug benefit, but higher cost-sharing is all the rage throughout the system, and there’s little evidence that it has generated “smarter shoppers.”

  • Patients with high-deductible plans — increasingly common in the employer market — don’t shop around for the best deal, which is all but impossible to do in many cases even if you wanted to try.

Go deeper: The “skin in the game” theory of health care hasn’t panned out