While Amazon has been amassing a range of healthcare assets in recent years, including an online pharmacy, virtual and in-home care capabilities, and even diagnostics, this marks the e-commerce giant’s first significant push into bricks-and-mortar healthcare delivery.
One Medical, which went public in 2020, operates 182 medical offices in 25 markets, and acquired Medicare-focused primary care provider Iora Health last year. It offers an access-forward, concierge-lite model to employer clients and individual consumers, and more recently has pursued a partnership strategy with anchor health systems in the markets where it operates.
The Gist: Amazon’s pricey purchase of One Medical, for which it will pay a 77 percent premium over market value, is sure to set the healthcare punditocracy afire—even more than its earlier, ill-fated arrangement with JPMorgan Chase and Berkshire Hathaway.
Clearly, Amazon is shifting from a build-and-tinker to a buy-and-scale approach to its Amazon Care business, which has been slow off the mark since the company first started selling its own employee clinic services to other employers. With One Medical, Amazon gets thousands more employer relationships, a much larger physical footprint, and a buzzy brand in primary care.
But the deal is less “disruptive” than it might first appear. There is still a missing piece—namely, a risk model that lets Amazon profit from managing patients in the primary care setting. One Medical’s model is expensive—it has yet to turn a profit—and despite the acquisition of Iora’s population health platform, it has doubled down on creating linkages with high-cost health systems rather than truly investing in care management.
Primary care on its own is not an attractive growth business, even in a hybrid virtual/in-person model, even at Amazon’s scale. To truly disrupt healthcare, Amazon will need to wade into the risk business, either by partnering with a health plan or creating its own risk arrangements with employer clients.
That’s going to be hard, for all the same reasons that Haven was hard—entrenched payer relationships, slow-moving benefits managers, and a murky and conflicted broker channel. We’d love to be proven wrong, but this deal feels less like true innovation and more like a frothy story for slide decks and conference panels.