I see this as a move towards providing cheap basic medical care. This is timely now that it's possible that the individual mandate will be repealed. Millions of uninsured people could be treated for rashes or flus by nurses at CVS cheaper and faster than at doctor's offices.

More competition in healthcare could be a good thing--many say it's bloated and overpriced. The risk is that poor people get basic care while rich people get full care, widening health disparities.

It's unclear what the new healthcare economics will look like. Currently, minor procedures are profit centers for doctor's offices and hospitals. They subsidize complicated patients (often elderly with multiple chronic diseases like diabetes or COPD) who are riskier and take more time to treat. If CVS is taking that money, then hospitals may need to do some cost-cutting.

If this turns every CVS into a uniform, inexpensive office/urgent care/etc., particularly with telemedicine, I'll be happy -- the "minute clinic" stuff already provides cheaper and more convenient access to care, but CVS+Aetna+some kind of EHR could do something amazing.

A big chunk of the health care industry is the oligopoly of distributors. There's only 3 of them: McKesson, AmerisourceBergen and Cardinal. If Amazon can bring much needed competition to that part of the healthcare market it'd help bring prices down. CVS is moving up the stack because they're afraid of Amazon entering the industry. They're combining a retailer, PBM and now a health insurer. Personally I think it should be blocked because the last thing the health care industry needs is more concentration, but it will likely pass because of the nonsense (Bork-created) antitrust regime of the past 40 years.

The only real upside I see here is that, the more vertically and horizontally concentrated the private sector gets, the more absurd most arguments for privatized, profit-driven healthcare appear.

Basically every other developed country has shown that the government can do as good of a job at half the cost. Socialize it all.

Um wtf. This is akin to comcast buying NBC. This is not good.

It is a consolidation but CVS is a consumer focused company, which is something the US Healthcare system needs more of direly.

Part of the problem with health insurance tied to a job in the US is the fixed market that is shrouded from consumers leading to horrible pricing and service. Employment handling healthcare, in addition to a fixed pricing market, also harms the individual market due to horrible grouping, invades privacy, makes it harder to change jobs or start a company, and on top of that fuels ageism as costs go up with age in health. Employers should have no part in your healthcare, pay people more to go get it is all that should be allowed.

All other insurance types are consumer focused for auto, life, home and more. CVS taking over Aetna could be a great force in the market to make other companies get competitive on the consumer front. Aetna and BCBS are two of the worse non consumer friendly insurers around, they really hate dealing with individuals and small companies.

Well I hope this a good thing, and won't lead to price gouging.

The trend of corporate consolidation is concerning, we need more monopoly busting, and anti-trust investigations.

Does this mean that many CVSs will become magnets for sick people as CVS tries to integrate more basic health services into its stores?

I realize that most people going to an expanded minute clinic aren't going to be some sort of walking dead, but it seems that if CVS tries to make its stores too much like primary care with ill people going to get prescriptions from a doctor, then people will avoid buying things at its stores to avoid getting sick.

>Both CVS and Aetna played down the prospects of regulators moving to block their deal. The breakup fee for the transaction is not especially large, reflecting that belief.

What's the causality here? Why does a lower chance of being blocked imply a lower fee if blocked?

I wonder if this will lead to restrictions on the use of copay coupons [1]. Insurers hate them since they break my incentive to use cheaper drugs from their formulary, but pharmacies don't care (and probably are better off for me using them.)

Since I mostly hate my insurer and want to help them towards bankruptcy by extracting as much coverage from my fixed premium as possible, I have no objection to using these coupons if they'd help me and I felt like an expensive drug choice was better for me, though it's not come up for almost any drug I've needed.

Though I do need new epi-pens; maybe I should look for one while I still can!

[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/are-copay-coupons-actuall...

Many are questioning if this move will help consumers. I think it will. Aetna is the third largest insurer and CVS is soon to be second largest pharmacy chain. Pharmacies provide basic care at lower cost, many insurance companies are moving Prescription Benefit Managers (PBMs) in-house to lower cost. By combining the two: CVS is able to get more customers for PBM due to Aetna and distribute the cost over a larger base of patients, Aetna maybe be able to reduce costs per customer and better compete with larger insurance firms - its a win-win and a win for consumers.

They should break up the big insurance companies and not consolidate each point of sale area for more profit.

Ex: A knee brace went over the $500 requirement to have a prior approval before issuance. No one knew this at the time so the doctor gave a cost price of $100 for the brace to avoid phone calls, letters, and time.

Can we please eliminate medical bills if not sent to the patient within 90 days? 2-5 years late is just pathetic.

I wonder how much this has to do with the strong push for Online Pharmacies over the past decade. I hate using them, but my deductible costs next year have increased so much that I will have no choice.

I see CVS using this to defend Amazon by giving Aetna customers with store discounts

Reminds me of the quote "There is no way to do CVS correctly..."

When will SVN buy Cigna?

I feel that perhaps healthcare is the ultimate triumph of capitalism.

Every other avenue of runaway consumerism and overconsumption can obviously be pointed to as either indulgent or unnecessary.

But not healthcare: it's your health, after all - your wellbeing. It's a fundamental right, right ?

...

The received wisdom is that the aging of the baby boomer generation is driving expanded healthcare expenses as this large sect gets older. It's obvious that they need all of this "healthcare".

But what if there were an alternative, more insidious explanation:

The boomers represent an irresistible pile of money. But they don't smoke. They don't have new households to start. They're getting wise to the whole sugar thing. What is left to tempt them with ?

What if there were a clear imperative on the part of a variety of industries to keep this population as unhealthy as possible - so they can stripmine their assets for "healthcare" ?

Hopefully this helps consumers. I doubt it though.

Seems like it’s going to take Jeff Bezos to fix healthcare in America.

"Do you have Aetna? No? Would you like to hear about Aetna benefits at CVS? No? That will be a 20% non-Aetna processing fee. Thanks for shopping at CVS, we know you have a choice healthcare, thanks for choosing us."

The monopolisation of American industry continues.

Most HN users who don't live in the US probably don't know what CVS is or care.

All I can say is fuck Aetna. Worst insurance ever, maybe this will make them not be shit. Good luck getting your promised benefits out of them and making it work for you. Every single time I've called them, I get put on hold for 20 minutes, before getting someone who can barely speak English, and the worst part is that their call center is in America.