
Walmart Gets Into Health Care - awb
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-25/walmart-takes-on-cvs-amazon-with-low-price-health-care-clinics
======
ijidak
I am EXCITED to see how this plays out.

It is astounding to me how locked down certain medical tests are.

Like, if I want an EKG, why can't I just walk in to a place and get it done at
a reasonable price? And without a doctor's approval?

And I pay for insurance. But I just want to be able to monitor my vitals
myself, whenever I feel like it.

It seems like it would drive higher utilization of equipment and lower prices
if these types of diagnostic tests were readily available at a place like a
CVS or a Walmart.

I would gladly even pay $50 per month for unlimited access to a place to just
come in, get my blood sugar, kidney function, heart function, liver function,
etc. tested once per month!

As important as health is, and as much as Americans spend on it, it is
shocking to me how gated everything is.

It hurts my health and my pocketbook simultaneously!

I've always wondered why a company like Walmart doesn't just provide $20 EKGs,
and $25 tooth cleanings.

Like, why is so easy to get a hamburger at any time of day, but like pulling
teeth to just run somewhere and get a quick, inexpensive EKG to make sure
everything is ok with your heart..?

What am I missing? Are there legitimate safety reasons these mundane
diagnostics are so locked down?

Or are these services available and I just don't know about it?

Again, I pay for health insurance, but I still feel like if I want a quick
EKG, it will take me 3 weeks to see a doctor, and by then I might be dead. I
don't want to see a doctor, I just want an EKG done for my own peace of mind.

But health Care is not my area of expertise. So perhaps there are very
legitimate reasons these diagnostics and labs are so difficult to self-request
at reasonable prices.

~~~
soared
This argument is comparable to thinking that a painting is only worth the
materials it’s made out of, and everything else is worthless. A doctor and
their staff have trained for decades in order to handle your health, why in
the world do you think you can do it after some googling?

Compare it to your own job - if I had the same tools as you, could I walk in
and do the same job you do?

~~~
khafra
> A doctor and their staff have trained for decades in order to handle your
> health, why in the world do you think you can do it after some googling?

Counterpoint: Doctors have an average IQ of 115, and train across a huge
variety of disciplines; mostly while sleep-deprived. Many doctors' training
was decades ago.

Anyone with a somewhat abnormal condition, access to Google Scholar, and able
to learn how to follow citations and simultaneously weigh competing models can
outdo anybody except a dedicated specialist.

The relevant job comparison isn't to a painter, it's to a programmer with a
hundred clients, each of whom he talks with for 30 minutes, once a year. Sure,
the programmer has much more knowledge and skill--but is he really going to be
able to adequately replace the _every_ client's home-brewed solution spread
across 4 excel sheets, 3 batch files, and an archived website?

Should the client really be restricted from downloading Python or Visual
Studio for their own use, unless a real programmer signs off on the
requirement and supervises them?

~~~
haste410
You mention the average doctor but what about the average patient? How many
people out there do you think will take the time to read through papers and
citations and have the understanding to weigh options vs googling symptoms and
going with the first result?

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
Why should the behavior of "the average person" limit everyone else?

------
artemisyna
Very curious to see how this plays out.

There's a bunch of underinsured (or outright not insured) folk in the very
locations where Walmart is opening these, so it has the potential to kill a
couple of different birds with one stone. From a public benefits side, it
gives a path of medical care for those that otherwise wouldn't have it (beyond
say, an emergency room visit). It also lower prices by competing against
insurance bloat.

In doing so, Walmart (may) be able to create a sustainable business by tapping
a market (folk that aren't currently going for medical coverage anyway) that
would otherwise be untapped.

~~~
toomuchtodo
This could also control costs if government managed systems (Medicare,
Medicaid) partner with Walmart to provide payment. Easier to negotiate with
Walmart as a single entity versus a network of vision and dental providers
across the nation.

~~~
beepboopbeep
Or we could just...provide it through the government like any other sane
country.

~~~
bhupy
That’s certainly an option, but the meta-question is: which mechanism can
produce health/pharma goods and services at lower costs and higher quality,
markets or government allocation?

If the answer is the latter, then why aren’t we replicating that mechanism
across other essential goods like food and clothing?

~~~
gruez
>then why aren’t we replicating that mechanism across other essential goods
like food and clothing?

maybe because the competition doesn't work as well in healthcare sector? or
that there isn't a whole scheme of inflated prices that insurance companies
negotiate down to, but uninsured people are forced to pay?

~~~
bhupy
If that's the case, then why are we seeing Wal-Mart attempting to compete in
the healthcare sector with what seem to be competitive prices?

Doesn't seem to be limited to just Wal-Mart either. An Oklahoma City Hospital
began posting its prices online and started a bidding war[1]. The hospital
lobby seems to be overwhelmingly opposed to price transparency out of fear
that it will lower prices[2], and there are Yelp-like directories that are
beginning to provide price transparency allowing for competitive rates like
$79 MRI's[3].

[1] [https://kfor.com/news/okc-hospital-posting-surgery-prices-
on...](https://kfor.com/news/okc-hospital-posting-surgery-prices-online/)

[2] [https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/hospitals-pledge-to-
figh...](https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/hospitals-pledge-to-fight-trump-
admin-price-transparency-plan-in-court/567474/)

[3] [https://www.kansascity.com/news/business/health-
care/article...](https://www.kansascity.com/news/business/health-
care/article230388494.html)

~~~
gruez
>If that's the case, then why are we seeing Wal-Mart attempting to compete in
the healthcare sector with what seem to be competitive prices?

And it only took decades of skyrocketing healthcare costs (and probably
margins) for walmart to enter the space. How many more decades (if ever) until
prices drop down to level in line with other developed nations?

~~~
bhupy
> And it only took decades of skyrocketing healthcare costs (and probably
> margins) for walmart to enter the space. How many more decades (if ever)
> until prices drop down to level in line with other developed nations?

Was this a natural consequence of the market, or are there other explanations
for why such a delay came to pass?

~~~
gruez
Why is this question relevant? Let's say the reason was that walmart thinks
their core competency is supply chain management, healthcare isn't part of
that, and they only entered because the healthcare industry gravy train has
reached insanely high levels that they simply could not refuse, what then?
Should our response to this crisis be to wait until a megacorp comes by and
saves the day?

~~~
bhupy
This question is extremely relevant, because it can help us evaluate all
policy options.

The current status quo in the US Healthcare system was not some crazy accident
of the market, rather it was the inevitable result of a series of policies
passed at state, local, and federal levels over the past half century.

The fact that health insurance isn’t portable, and is rather tied to
employment is a consequence of the WW2 era wage ceilings imposed on private
corporations, followed by the tax benefits enjoyed by employers that provide
group insurance, followed then by the mandate on employers to provide health
insurance. This is in contrast with other countries that employ private
insurance, like the Netherlands and Switzerland, where insurance is tied to
the individual, not the employer.

The lack of price transparency logically follows from the fact that patients
never really care how much their treatments cost, since employer sponsored
insurance covers everything anyway. Large corporations are less price
sensitive than individuals, which exacerbates the price inflation over
decades.

Certificate of need laws, where local hospitals get to decide if a new,
competing hospital can open, and the residency system requiring 10+ years of
schooling to practice resulted in inevitable supply constraints.

Medicare, which provides healthcare for free for the elderly, removed the most
engaged buyers from the market, suffocating the price discovery mechanism. Not
only that, the elderly tend to be the richest people in the country - those
above the age of 55 account for 73% of wealth in America. Boomers are
disproportionately rich, and yet they also enjoy some of the most generous
welfare on top of that.

There are number of ways to approach solving this problem. One way is to add
yet another band-aid on top of the system, burn down the system entirely, or
identify the root causes and disentangle them from the system. This is the
political question.

~~~
gruez
>The fact that health insurance isn’t portable [...]

Agreed.

>This is in contrast with other countries that employ private insurance, like
the Netherlands and Switzerland, where insurance is tied to the individual,
not the employer.

It's worth mentioning that in both countries, there's heavy government
regulation. According to wikipeida, in the Netherlands 50% of premiums goes to
some sort of government agency that redistributes money to private insurance
companies depending on their claims, which makes it a quasi-public payer
scheme. In Switzerland the premium is capped at a percentage of a person's
income with the government making up the shortfall, and insurance companies
can't make a profit.

>The lack of price transparency logically follows from the fact that patients
never really care how much their treatments cost, since employer sponsored
insurance covers everything anyway.

Doesn't this argument apply to insurance schemes in general, both public and
private?

>Large corporations are less price sensitive than individuals, which
exacerbates the price inflation over decades.

I'm skeptical about this claim. Sure, they have more money sloshing about than
individuals, but insurance premiums across the entire workforce adds up.

>Certificate of need laws, where local hospitals get to decide if a new,
competing hospital can open, and the residency system requiring 10+ years of
schooling to practice resulted in inevitable supply constraints.

Agree, although I'm weary of assigning significant blame due to this factor.
Are doctors making record wages? Are hospitals making record profits?

>Medicare, which provides healthcare for free for the elderly, removed the
most engaged buyers from the market. Not only that, the elderly tend to be the
richest people in the country - those above the age of 55 account for 73% of
wealth in America. Boomers are rich, and they also enjoy some of the most
generous welfare on top of that.

I'm skeptical how big of an effect this can be. Wikipedia has a chart that
shows medicare spending as percent of GDP[1]. If you combine that with total
US healthcare spending by GDP[2], you see that it accounts for less than a
fifth of total US healthcare spending.

[1]
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Medicare...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Medicare_Parts_A_B_C_D.png)

[2]
[https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?end=2...](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?end=2016&start=2016&view=map)

~~~
bhupy
> It's worth mentioning that in both countries, there's heavy government
> regulation

No disagreements that there exists regulation that can be helpful. Definitely
an important part of the discussion. Even in Singapore, which is largely a
market based system driven by price discovery relies on a healthy (heh) amount
of regulation. In the US, the food system is largely market-based, but the FDA
(as well as state and local health departments) impose important regulations.

> In Switzerland the premium is capped at a percentage of a person's income
> with the government making up the shortfall, and insurance companies can't
> make a profit.

Keep in mind that in the US, health insurance companies report an average
profit of ~5%. Even if you eliminated that entirely, you wouldn't see any
savings worth writing home about. I work at an insurance company, and the
majority of claims I see are pretty asinine. $500 added to provide sign
language service to a deaf patient, or $300 charged for a papoose used while
giving a child a cleaning. Because of the third-party-payer model in which the
care is priced and paid for AFTER the services are rendered, the patient has
little skin in the game. In the best case (for the patient) the insurance
company simply pays the asking price (resulting in a sort of moral hazard),
and in the worst case, the insurance company doesn't cover it and the patient
gets a surprise bill in the mail.

> Doesn't this argument apply to insurance schemes in general, both public and
> private?

Yes, it's another reason why using insurance to pay for all care can be a sub-
optimal way to allocate resources. Not having skin in the game can result in
patient overconsumption.

> Agree, although I'm weary of assigning significant blame due to this factor.
> Are doctors making record wages? Are hospitals making record profits?

Yes, and yes[1][2]

> I'm skeptical how big of an effect this can be. Wikipedia has a chart that
> shows medicare spending as percent of GDP[1]. If you combine that with total
> US healthcare spending by GDP[2], you see that it accounts for less than a
> fifth of total US healthcare spending.

The effect I'm talking about is removing the largest consumers of healthcare
(rich old people) from the market, which impacts how the ultimate price of
goods/services is determined by the market.

[1] [https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/10/25/doctors-
sal...](https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/10/25/doctors-salaries-pay-
disparities-000557)

[2][https://freopp.org/transcending-obamacare-why-the-health-
law...](https://freopp.org/transcending-obamacare-why-the-health-laws-
struggles-argue-for-a-new-approach-to-health-reform-5517bd69e0d8)

------
JoeAltmaier
Hm. Wife had eye check at big box store. The guy said "Oh, you have Macular
Degeneration. Nothing to do about it sorry. Just go home and go blind".

She came home in tears of course. So I said "Go to a reputable ophthalmologist
and get a real opinion". So she did.

Of course nothing is wrong with her eyes (despite the power-of-suggestion
effects she experienced, but miraculously cleared up once she got a reliable
exam). The Dr did say "I can see how they made the mistake; you have some
small adhesions to your retina, but they'll clear up by themselves"

So no, I'm not going to a big box store to get my medical care. Never mind the
price. I'll get a professional, or go without. Can't be worse than our
experience at the discount-home-goods place.

~~~
learc83
When you get your eyes checked for glasses you go to an optometrist. Doesn't
matter if it's big box store or a local guy--they have the same credentials.

An ophthalmologist is an MD who specializes in eyes, and that's who you want
to go to when you have a more serious problem. 2 completely different things,
and not really anything to do with where the optometrist was located.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
So what were they doing, diagnosing and then saying there was no point in
getting a second opinion?

~~~
ghaff
It sounds like a very incompetent optometrist (and if they weren't one,
someone basically impersonating one). They're eye specialists after all who go
to a 4-year post-undergraduate program, just not M.D. doctors. At a minimum,
they should presumably have told your wife to book an appointment with an
ophthalmologist immediately.

------
WhompingWindows
I'm just waiting for these massive corporations to get into the automation of
Pharmacy work. I know a number of highly paid (110k+) pharmacists who largely:

A) count pills

B) put pills into orders

C) do retail

D) answer questions/customer service

Meanwhile, the industry is being flooded with new graduates from dozens of
schools...If this isn't a case for automation of A-C, I don't know what IS a
case for automation in healthcare.

~~~
ng12
You've got it backwards. Pharmacists are hired because it's legally required.
They're there to catch the dosage mistakes, look out for potential
interactions, and to answer questions about medication and the proper usage.
You cannot legally distribute prescription medication without a pharmacist
physically present.

CVS and Walgreens would love to get rid of the pharmacists -- they hate that
each store needs a couple $110k/year pharmacists just to handle the legal
requirements and to be on-site for the few cases where something needs extra
attention. That's why they put them to work doing the manual retail side of it
to get the most for their dollar.

~~~
xnyan
It's legally required because even with a prescription, an untrained person
can't just walk to a hypothetical drug store with everything on the shelf and
safely select what's written down. There are too many chances to make
mistakes, misreading the label, self diagnoses and prescription of dangerous
substances, etc. This can be addressed by automated, human-free system with
tech we have today. Your doc sends a valid Rx, a box dispenses your drug. I
don't know if it would be cost effective today, but we could do it and it
stands to reason that one day it will be cheaper than doing it (validating
substances and dose) with one highly trained human counting pills by hand at
every single location.

Potentially dangerous drug interactions and instructions can be solved by
automation for what can be automated and tele-pharmacists in all others.

~~~
moduspol
We already have mail order pharmacies, so it's not too big of a stretch.

~~~
ng12
There's still a human pharmacist on the other end of every single order, it
just gets sent in the mail instead of handed over the counter.

~~~
moduspol
Of course, but my comment was in response to the claims of the comment I
responded to. It was not a claim that pharmacists are not involved.

------
WheelsAtLarge
This is great. Walmart has a reputation to protect so at the very least I can
trust what they say.

I've had a hard time getting a dentist I can trust. The business reminds me of
car mechanics that are always looking to sell you additional services. And as
a layperson, it's hard to know when you are being sold services you don't
need. They love people with insurance since they can get them to buy without
much pushing.

~~~
ebg13
> _This is great. Walmart has a reputation to protect so at the very least I
> can trust what they say. I 've had a hard time getting a dentist I can
> trust._

Do you think that dentists don't also have a reputation to protect? What makes
you take polar opposite views of the two?

~~~
WheelsAtLarge
It's not the same. I think it's a matter of scale. Walmart, because of its
size, will often have more checks and balances. They will not take a chance to
mar their reputation. Walmart wants to keep people's trust. It's worth
billions to the company. It's not 100% but I feel more comfortable if I'm not
constantly being pushed additional services to buy.

Most dentists I've dealt with run their practice as a small business. Usually,
it's a few dentists. They need to constantly sell. I understand that they need
to stay in business but it's so constant that you never know where you stand.

I'm not saying that all dentists are like that it's just hard to find one that
you can trust. Just like car mechanics.

~~~
fzeroracer
How does your scale argument apply to companies like Amazon which gleefully
sell counterfeits and trash on their site, or allow scammers to run rampant?

What makes you think that Walmart is different here?

------
rustybolt
Given the quality I've seen in American megastores (I've seen bicycles seem
really dangerous to ride -- is there no institution that regulates vehicles?),
my knee-jerk reaction is that this is a terrible idea.

At the same time, I'm all for accessible and good healthcare, so let's see how
this plays out.

~~~
freddie_mercury
Wal-Mart sells something like 2 million bicycles a year. If they're actually
selling "really dangerous" bicycles then it should be easy for you to point at
some actual statistics about it. After all, in America there are regularly
recalls for things like

"we manufactured 600 bicycle forks that _might_ crack and pose an fall
hazard"[1]

"we made 800 bicycles where the caliper might come into contact with a broken
spoke"[2]

"we manufactured 4,100 steer tubes that can become loose"[3]

[1]: [https://www.cpsc.gov/es/Recalls/2016/enve-recalls-bicycle-
fo...](https://www.cpsc.gov/es/Recalls/2016/enve-recalls-bicycle-forks) [2]:
[https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2017/Trek-Recalls-Disc-
Bicycles](https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2017/Trek-Recalls-Disc-Bicycles)
[3]:[https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2016/Box-Components-Recalls-
BMX...](https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2016/Box-Components-Recalls-BMX-Bicycle-
Forks)

So where's the evidence of the tens of thousands of "really dangerous"
bicycles being sold in America?

~~~
rustybolt
I didn't say that Walmart sells dangerous bicycles. I said that some
supermarkets sell bicycles that _seem_ dangerous to ride, so I'm wondering if
the regulations are strict enough. More specifically, when I was in the USA
I've seen bicycles at the K-mart, so I was referring to those. It seems I'm
not the only one who think those bikes are terrible:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/8xvfv2/has_anyon...](https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/8xvfv2/has_anyone_purchased_a_100150_bicycle_from_kmart/)

Still, you make a good point in showing that there actually are at least some
regulations. Whether they are strict enough and focus on the right points is
not entirely clear to me.

------
ColanR
Fantastic, if this isn't regulated out of existence.

~~~
protomyth
They are following others at this point. A lot of places have "minute
clinics". The pharmacy part has more legal problems in some states like ND.

------
dsfyu404ed
Even if it's middle of the road service performed by inexperienced people
starting out their careers and looked down on by professionals with more
experience (i.e. basically how Walmart tire center is viewed in the automotive
world) it still provides an alternative keeping the prices of higher class
options in check.

~~~
BenjiWiebe
As a Walmart tire tech, I'd like to recommend everyone that not every tire
shop is equal, even within Walmart. Our next door Walmart acc generates a lot
of horror stories that we get to fix. Also some local non-Walmart tire shops
do even worse. Like forgetting to tighten lug nuts. Heard that one several
times about a local (and quite respected!) tire shop.

------
koolba
If I can walk in without an appointment, see a doctor after a reasonable wait,
and then get a prescription for antibiotics that can be filled on the spot,
then I’m 100% on board with this.

~~~
Corrado
I live in the Ohio Valley area and the biggest problem we run into is seasonal
allergies. That doesn't sound so bad as its just a stuffy nose at first,
however after a couple of weeks it turns into a nasty sinus infection. Getting
an antibiotic through a traditional Dr. can take many days (or even weeks).
Going to the "after-care" is inconvenient and can take hours.

If I could pop into WalMart when I feel this coming on, I would do it in a
heartbeat! Especially if it meant that I didn't have to do all the insurance
stuff. Even better if the whole visit costs the same as my insurance co-pay
($30)!

~~~
wccrawford
I'm pretty sure there's been a few times in the last few years that my wife
has called up a doctor on the phone and gotten a prescription for her sinus
infection, and then just went to Target and filled it. She didn't have to
physically see a doctor. I'm also pretty sure it was a service that her health
care provided, so you should ask your health care provider if they have
something similar.

~~~
derivagral
At a prior large tech company, one of the coolest benefits compared to my
current small startup was Teladoc[0]. I have no idea what the actual cost is
or anything, but it was pretty much this.

[https://www.teladoc.com/](https://www.teladoc.com/)

------
proc0
This is hilarious. I'm no universal healthcare idealist, but there is
something to be said about health services having the wrong incentives in
doing it for-profit. What incentives do for-profit pharmaceuticals have to
keep people healthy? Potentially none. What incentives do they have to keep
people sick? Probably billions of dollars if not more.

The problem is you can't risk your health. When buying a product you can risk
a "clever" company that sells you a subpar product, but you can't really risk
a "clever" pharmaceutical that sells you a subpar medicine or service.

~~~
awb
> What incentives do for-profit pharmaceuticals have to keep people healthy?

In a competitive market when people aren't happy with a product or service
they take their business elsewhere. Over time companies with bad intentions
get weeded out or never get off the ground.

~~~
redis_mlc
> I'm no universal healthcare idealist ...

I'm from Canada, so actually I am.

> In a competitive market ...

Doesn't apply to healthcare. Try shopping around for a trauma hospital after a
car accident.

~~~
jariel
"Doesn't apply to healthcare."

Yes, it absolutely does. The vast majority of 'healthcare' is operationally
mundane, and not hyper-specialized such as those who are in car accidents
might require.

Most public systems are quite inefficient, and without any possible market
pressures (Canada healthcare act makes it technically illegal to sell
healthcare services that are provided by the gov.) then those inefficiencies
sink in.

Because there's a weird inelastic demand for certain services, pure market-
oriented solutions won't work for 'car crashes' but they definitely could for
most other things.

Walmart taking on healthcare is a very meaningful event, they could feasibly
operationalize the more mundane issues to the point wherein it's the cheapest
in the world for such services. This is hugely positive news.

------
jariel
I have been thinking for years that the only economic entity that might be
able to take this on is Wallmart.

I believed that if there was a single thing Barack Obama could do, it would
have been to convince Wallmart to heavily invest in healthcare, the point of
building clinics.

Walmart is quite a different beast than other companies. Walmart, by strategy,
does not compete on margin, they compete on volume. Since high margins are a
problem for volume, they actively try to suck out margins in a product all
along the value chain.

Walmart pushes suppliers to improve their own cost metrics and has enough
power to do it. They basically use their leverage to force down prices,
knowing they'll make it up in the long run on volume.

This is a very, very different approach to business than basically anywhere
else, and possibly has ever existed and it's one of the few magic things that
makes Walmart what it is.

The 'literati' classes love to hate on Walmart, but consider how powerful this
machine is: it basically sucks profits and inefficiency out of the value chain
like a vacuum, handing over the surpluses to consumers. They basically enable
100 million Americans to live at a standard of living not otherwise possible.

Health Care is the most bloated sector in the entire world, and there's so
much juicy fat to be cut, if there's any operational entity has the scale,
operational ability, customer reach, efficiency to pull this off it's walmart.

I hope they expand into basic medicine, family medicine, all of the basic kind
of testing, and insurance.

I can't say I'm otherwise a huge fan of Walmart, but if they end up raping and
pillaging healthcare in the US, they could literally be creating the biggest
benefit capitalism ever provided for Americans.

I'm a huge, huge fan of this. I haven't stepped into a Walmart in years, but
I'm thinking I need my teeth cleaned ...

------
Avalon42
I'm a graduate student in a small city. I would gladly use this dental
cleaning service. I haven't been to the dentist in like 2 years because I
really can't afford it. I actually get my prescriptions via Walmart already
without insurance because it cheaper than using the insurance given to the
grad students.

------
LatteLazy
I heard a podcast on this recently where they cynically concluded that Walmart
is doing this primarily to have more control over the healthcare costs of its
employees. Will a Walmart doctor recommend AN expensive MRI for a Walmart
employee if his boss doesn't like that?

------
neonate
[https://archive.md/5r5Q2](https://archive.md/5r5Q2)

------
theshadowknows
100% guarantee you that Walmart will make you sign a waiver of your PHI rights
before you bust up in there and get a $25 blood test.

------
usaphp
> talk about their anxieties with a counselor for $1 a minute

I would get more anxiety just by looking at my watch if I am being charged per
minute

~~~
obmelvin
I understand your point, but comparatively $30 for 30 minutes isn't that
expensive considering you (seemingly) don't have to worry about insurance.

------
doggydogs94
I am only surprised that Walmart took this long to get into the lucrative
health care market.

------
briandilley
I can't tell if this is a good thing, or a bad thing.

~~~
dayvid
Ideally it would be a solid hedge against the government going nowhere with
improving the cost of healthcare. If it makes people get checked up more
often, it could reduce overall healthcare costs because more issues get caught
early.

Combine it with an app that offers specific recommendations and reminders
based on your health profile, and you'd have an interesting startup. (this
probably won't happen due to HIPAA/privacy issues and not being in Walmart's
general wheelhouse).

------
zer0faith
A little competition in this space is LONG over due.

------
hiredman
Walmart using their market power in one industry to charge below market rates
in another, driving out competition. This is going to destroy health care
options in areas that are already under served.

~~~
jessaustin
When called to Congress to testify about it 15 years from now, Walmart execs
will exclaim "It's about competition: if we hadn't done it, Amazon would
have!"

------
justlexi93
Wow, let us see where this will go.

------
the_cat_kittles
a large, aggressive for-profit org with a virtually unlimited warchest
providing health care? sounds perfect. absolutely nothing bad could come of
it.

~~~
jariel
? The people providing healthcare today, are as you described, except they
have huge, fat, ridiculous margins. They commit what would be point blank
fraud in any other country, all day, every day.

Walmart is a massive machine that operates by design on thin margins. They
force out surpluses all the way down the value chain and in their own
operations and instead of selling at max margin, they sell at low margin,
because they know they win in the long run.

Walmart might be exactly what you'd invent if you wanted to provide healthcare
at the best price to the most people. There's the possibility they could be
more efficient than any system anywhere as most public systems are full of fat
as well ... certainly more than the 5% or so margin Walmart might take in.

------
gdsdfe
This is why I think Bernie Sanders won't be the next president, headlines like
this.

------
cityzen
a megacorp that stiffs employees on health care gets into health care. Cool
story, Walmart, hope the Walton children enjoy their slice of that $3.5
trillion pie.

------
Analemma_
This is great news. Every six months I go to the dentist for a checkup and
teeth cleaning, and it's always the same: they look at my teeth for a few
minutes with the mirror thing, scrape off some plaque with the pointy thing,
polish my teeth with the spinning thing, then I do the flouride rinse and
leave. It usually takes less than half an hour, and then they bill my
insurance $275 for it. It's ridiculous, and there's no way this requires a
graduate medical degree, it could be done by someone who took a three-week
mail-in training course. Keep dentists' offices with DDS's around for major
surgeries or unusual situations, but for routine checkups this is fine.

~~~
FireBeyond
Took my step daughter to the dentist this morning. An x-ray and impressions.
Whole process took 14 minutes. And that includes having her pose for front
face and side face photos. Not a dentist in sight, just an assistant.

$600.

~~~
rayhendricks
They billed my insurance $750 for a cleaning, I had to pay $0. Healthcare
really is Monopoly money.

~~~
lostapathy
Dental insurance, especially, is a scam. The amount of "benefit" you get
really is pretty low if $bad_things happen - a few thousand at most.

It's more like a pre-payment plan that lots of people don't pick up the item
the care they pre-paid for.

I was going to go without because I saw what my insurance had been paying out.
I figured I'd save a bit and I could "self-insure" in case of bigger problems.
Joke was on me - I got billed about 6x as much as the insurance company. So
now I pay for dental insurance because it gets me access to the "real" prices,
not because I really want "insurance".

~~~
_JamesA_
I pay $119 a year for dental insurance through Costco. That's less than I used
to pay for two cleanings per year without insurance.

~~~
TylerE
Call your insurance and see what they'll pay when you need a $10,000 implant
or $3,000 root canal.

------
harry8
This is in Bloomberg. Who themselves have announced they are Mike's
propaganda. Skimmed the article and couldn't find any reason it's a story
/today/. Why is it a story today? Speculate.

The US healthcare system is third world standard. Great if you're rich,
horrendous if you're not. Just like say, India, for example. US is the richest
country on earth. Any story about US healthcare not mentioning how much worse
it is than every other industrialized nation runs the risk of impersonating
propaganda.

So if this isn't propaganda they've disguised it effectively.

Remember when we used to make jokes about Pravda. Radio Moscow. Here we are in
the free world. We can do better about sensible policy discussion than this.
Really.

