,
8 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
Beyond the central position of @Surescripts in the nat’l HIT landscape, this case is super interesting.
It was never a secret that vast majority of eRx/elig transactions ran through them.
But they consistently positioned themselves as a "low-cost health information utility”
It was never a secret that vast majority of eRx/elig transactions ran through them.
But they consistently positioned themselves as a "low-cost health information utility”
@Surescripts When Superscripts & RxHub merged in 2008, they were clear about their intention to consolidate, transmit eRx & renewal requests to both retail
and mail-order pharmacies.
I now wonder-was there any FTC discussion about blocking the merger back then?
surescripts.com/news-center/pr…
and mail-order pharmacies.
I now wonder-was there any FTC discussion about blocking the merger back then?
surescripts.com/news-center/pr…
@Surescripts But their positioning as a "utility” - albeit a voluntary one - generally kept them free of heavy scrutiny.
this story is typical- Neutrality/Choice of where to send prescriptions. FREE for doctors and patients. Transactions are charged at cost.
npr.org/sections/healt…
this story is typical- Neutrality/Choice of where to send prescriptions. FREE for doctors and patients. Transactions are charged at cost.
npr.org/sections/healt…
This is from a presentation given by Superscripts in 2008… AT THE FTC!
I’m not an antitrust expert like @MartinSGaynor but I think there’s something about a Chicago school where consumer harm is a predicate of monopolistic badness
In this case, their scale means low prices
I’m not an antitrust expert like @MartinSGaynor but I think there’s something about a Chicago school where consumer harm is a predicate of monopolistic badness
In this case, their scale means low prices
There were a lot of people who thought that a private network like this (or Superscripts itself) would be the answer to national interoperability.
An AHRQ report quotes thought leaders saying "because HIE represents a natural monopoly, HIEs must utilize economies of scale”
An AHRQ report quotes thought leaders saying "because HIE represents a natural monopoly, HIEs must utilize economies of scale”
So what brings us to this FTC complaint? I wonder if the roots of it weren’t in this 2015 dispute with a small eRx service, PrescribersConnection that wasn’t allowed by Superscripts on their network.
@politico @ArthurAllen202 @dariustahir reported on it politico.com/tipsheets/morn…
@politico @ArthurAllen202 @dariustahir reported on it politico.com/tipsheets/morn…
FTC:“Surescripts’s illegal contracts denied customers and, ultimately, patients, the benefits of competition – including lower prices, increased output, thriving innovation, higher quality, and more customer choice”
But would the FTC still have a case if price/quality taken out?
But would the FTC still have a case if price/quality taken out?
IMO if they engaged in "vertical and horizontal restraints” that "thwarted competitors” then there should be consequences, regardless of whether it resulted in low prices, standardization, and quality.
But this could have implications for other “natural monopolies” in HC
But this could have implications for other “natural monopolies” in HC
