comment: >
  
  There goes the discounts
context: A whopping 1.5 million dollar fine >
  
  That's worth much less than the data. Companies willingly eat fines across all types of businesses as they come out on top anyways. >
  
  Fine should be equal to the total profit during the time period of offense and continue to increase every time they get caught doing it. >
  
  Should be more than total profit... 
  Hence the word, "penalty" ... 
  If the punishment for crime are fines then that crime is for the poor >
  
  GoodRX...  A company that only exists because US healthcare/insurance is a fucking joke.  
  I always thought I had good employer based health care and I have used GoodRx anyway so I didn't have to pay +$200 for my prescription.  It was $17 with GoodRx. >
  
  “Good” insurance is relative. I used to have what I thought was “good” insurance at my old job, after all it was better than what I had before that, and then I changed jobs. My new insurance is waaaaay better but still costs 450/month for me and my wife and with a $5k deductible. I’m thrilled with what is covered and that my max out of pocket won’t bankrupt me. Isn’t that sad >
  
  I went the other way. Took a new job with more pay, but the insurance covers waaaay less. Add in that there’s separate medical and prescription coverage with different companies, makes it impossible to hit the out of pocket maximum. I had to use GoodRx a number of times. >
  
  That’s great! Just never get sick and you’ll be rolling in it! >
  
  of-fucking-course. 'if a product is free, you are the product' shit >
  
  People still use it, they do not really have a choice in many circumstances.
  BUT many people will say “they can have my data” not smart enough to understand the harm they may be causing themselves….
  If pre existing condition protections die, so will millions of people who’s healthcare data is now open to the public. >
  
  There's that HIPPA thing that is supposed to stop this.  There are huge fines PER PATIENT for the release of patient information without patient approval.  Betting that small print of page 30 of the GoodRx user agreement does not cover that..... >
  
  Maybe it's time to understand "that HIPPA thing" a bit better... 
  It doesn't apply to GoodRx... it's the regular sized print of the regulation that clearly states where it applies: medical providers. 
  It doesn't apply to journalists asking someone questions directly about vaccination status, and doesn't apply to a service to which users provide the data directly. >
  
  GoodRx has some Hippa compliances.  They better hope they met them. >
  
  Where in HIPPA regulation do you find the requirements that GoodRx must meet? >
  
  GoodRx themselves says they have some HIPPA compliances.  They do not detail them in great lengths though.  Not enough for me to rebut your post.  Which is why I left it vague.  I find it hard to believe that a patient voluntarily using GoodRx is not in some way agreeing with GoodRx policies.  What remains to be seen is if GoodRx HIPPA agreements were violated by sending patient data to META and GOOGLE.  Also HIPPA says a patient can't sign away their HIPPA rights.  So there's that also. >
  
  I'm amazed at the people that act like they know what HIPPA (sic) is but don't know that it's HIPAA >
  
  Remember if something is "free" you are the payment. >
  
  Why do Google & Meta seek such private information? To manipulate its users.  That’s what should be investigated. >
  
  BadRx, very bad Rx