advertisement
advertisement
advertisement

Walgreens’ New Prescription Text Service Is Fast And Pointless

Written by Evan Schuman
October 13th, 2011

Last Thursday (Oct. 6), Walgreens rolled out its latest mobile feature, which enables its customers to get text reminders of prescriptions that are due for refill, orders that the chain said can be completed “with a simple ‘refill’ reply.” But as another reminder of the challenge of federal pharmacy privacy rules, the text is so restricted as to be borderline useless to the chain’s best customers.

The new service, called Refill Reminder Text Alerts, is based on a top-notch idea. The goal is to aid customers who have multiple refills and have had the onus of initiating contact with their pharmacy every time a prescription needs to be refilled, even if they have been consistently refilling the same prescriptions every month for years. Instead of waiting for the customer to call, the chain is initiating that contact and asking with a simple text for permission to refill the order. The problem involves restrictions from the U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). It prevents the texts from identifying which prescription it’s asking about.

For a customer with just one periodic prescription, the onus of handling the refill question is relatively trivial. The true benefit of the program is for the chain’s top customers, who have multiple prescriptions that expire on different days. But for them, a text that says, in effect, “some unidentified prescription of yours is due for refill. Should I refill it?” is pointless.

Even worse, according to Walgreens customer service, if a customer indeed has multiple prescriptions with the chain, no text is sent until all of the prescriptions are ready for refill. In other words, it will allow the patient to go without a drug that has run out for weeks, while waiting for an unrelated prescription to also run out?

The text system mimics an existing refill service that Walgreens has with E-mails. But that service links to the chain’s secure Web site, which displays lists of prescriptions and allows for online management. The beauty of the text system is that it’s an instant reply, which means there’s no opportunity to review prescription lists. In this case, what works well in E-mail and and the Web may not work well at all as a mobile text.

Given that the texts do not reveal any confidential information, privacy issues are theoretically not in play. That’s good, because the privacy policy on Walgreens’ site—as of Thursday (Oct. 12) morning—has an effective date of July 17, 2007. Presumably, a lot of privacy-related stuff has happened in the last four years and four months, but I digress.

The text system opens with a text confirmation message and the customer has 48 hours to respond to that confirmation note or else the account is canceled. After the confirmation, the customer is asked to phone in to customer service, where a range of confidential questions is asked to verify identity. That part seems well thought-out and sounds reasonably secure. But the service itself is curious. Walgreens could have legitimately declined to launch a text service, blaming HIPAA privacy rules.

The HIPAA rules do make sense, because encrypting text messages would be impossible, so securing the data would not be easy. But why proceed with the service? Both Walgreens and fellow pharmacy chain Rite-Aid have successfully tangled with the security issues—in different ways—when dealing with Web site chat services. Walgreens could have positioned this as a service solely for customers with only one active prescription, just as grocery chains could solely push self-checkout lanes to customers with fewer than 10 items in their carts. But the grocery chains don’t do that, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that pharmacies don’t either.

It’s hard to justify deliberately limiting a service’s rollout to a small segment of a chain’s customers. But if it will only work well for that subset, it’s the only wise long-term approach. In the meantime, I’ll await a text from Walgreens reminding me of the refill that I’ll have to have already remembered. Life can be weird, but at least with texting, the weirdness comes and goes quickly. TTYL.


advertisement

Comments are closed.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.