The Boston Globe yesterday published an editorial arguing that in-store clinics are no quick fix:
CVS’s basic premise for the concept is that people’s lives have become too busy for doctors visits, and that patients are too impatient to wait the days or weeks it takes to get an appointment. So customers can head to the clinic at their local CVS, the first of which is proposed for Weymouth, and for $59 and a wait of under 20 minutes, they can get to see someone who can prescribe medication. All this, and no appointment necessary.
Although the author suggests such clinics are simply a symptom of society’s increasing addictions — with getting things quickly, with being connected all the time — it may be a sign of something more simple: businesses are interested in discovering new ways of getting money from you.
I say that because I’m grappling with what exactly is the problem these types of in-store health clinics solve.
Cost? Not really, since you have to pay out of pocket and the cost, while cheaper than an ER visit, is definitely more expensive than most people’s co-pay to see their regular doctor.
Quality of care and diagnosis? Hardly, since these clinics aren’t staffed with any specialists, and in many cases, no doctors. If you want a higher-quality healthcare experience, you’re better off seeing your regular doctor (who knows your history, background, previous treatments, allergies, medication preferences, etc.).
Convenience? I guess this is what these clinics are mainly supposed to address. But how convenient is it to wait up to 20 minutes to be seen while shopping at Walmart? Now, I’ve been in doctor’s waiting rooms where I’ve waited for 15 minutes in one room, then another 10 or 15 minutes in the second room (why do they do that!?!?).
Since I changed doctors a few years ago, however, I’ve never waited more than 10 minutes in the first waiting room and not at all in the second (the doctor calls me when he’s actually ready to see me!). The take-away from my experiences has is that it all depends on the particular doctor you have. If you’re having a poor quality waiting experience with your current doctor, let him or her know that it’s serious enough for you to consider changing doctors.
Because if it’s really simply about convenience, then you’re better off waiting the additional 10 minutes or whatever to see your regular doctor. So you have to make a trip specifically to the doctor’s office? That’s not “inconvenient,” that’s life. We do it for every other professional and business in our lives. We go to the bank to cash checks, we go to the post office to post a letter, we go to the dentist to have our teeth cleaned, and we go to the doctor’s when we have a health concern.
Maybe I’m missing something (uninsured folks, perhaps?), but I just don’t see the value of these clinics, with few exceptions.
(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
3 Comments to
“Are In-Store Clinics an Answer?”
I think it’s about choice. If some are desperately in need of a consultation without any delays, it’s their sacrifice to make. For those who can wait, they can stick with their usual clinic.
You have a good point. I think it’s not necessary unless it’s life threatening. As long as it’s not deadly, we must accept the way it is. Having things ready all the time is not a good for our development.
This article seems to be full of experimenter bias so to say and doesn’t truly present any facts. The type of walk in clinics that CVS has purposed do not seem very different than after hours clinics or walk in clinics that are already ramped across the nation, the only obvious difference is that these clinics will be inside a CVS instead of in a separate building. Just to play the devils advocate I would have to argue that these clinics can help in emergent situations such as bladder infections which are often frequent for females, severe colds, sinus infections, stomach viruses, etc that come on rather quickly. In these cases many PCP (Primary Care Physicians) are already booked and not able to see a person immediately and a wait of three or four days can be detrimental in each of these cases, the bladder infection extends to the kidneys and the cold turns into an upper respiratory infection. These types of clinics allow people to be seen quickly and start healing. If further investigation is needed a follow up appointment can be made with a PCP but in these urgent cases care is necessary and the ER is much more expensive, about $500 a trip and that’s with insurance. As far as insurance is concerned I am aware of at least two after hours clinics in my area that take insurance which brings the co-pay down considerably. A PCP having access to your past medical history was mentioned as well. To this I must say that an extensive understanding of a person’s medical history is not always necessary for a cold or bladder infection and anyone over the age of 16 probably knows their own medical history well enough to express concerns to and answer questions of the medical staff at a CVS. As far as Alex’s reply; the article does purpose some good points but if it is life threatening the ER would be more appropriate than a CVS and changes in society will never occur if we “accept it the way it is”. I don’t see how having things ready that may increase our probability of obtaining health care can be “not good for our development”. This argument seems a little silly to me. All in all why not support the trial CVS clinic. If it truly damaged the healthcare system or healthcare provisions I’m sure the FDA or some other regulatory organization would shut it down. Sometimes change is good.
Join the Conversation! Post a Comment:
Last reviewed: By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on 7 May 2007
