Retail clinics: The competition heats up - In Minnesota, Blue Cross and Blue Shield has exempted patients who use walk-in clinics from copays. - Medical Economics | Practice Management

ADVERTISEMENT

Medical Economics
Retail clinics: The competition heats up
In Minnesota, Blue Cross and Blue Shield has exempted patients who use walk-in clinics from copays.


Medical Economics

"Retail" walk-in clinics, located in supermarkets and stores like CVS and Target, are already competing with physicians in many communities. Now Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota has added a new twist: It's waiving copayments for patients who go to these in-store clinics. So far, this option applies only to employees of Blue Cross and half a dozen self-insured companies, but the plan is offering it to employers all over Minnesota.

Copayments for office visits are on the rise everywhere; 49 percent of workers in employer-sponsored plans now have copays of $20 or more. So if there were no copays in retail clinics, an increasing number of patients would have an incentive to go there. Blue Cross sees this as a matter of saving money for its customers and for itself, since the average cost of a retail clinic visit (around $50) is about half that of a trip to the doctor's office.

FP Michael J. Morris of Willmar, MN, thinks the insurer's approach to this issue works against its efforts (and those of other plans) to encourage primary care doctors to manage patients' overall health. A nurse at a walk-in clinic, he says, isn't likely to check patients' cholesterol, make sure they're up on their immunizations, and talk to them about their weight or their smoking habit. "Those are things that people usually don't come in for," Morris says. "You catch them at the same time they're in for an acute illness, and try to include their healthcare maintenance simultaneously. So one of the main problems with retail clinics is that they fragment the care."

FP David D. Luehr, president of the Minnesota Medical Association, agrees. "It's important for physicians to see patients in their offices, where they have their medical records," he says. "This type of approach starts to disrupt that continuity."

Rick Kellerman, president-elect of the AAFP, says the Blue Cross initiative is "a bit shortsighted. If they're going to waive copays on visits to retail clinics, why don't they waive them for a similar service in a physician's office? They should try to encourage people to have a personal medical home, where cost can be better controlled and quality better assured."

During a routine office visit, notes Kellerman, the typical family physician takes care of an average of three problems, including the acute problem that may have prompted the visit and a range of preventive and chronic care services. So if Blue Cross thinks it's going to save money by steering patients to retail clinics, he suggests, it may not be including the whole cost of care in its calculations.

The insurer, on the other hand, believes that physicians are making too much of the fact that they might have fewer opportunities to provide health maintenance services if patients use retail clinics. "It's a trivial risk," says internist David W. Plocher, senior vice president and medical director of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan. Preventive and chronic care, he stresses, are indeed the responsibility of the primary care physician, and retail clinics shouldn't venture into that area.

So why not give patients the same incentive to visit primary care physicians for minor problems that the plan gives them to go to retail clinics? It's mainly a matter of price, replies Plocher. If a nurse practitioner can provide the same service at half the cost, Blue Cross wants patients to use the NP. And that would be true, he adds, even if more medical practices had extended hours, as most retail clinics do. "For minor symptoms and nonserious conditions, delivery systems that rely on nurse practitioners are a better buy."

ADVERTISEMENT

Comments from our readers
 Posted 2006-06-20 15:41:02.0
Why do they endorse retail clinics and yet denounce concierge/retainer practices? I don't see the logic!!! I charge $125 a month for unlimted medical care and insurers/Medicare attack me as unethical. Yet these purely financial stores (not clinics) are "cost savers". Another reason why it's hard to want to be a doctor in this country anymore. Churn baby churn. Unbeliveable!!
 Posted 2006-06-20 22:23:38.0
Current healthcare systems look at cost, quality, and access - qualities that retail health clinics can exploit. By comparison, the traditional family practice model is at a disadvantage in all 3 areas when dealing with the minor acute problems that these retail clinics address. Urgent care clinics would also seem to have a future as emergency room access diminishes and patient demand increases. This leaves the primary care physicians of the future as chronic disease management specialists. The current healthcare reimbursement system & the associated administrative burdens, rewards quicker less complicated visits, leaving the desirability of a career in chronic disease management less desirable for those that find monetary reward & less administrative hassle an incentive to practice medicine. Pay for performace only adds another layer of regulation that our profession experiences daily. There are so many forces that I believe are working against primary care as a desirable career.
 Posted 2006-06-20 22:28:53.0
Of course, this is just my opinion. It would be interesting to pose yet another survery regarding primary care job satisfaction - whether they would choose another career, another specialty, or stay in their chosen field. Whether they see themselves practicing medicine in the same capacity in 10yrs, different capacity, or out of medicine. As you maybe aware, ~21% of physicians who were board certified in the early 1990's have left internal medicine, compared to a 5% departure rate for im subspecialists - see http://www.acponline.org/hpp/leadday06/workforce_data.pdf. Also, fewer US medical school grads are entering primary care specialties - only 41% of Family Practice positions filled were by US grads - see http://www.acponline.org/journals/news/may06/match.htm. My suggestion is that as a profession as a business, we need to have more autonomy more control - something our leaders have given to insurance companies. If we didn't play by their rules - no cms fee schedules, no insurance fee schedules, then no documentation requirements, no guideline requirements, no formulary requirements, no authorization requirements, less administrative headaches, no downcoding, no bundling - seemingly this might be a better existence than what it is currently.
 Posted 2006-06-22 18:03:32.0
You can't place a band-aid on a chronic illness and expect quality maintenance. Many medical issues are discovered by health maintenance visits with physicians. NP's at Wal-Mart aren't going to have an on-going record of labs and services. Who is going to supervise these NP's? How are you going to monitor scheduled drugs? Who is going to write the prescriptions for pain meds for these patients? Doesn't the law require a supervising physician?Is pharmacy school medical school? If the retail centers are trying to save money by hiring NP's, they are fooling themselves. These people are NOT physicians. They don't have the same education. But they are smart enough to start demanding equal payment as physicians. Aren't we going to cost BCBS more money by having to treat full blown chronic issues that could have been caught earlier and treated more efficiently? Cheaper is not better. If you treat patients with quality healthcare FIRST. we cost the system less money. Penny pinching and ruling out multiple medications...cheap to more expensive, you sometimes write multiple scripts in order to FINALLY get to the med of Physician choice. Writing 4 scripts to rule out 1 medication is much more expensive than writing for just one. If you do what's right FIRST, you don't have to do multiple things to make up for it. Treat patients with STANDARD OF CARE FIRST. THAT WILL SAVE MONEY FOR HEALTHCARE.
 Posted 2007-04-19 17:34:33.0
Retail health clinics are there for convenience and if insurance companies are willing to extend savings for using them, then that is great. I don't believe that these clinics advertise themselves to care for individuals with chronic illnesses. I am a parent of four children and there are times when they get sick and the doctor's office is closed and it is nice to know that there are other options to ER at a cost savings. I've used these clinics in the past and they are a nice, efficient, and convenient alternative to healthcare.
Read More Comments
post a comment
Your email address will NOT be published.
appears with your comment
read our privacy policy
Note: does not support HTML
All comments submitted are subject to review, and may be delayed before posting. We reserve the right not to post comments.

ADVERTISEMENT

Practice ToolsPractice Tools
Coding Counselor
Coding Counselor

Simple and accurate ICD-9 code search. Start Here

Patient Education
Patient Education

Print customized patient education handouts. Start Here

Surgical Video Center
Surgical Video Center

On-demand surgery demos and presentations. Start Here

ADVERTISEMENT



Source: Medical Economics,
Click here