Dr. Bohmer examines the rise of inexpensive instore health clinics (like RediClinic
) and finds that the business and health care models presented by these clinics are valuable and worth pursuing further.
Care is intended to be quick, inexpensive, and convenient: visits and waiting times are short, the charge is usually less than $50, and extended hours are offered along with ample parking. It's not surprising, then, that patients and investors have taken notice. Although only 7% of respondents in a 2005 poll said they had ever used such a service, 41% said they would be likely to do so. And since 2000, when the concept was developed by QuickMedx (which later became MinuteClinic), at least 10 other companies have entered the market and several hundred clinics have been opened or are being planned. The California HealthCare Foundation expects thousands to open in the near future.
At the heart of the appeal are wellthoughtout business and operational models, both dependent on the limited services menu. Overhead is low because staffing, real estate, and financing costs are low, and some of these overhead costs are shared with the store. Clinics are located in states that allow prescribing by nurse practitioners, and physician involvement is limited. In addition, their focus on outofpocket payment limits accountsreceivable costs. Affiliations with drugstores benefit both partners: patients appreciate the convenience of being able to fill prescriptions on the spot, and the clinic draws customers to the store.
The operational model is equally well constructed. The originators based their design on the McDonald's hamburger chain, in which customers select items from a limited menu. The services listed are highly standardized interventions and require no physician evaluation. Diagnoses are made by using a simple binary test (such as for a streptococcal throat infection) or by applying a rigid, protocol-based decision rule. In some cases, no diagnosis is required (such as for a hepatitis vaccination). In addition, the conditions treated and therapies offered require no or minimal follow-up (for instance, clinics offer diabetes screening but not treatment), and decisions can be guided by highly specified protocols. More important, the conditions can be diagnosed and treated quickly.
Some concerns have been raised, however, about quality of care. Critics worry that important, albeit rare, diagnoses and opportunities to address other concomitant health issues may easily be missed by nurse practitioners following rigid protocols. Questions have also been raised about the potential lack of continuity of care: when care is fragmented, with different clinics or clinicians providing care at different times, trends suggestive of serious underlying conditions may be missed, and if clinics have no explicit after-hours arrangements, complications arising from daytime care may go unaddressed. In addition, past experience suggests that for-profit clinics might be motivated to overservice patients.
These drawbacks have thus far remained theoretical. Clinics have worked to maintain good relationships with local primary care practitioners, some have software that searches for patterns of repeated presentations, and the strict reliance on evidence-based protocols should prevent overservicing. Both the American Medical Association and the American Association of Family Practice support the concept of pluralism in primary care services. Moreover, these clinics raise important issues regarding the future design of primary care delivery.