20 Surprising Ways Wal-Mart Clinics Will Affect US Healthcare
March 12, 2008 | General
Big-box behemoth Wal-Mart has ventured into the healthcare realm, offering low-cost, walk-in clinics in more and more of its stores every day. Although Wal-Mart medicine may not sound like a great idea at first, these clinics can bring good changes to the health care industry, like insurance-free care, eased emergency rooms, and more widespread treatments. Of course, the plan is not without its drawbacks, creating a “Wal-Mart effect” on small practitioners, as well as a race to the bottom.
Here, we’ll take a good look at some of the implications you might not have thought about.
RSS
Comment by Bill March 14, 2008
Thanks Wal-Mart! Thats the way to go. In fact they should expand the system to include Primary Care Physicians with some basic medical equipment. People are eagerly awaiting such facilities.
Over 47 million people are uninsured and another 50 million are under-insured. These 100 million folks need access to care and Wal-Mart facilities would cost only a fraction what the current insurance system needs you to spend.
Simply insurance can not be the solution. It is just too complex and unaffordable. But beware of folks connected to Health Insurance companies, they will not let anything else succeed; I am sure they will talk so much perfect solution, etc. which simply does not exist.
Well done Wal-Mart!
Comment by Michael H March 15, 2008
We must welcome these clinics. In fact, doctors also should open up their services for the individuals who are more than ready to pay directly to the doctors. In such cases, the cost will only be a fraction of what it will be when you involve the insurance companies.
Let us go for simpler solutions like these clinics. This is the only way, the cost will be affordable.
Comment by Lynn March 16, 2008
It is a good news. Let the people decide what they want in consultation with their doctor and pay for the services directly. There is absolutely no need for a third party (health insurance) to get involved for every single service.
Let us compare auto-insurance for a moment: When I took my car for a regular service recently, my mechanic recommended a battery change and quoted $130. I had no problem with the battery even during this (past) harsh winter; also I know it costs only around $60 at Costco. I can easily go without change until next winter and even after that I will spend only around $60. IF it is covered by the insurance, it would have been changed at $130+ right away though it is not required now.
Exactly this is what happens in the healthcare system; people are not involved in the payment process and so ‘unnecessary’ services are provided/received…..result: exhorbitant cost to the system.
Let us have an ‘insurance-free’ services for all our regular health needs; we will have excellent and cost-effective services……plus all the choices in the world.
Comment by Paul Griffiths March 17, 2008
I understand the hospital’s viewpoint best, so I can say with certainty these clinics draw mixed reviews. I’ve seen other non-commercial entities, such as Shepard’s Hope (http://www.shepherdshope.org/), embraced since they are staffed by medical professionals who are donating their time.
I think much of the reasons these for-profit clinics are under suspicion has to do with the likelihood they will come de-facto primary care physicians for a class of people due to *price*. While this might be reality, it is an unexpected outcome and one that would be solved given universal coverage. Once you open the floodgates, you can’t ever close them, so we have effectively asked the free market to address what is usually thought of as a policy failing in the United States.
So which is better: embrace the reality of Walmart-style care or push for nationwide healthcare reform?
I think the concern is, a nation, we can’t really do both.
Comment by Fred March 17, 2008
Yes, we need to have universal healthcare. Don’t we have universal education (k-12)? Then why not universal healthcare?
But, without containing cost, no system will work in US. There is only one way we can contain cost. That is by involving people in the payment process at least partially within the universal healthcare. Why not we make people pay a small percentage (say 10-30%) directly for every healthcare service they receive. After all, in any system people must be dissuaded from ‘overusing’ to make the system efficient.
Whatever we do, the current system must go without any delay; it is too complicated, too many people, too much of legal issues and above all it is just too expensive for the country to afford.
Comment by Michael March 20, 2008
Understandably, people are thoroughly frustrated with the current healthcare system.
First, SHUT DOWN the current system completely…to save this country. Millions of people, even with insurance, are scared to go to doctors for routine check-ups; in case they have any type major diseases (diabetes, heart disease, etc), they will lose their jobs and insurance absolutely.
What kind of system is this? Health plans want to have only healthy people as members; once they become ill, they will be dropped.
Comment by Bill March 21, 2008
I agree with Michael.
Certain basic necessities of life must be provided by the Govt; they include education, healthcare, transportation infra-structure (like roads & bridges), etc.
What happens to the so called ‘private market-driven mortgage’ industry. The industry is interested in just making money and when they fail they expect the Govt to rescue them.
Govt must provide healthcare. For-profit health plans can not be the solution. Let us have a simplified Govt-controlled single-payer system. People are fed-up with for-profit health plans, big-oil, big-pharma, etc.