Since in-store clinics were first introduced, it has been commonly repeated that the facilities manned by nurse practitioners would provide less affluent, often uninsured, consumers with access to basic medical care at a price they could afford.
Now, as it turns out, in-store clinics do provide affordable and convenient healthcare. They just aren't in neighborhoods that fit the stereotype of the less affluent user of these services.
A new study, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, suggests that if in-store clinics are going to be made accessible to poorer people, governments are going to have to come up with incentives to get them to set up shop.
"Many people have promoted retail clinics as a cure for access to care for the underserved," Dr. Ateev Mehrotra of the University of Pittsburgh, told The Associated Press. "These findings show that's unlikely to happen."
Margaret Laws, director of the California Healthcare Foundation's Innovations for the Underserved, said that just because in-store clinics are not located in poorer neighborhoods does not mean they are not serving consumers in those areas.
"People go out of their neighborhoods to work and shop," she told the AP. "I don't think we should make the assumption that they won't go out of neighborhoods to seek health care if it offers customer service, better hours and transparent prices."
Discussion Questions: Does being located in more affluent areas, for all practical purposes, mean that in-store clinic services are basically closed to poorer consumers or do they travel to seek medical attention as suggested by some? Should retailers and in-store clinic providers work with government in a private/public partnership to offer services to underserved areas?