A DIFFERING VIEW: Health clinics need physician oversight
The American Medical Association is committed to ensuring that all patients have access to high quality health care, which is why we support the safe and responsible operation of in-store health clinics.
The AMA understands and appreciates that innovative and alternative strategies may be needed to ensure all patients get the health care services they need in a timely fashion. However, we do not agree with the Rocky’s July 5 editorial (“The cheaper option/AMA should stop looking down nose at in-store health clinics”). We do not accept that in-store health clinics should be held to a lesser standard than the local physician’s office down the street. The AMA has put forth principles these clinics should comply with to ensure patient safety, and continuity of care when necessary.
These principles include reasonable measures such as making sure these clinics establish appropriate sanitation and hygienic guidelines; protocols to ensure appropriate physician oversight; and advanced communication with patients to ensure patients know the qualifications of the health professional providing their care.
The AMA was founded 160 years ago to promote the highest standards of medical care in this country. History shows that patient care and medical practice have benefited from these efforts. The AMA remains committed to promoting these high standards of care whether it’s delivered at your doctor’s office or at an in-store clinic.
Dr. Jeremy A. Lazarus of Greenwood Village is a board member of the American Medical Association.
If a person can afford a doctor, he should definitely see a doctor. If he can't a physician's assistant is much better than no assistance at all.
Posted by Truth on July 13, 2007 08:47 AMI don't like to rip on doctors, and perhaps there is a reason for not seeing them as much these days, but if they were more visible in their own offices, maybe these types of establishments wouldn't be so quickly embraced by the public.
Seriously, even if one goes to an actual doctor's office this day, your chances are at least 50% that you won't see a doctor while you're there. It's always a PA or nurse practitioner (sp?).
Posted by mytwosense on July 13, 2007 11:08 AMHas anyone been saying that in-store clinics should be held to a lower standard than other medical practices? I don't think so. The letter writer has created a straw man.
Posted by Karen on July 13, 2007 12:34 PMKaren, I disagree.
I think the letter fires a timely warning shot over the bow to remind us that healthcare requires more thought than just another consumer product on the shelf. We already have far too many gimmicks out there and we don’t need any more. This effort needs to take place under guidance from the AMA, and we need to put the appropriate controls in place.
Mytwosense,
you are quite right, and this is something the AMA should be paying more attention to. I think that AMA representatives should routinely do spot-checks on doctors offices, and that they should invest more effort and thought into gathering data on patient care and inspecting practices that show under-par behaviour.
Dr.Lazarus,
it is fine and well for the AMA to be paying attention to this, but if the body wants to avoid seeming to be just protecting the business interests of its members, then it must be more aggressive in policing patient care standards amongst practitioners, and in monitoring patient outcomes. The AMA should be maintaining a protocol of early detection and rapid response to practices that deliver suboptimal care.
If you are new in town and want a doctor, some of then charge as much as $240.00 for a well patient, information gathering visit.
Does insurance pay this?
Most folks on a low income would go to a clinic in a store before they pay that kind of fee. Then when they get sick, they need an additional visit. Doctors need to take a look at this.
Posted by on July 13, 2007 07:01 PMI know of several people that started ordering their medications from India via internet -- while a prescription is "suggested", it's not required.
If something is a chronic condition and can be treated with a simple medication, why waste time and money going to the doctor if you already know what's wrong.
Finally, with no doctor or pharmacy visit there is no record which can and WILL be used against you when you apply for individual insurance later on in life.
Posted by on July 14, 2007 02:44 PM02:44 said ” If something is a chronic condition and can be treated with a simple medication, why waste time and money going to the doctor if you already know what's wrong.”
I presume that you will self-diagnose that what you have is treatable with “a simple medication” and that you will reliably know which simple medication is appropriate and what the interactions might be?
How often are you going to be wrong about “already knowing what’s wrong” and are you going to shut up and bear the consequences if you are wrong and nuke your liver or let a carcinoma metastasize?
Finally, with no record, you can easily have drug interactions and nobody will know why
Posted by Bango Skank on July 16, 2007 09:53 AM