In their letter, the Representatives wrote, “As you are aware, the recently enacted Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (PPPHCE Act) invests $25 billion in the [Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund (PHSSEF)], including $11 billion for states, localities, territories, and tribes, to enhance all aspects of COVID-19 testing capacity. This funding is in addition to the funds already appropriated to the PHSSEF under the CARES Act.
“While laboratories are eligible, along with other providers, for these funds,” they continued, “there have been no federal funds specifically designated for the laboratories that have stepped up in this public health crisis and have made significant investments to expand access to COVID-19 testing despite 40-60 percent reductions in regular commercial volume due to the economic lockdowns.
“As laboratories work to maintain their investments in critical resources for testing platforms, reagents, swabs, and PPE, as well as hiring, training, and overtime pay for the laboratory workforce, we urge HHS to direct a portion of funding that has not already been allocated towards these efforts. These funds will ensure that labs can continue to rapidly scale up diagnostic and antibody testing, particularly for healthcare workers, first responders, and other Americans on the frontlines of this pandemic,” concluded the Representatives.
ACLA President Made Similar Plea for Direct Funding to Clinical Laboratories
“In order to deliver accurate, reliable results for patients at a national scale, we must allocate funding to support [clinical laboratories’] expanded efforts,” she said in a statement following an April 27 meeting at the White House.
In her letter, Khani wrote, “It is essential that HHS allocate $10 billion from the fund to support labs’ further expansion of testing capacity to fulfill the testing needs of all of the states and to protect the lives and livelihood of all Americans.
“Further,” she continued, “HHS should note that investing in the nation’s laboratories will not only enhance testing capacity in the short-term, but it also will allow the country to benefit from a robust testing infrastructure for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.”
President Trump signed H.R.266 into law on April 24. It includes $25 billion earmarked for research, development, validation, manufacturing, purchasing, administering, and expanding capacity for COVID-19 testing. According to the language of H.R.266, that includes, “tests for both active infection and prior exposure, including molecular, antigen, and serological tests, the manufacturing, procurement and distribution of tests, testing equipment and testing supplies, including personal protective equipment needed for administering tests, the development and validation of rapid, molecular point-of-care tests, and other tests, support for workforce, epidemiology, to scale up academic, commercial, public health, and hospital laboratories, to conduct surveillance and contact tracing, support development of COVID-19 testing plans, and other related activities related to COVID-19 testing.”
“As the demand for testing continues to grow, clinical laboratories need dedicated funding to plan for challenges that lie ahead. Strong federal coordination and leadership is essential, and we’re looking forward to working with HHS to ensure that laboratories have the resources necessary to continue to expand our role at the forefront of the nation’s response,” said Julie Khani (above), President of the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA), in a press release following the June 8 letter sent to HHS by 30 members of Congress requesting funds from H.R.266 be sent directly to clinical laboratories. Khani will be speaking on federal policies now impacting clinical laboratories at the upcoming 25th annual Executive War College on Laboratory and Pathology Management in New Orleans on July 14-15. (Photo copyright: ACLA.)
Financial Struggles for Hospitals and Clinical Laboratories
This new round of stimulus funding comes at a time when many providers and clinical laboratories are struggling financially, despite the influx of COVID-19 patients.
“Across the country, laboratories have made significant investments to expand capacity, including purchasing new platforms, retraining staff, and managing the skyrocketing cost of supplies. To continue to make these investments and expand patient access to high-quality testing in every community, laboratories will need designated resources. Without sustainable funding, we cannot achieve sustainable testing,” said Khani in an ACLA statement.
As the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic evolves, federal regulations, as well as emergency funding for COVID-19 testing that is provided by federal legislation, will evolve in unexpected ways. For that reason, clinical laboratory leaders will want to closely track announcements by such federal agencies as the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Federal Emergency Management Administration as decisions are made about how to assign the $25 billion authorized in H.R.266 for “testing.”
Some companies save so much in healthcare cost they pay their employees to participate in medical tourism programs
Medical tourism is not new, but it’s changing, and clinical laboratories have a role to play in the models employers use to save money on their employees’ health coverage costs.
Employers that manage the entire process—from securing
passports for their employees, to ensuring they have access to high-quality care
outside the country’s borders—report saving money as well as simplifying the
process for their employees. An apparent win-win.
However, questions linger about:
Availability of diagnostic testing and clinical
laboratories;
If patients treated outside the US receive
adequate protections; and
Whether the quality of care is equal to that in
the US.
One recent example of a company helping employers and employees receive high quality care outside of the US is NASH—the North American Specialty Hospital. NASH was featured in a Kaiser Health News (KHN) article that described one patient’s experience traveling to Cancún for a surgical procedure.
Location, Pre-Existing Conditions, Length of Stay, Etc.,
Affect Final Bill in US
One of NASH’s corporate clients is Ashley Furniture Industries. Headquartered
in Arcadia, Wis., the American home furnishings manufacturer and retailer employs
approximately 17,000 people, including Terry Ferguson. Terry’s wife, Donna, is
the patient highlighted in the KHN story.
One of the healthcare providers NASH partners with is Galenia Hospital, a 55-bed general services hospital in Cancún, Mexico. NASH leases the entire third floor of the hospital. Galenia is next door to a Four Points Sheraton Hotel, making lodging a simple matter for medical tourists.
Currently, NASH focuses on orthopedic surgeries such as total
knee replacements, the medical procedure Donna Ferguson underwent.
A 2015 BlueCross
BlueShield study showed that costs for total-knee-replacement surgery in
the US averaged about $31,000. However, depending on where the surgery takes
place, it can cost as low as $11,317 (Alabama) and as high as $69,654 (New York
City). Pre-existing conditions, length of time in the operating room, number of
days in the hospital, and numerous other factors contribute to the final bill.
NASH, however, sets the final price is up front.
Some Companies Pay Their Employees to Use Medical Tourism
With the average cost for the surgery coming in at around
$12,000, the cost savings to employers is so great some companies actually pay employees
who are willing to travel for procedures, KHN reported. Donna Ferguson paid
no co-pays for her surgery, paid nothing out of pocket for travel or lodging
while in Cancún, and the Ferguson’s received a $5,000 check from Ashley
Furniture.
Ferguson told KHN, “It’s been a great experience.
Even if I had to pay, I would come back here because it’s just a different
level of care—they treat you like family.”
That’s important for hospitals, clinical laboratories, and
all healthcare providers in America to consider. In the minds of patients,
quality of care starts with their experience at the hands of the provider.
Donna Ferguson (center) is shown above meeting Thomas Parisi, MD, JD (left), a surgeon with the Orthopedic Institute of Wisconsin, for the first time in Cancún the day before he performed her knee replacement surgery. Clinical laboratory tests, X-rays, and other diagnostics took place in the US prior to Ferguson’s authorization to undergo surgery in Mexico. (Photo copyright: Rocco Saint-Mleux/KHN.)
Clinical Laboratory Tests in US, Surgery in Mexico
Prior to traveling outside the US for surgery, Ferguson
underwent a physical exam, X-rays, and other diagnostic testing to ensure the
treatment approach was the best for her. Once that was confirmed, IndusHealth, Ashely’s medical travel
plan administrator, “coordinated [Donna’s] medical care and made travel
arrangements, including obtaining passports, airline tickets, hotel and meals,”
for both Donna and Terry Ferguson, KHN reported.
It seems reasonable to assume that NASH has agreements with
multiple clinical pathology laboratories and healthcare facilities throughout
the US for patients to get the tests they need prior to surgery. Partnerships
with medical tourism companies may well represent an avenue for pathology
laboratories to pursue.
Protections for Patients
So, why hasn’t medical tourism become the healthcare juggernaut some experts predicted? Managed Care suggests one reason is that Americans tend to be skeptical of the quality of care they will receive in a foreign facility.
“Building a familiar culture in a foreign destination may be appealing to some American consumers, but I do not see it as a sustainable business,” Health consultant Irving Stackpole, PhD, MEd, Psychology, told KHN. “It’s not unusual for people thinking about this to have doctors, family, and friends who will see this as a high-risk undertaking.”
Several factors helped Ferguson feel better about her
decision to travel to Mexico for surgery. One is that Galenia is credentialed.
Managed Care notes, “A number of organizations credential international facilities. The American Medical Association guidelines for medical tourism recommend that foreign medical providers have accreditation from the Joint Commission International or a similar organization.”
In addition to a credentialed facility and a highly trained
surgeon, NASH also provides US malpractice insurance coverage, giving patients
recourse in the event something goes wrong. Ferguson and American patients like
her would be able to sue in the US if care under this arrangement was not
successful.
Medical Tourism Pays Surgeon’s Full Fee
One fascinating twist in this story is that an American physician was flown to Cancun to perform this operation and was paid his full fee. The surgeon scheduled to perform Ferguson’s operation, Thomas Parisi, MD, JD, trained at the Mayo Clinic. He traveled from Wisconsin to Cancún to perform the procedure. “Dr. Parisi trained at Mayo, and you can’t do any better than that,” Ferguson told KHN.
KHN reported that Parisi spent less than 24 hours in
Cancun and was paid $2,700 for this surgery. That fee is three times of the
amount Medicare pays for this procedure. Further, Parisi’s fee was
significantly above what many managed care plans would negotiate for this type
of surgery.
American-trained physicians are common at many of the
facilities credentialed by the Joint Commission International. “Many overseas
hospitals are staffed in part by physicians and other health professionals who
were trained in US hospitals. One hospital in India has 200 US-trained
board-certified surgeons,” wrote James E. Dalen, MD,
MPH, ScD, and Joseph S. Alpert,
MD, in “Medical Tourists: Incoming and Outgoing,” published in The American
Journal of Medicine (AMJMED).
“In the past, medical tourism has been mostly a blind leap to a country far away, to unknown hospitals and unknown doctors with unknown supplies, to a place without US medical malpractice insurance. We are making the experience completely different and removing as much uncertainty as we can,” James Polsfut, CEO and Chairman, North American Specialty Hospital (NASH), told KHN.
Clinical laboratories in America may find opportunities
providing testing services to medical tourism organizations like NASH. It’s
worth investigating.
Recent studies exploring the economics behind the high price of US healthcare independently point to the price of labor, goods, services, administrative costs, and pharmaceuticals as primary reason why the US spends almost twice as much as peer countries on healthcare
It is regularly reported that the cost of healthcare in the United States is notably more expensive that in most developed nations. Overutilization of medical services in this country is often given as a reason why this is true. But the findings of a new research study suggest that the reason healthcare in the US is expensive is not due to overutilization. Rather, it is because of the much higher prices American patients pay for services, including clinical laboratory testing.
This recent study contradicts the claims of some experts who say overutilization is to blame for the high cost of healthcare in the United States. The research was conducted by researchers at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) in Seattle and the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine. They attribute the overarching factor in high healthcare costs not to high utilization of services—such as clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology testing—or increased rates of illness.
Instead, the researchers found that it’s simply a matter of higher prices for healthcare delivered in this nation, compared to other healthcare systems around the globe. This is what makes America’s healthcare system so expensive. And, lacking financial incentives for stakeholders to lower prices, these researchers suggest that continued high costs could negatively impact providers’ quality of care.
High Cost of Diagnostic Services, including Medical Laboratory Testing
The IHME/UCLA researchers published their findings in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), in which they argued that increases in US healthcare cost are independent of increases in:
Disease prevalence;
US population age;
Use of healthcare services; or,
Overall population size.
Joseph L. Dieleman, PhD, Assistant Professor at IHME and lead researcher on the investigation, stated, “After adjustments for price inflation, annual healthcare spending on inpatient, ambulatory, retail pharmaceutical, nursing facility, emergency department, and dental care increased by $933.5 billion between 1996 and 2013—from $1.2 trillion to $2.1 trillion.”
Data produced by the study identified one overlying factor in increased spending—increased prices. According to Dieleman, health spending in 2015 “reached $3.2 trillion and constituted 17.8% of the US economy.”
In an editorial response to Dieleman’s investigation, also published in JAMA, Patrick H. Conway, MD, MSc (above), President and CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina in Durham, stated that “the United States is on an unsustainable growth path in terms of healthcare costs and must get costs under control.” He added that data from Dieleman’s study has important implications for quality of healthcare, which may include medical laboratory diagnostics. (Photo copyright: Duke University.)
Price Spirals and Artificial Price Hikes: No Real Incentive for Regulation
Pricing for medical care is notoriously opaque. Patients are often unaware of the cost of services until the bill arrives. This lack of transparency prevents patients from comparing prices between healthcare providers and medical laboratories.
To try and create some cost transparency for consumers, Conway noted that some states, such as Maryland and Vermont, have adopted multi-payer payment models or all-payer rate settings. However, there could be resistance to such reforms, according to some experts.
No Incentive to Lower the Prices of Medical Services
An opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, Keith Lemer, CEO, WellNet Healthcare Group, shared a similar view. He stating that insurers and preferred provider organizations (PPOs) have no “natural incentive to keep provider prices down.” Lemer looks at the Affordable Care Act and its establishment of a medical loss ratio rule, which “requires insurers covering individuals and small businesses to spend at least 80 cents of every premium dollar on medical expenses.”
Lemer uses the cost of a routine blood test as an example, stating that when providers raise costs of such tests, “insurers can charge higher premiums, while also boosting the value of their 20% share,” which goes “towards administrative costs and profits.”
Lemer argues that the deck is stacked against consumers, and that the medical loss ratio “encourages insurers to ignore providers” artificial price hikes,” while attracting customers “with the promise of steep discounts through their PPO plans.” The resulting affect is what Lemer calls a “price spiral” that’s difficult to escape.
In comparison to 10 other high-income countries the US spends “approximately twice as much,” Papanicolas noted. She added that despite the higher spending in the US, the nation “performs poorly in areas such as healthcare coverage and health outcomes.”
To illustrate the difference in average costs, Papanicolas and colleagues listed “comparison prices” on a series of healthcare services between countries in 2013. For example, the price of a single computed tomography (CT) scan varies widely:
$896 (US);
$97 (Canada);
$279 (Netherlands); and,
$500 (Australia).
The high prices of clinical laboratory (AKA, pathology laboratory in Australia) diagnostics have already caused a sharp decline in the use of important imaging utilization and are at risk of affecting other aspects of clinical pathology, such as anatomic pathology (histopathology in AU) services.
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) Health Research Institute’s annual medical cost report predicts 2018 medical costs will rise by 6.5% and that “price continues to be a major driver of healthcare costs” that are outpacing the economy. PwC recommends “increasing collaboration across the industry” to address the growing issue of rising medical costs and shift the burden of cost away from patients.
Clinical Laboratories Contribute to High Costs
Although US healthcare cost is a topic of intense conversation, little change may come if there is no incentive to change. Each of the recent JAMA published articles ends on the same repeated note: a plea for active debate among policy makers, healthcare providers, patients, insurers, and politicians, with the goal of decreasing healthcare costs, without sacrificing patient care.
This is also true for clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology stakeholders, which are critical aspects of the healthcare continuum, and therefore, contribute to the overall financial burden on healthcare consumers.
New study published in the Annals of Family Medicine (AFM) indicates that despite efforts to improve EHR usability and efficiency, primary care physicians continue to spend more than 50% of their workdays on computerized physician order entry (CPOE) and other clerical tasks instead of engaging in direct patient care
Do electronic health record (EHR) systems improve or degrade the productivity of physicians? That question has been the subject of robust debate. Now comes a new study in a peer-reviewed journal with a surprising finding: physicians spend up to 50% or more of their workday on EHR-related tasks.
In theory, EHRs offer a wealth of benefits over traditional paper-based systems. In practice, however, between interoperability concerns and implementation costs, they have proven a daunting undertaking for even the largest healthcare systems.
While EHRs might offer easy access to patient data—including medical laboratory records and anatomic pathology reports—this information doesn’t enter itself into databases or make itself instantly accessible. That requires human interaction, which is time consuming and prone to errors.
Thus, research from the American Medical Association (AMA) and the University of Wisconsin revealing that the time it takes to enter data, address communications, and perform other clerical tasks adds up to more than 50% of a physician’s workday is of paramount importance. That’s because physician dissatisfaction and departures from medical practice have increased each year since the EHR revolution began, and reports are the situation is getting worse.
Researchers validated their data through direct observation of 14 nonresident family medicine physicians from May through June of 2016. This observation showed similar findings. During clinical hours, 60% of physician time related to non-EHR tasks, with 40% of time devoted to EHR tasks.
Documentation Burden Leads to Physician Burnout, Dissatisfaction
“Our family medicine physicians spent 44% of their workday (157 minutes) in the EHR doing clerical and other administrative tasks,” study authors reported. “Computerized physician order entry accounted for 12.1% of their clinic hours (43 minutes) in the EHR. The burden related to order entry has been associated with clinician burnout, dissatisfaction, and intent to leave practice.”
Researchers tracked various tasks and assigned them to categories. Of the tasks tracked, only 32.1% fell under the heading of “medical care.” Reviewing chart notes, chart medications, and problem lists topped medical care tasks.
Review of clinical laboratory results in charts ranked near the bottom, with only 2.5% of the total time spent performing medical care tasks. These tasks, however, could offer opportunities for medical laboratories to help physicians identify opportunities to optimize reporting and test-ordering processes and improve productivity for clinicians who are responsible for most of the data entry burden associated with EHRs.
One potential solution to EHR burnout involves the use of medical scribes who work with physicians during and after a patient’s visit inputting encounter data. Alan Bank, MD, cardiologist at Allina Health, and medical scribe Jaeda Roth, are shown above during a patient visit. Bank told the StarTribune that he’s convinced scribes help doctors get more done and reduce billing errors. (Photo and caption copyright: Elizabeth Flores/StarTribune.)
Researchers also questioned the EHR’s role as a communication or telemedicine hub. “There is insufficient evidence that such asynchronous care improves health outcomes, cost, and overall healthcare use,” they noted.
However, even for intra-practice communications between healthcare professionals, EHRs may not be the most efficient approach. “Face-to-face communication is associated with increased efficiency,” the researchers noted. “Whereas more electronic communication among team members leads to greater clinician and staff dissatisfaction, as well as poorer clinical outcomes and increased healthcare use among patients with coronary artery disease.”
EHR Cost/Benefits Generate Debate
This latest study is not the first to suggest that EHRs are creating problems for clinicians. While there appear to be no trends between studies, multiple researchers have highlighted the workload created by EHR systems in recent years.
In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM), Christine A. Sinsky, MD, of the American Medical Association, et al, analyzed data from the observation of 57 US-based physicians in family medicine, internal medicine, cardiology, and orthopedics.
Comparing data across 430 hours of observation, researchers concluded, “For every hour physicians provide direct clinical face time to patients, nearly two additional hours are spent on EHR and desk work within the clinic day. Outside office hours, physicians spend another one to two hours of personal time each night doing additional computer and other clerical work.”
While medical laboratories and diagnostic specialists—such as anatomic pathologists—can work with physicians to streamline ordering and reporting processes relating to EHRs, much of the burden comes from how EHR systems are designed and used.
In a 2016 New England Journal of Medicine Catalyst Panel on EHRs, Tait Shanafelt, MD, Director of the Mayo Clinic Department Program on Physician Wellness, noted that one of the most contested features of EHR systems in the US, according to the AMA and Mayo Clinic, is computerized physician order entry (CPOE).
Later in the discussion, Sinsky discussed a recent trip to the UK, where she observed general practitioners (GPs) at the National Health Service (NHS). She noted that most GPs loved their EHRs. However, those EHRs were designed with GP input to best work with an NHS GP’s typical workflows and procedures. She also noted that overall usage is different in the UK, as EHRs there are not tied into billing systems.
As Dark Daily has reported, up to 70% of data stored in a patient’s electronic health record is clinical pathology laboratory related. As newer EHRs replace outdated models, it will remain critical for healthcare professionals—including clinical laboratory professionals who generate most of the data stored in EHRs—to assess, track, and report on what is working with various platforms and what is not.
Communicating this end-user data to EHR developers is essential to designing EHRs that reduce unneeded burden and clerical load on physicians, rather than increasing it.
Clinical laboratories tat wish to take proactive steps might contact physicians and other professionals in their workgroups to tailor data generation, reporting, and ordering processes to the EHRs in use at those practices.
Research conducted by Kalorama suggests the popularity of retail clinics represents a trend towards newer healthcare models that challenge existing models of care, and which could severely impact hospitals, clinical laboratories, and pathology groups
In recent years, pathologists and medical laboratory managers have watched as retail clinics housed in drug and grocery stores became a go-to service for healthcare customers seeking relief from minor illnesses. However, to market research company Kalorama, retail clinics also are a “game-changer” that could pose a threat to healthcare providers if their growth remains unchecked.
At risk are health systems and office-based physicians, along with the clinical laboratories and pathology groups that serve them. This would happen if patients shy away from primary care doctors in favor of cheaper, faster, medical care. However, as retail clinics expand the services they provide, they also could become an important source of orders for certain types of medical laboratory tests.
Kalorama defines retail clinics as, “healthcare centers that provide basic and preventative care in a retail setting; excluded are crisis and acute care centers; urgent care centers; emergency facilities; and wellness centers.” According to Kalorama’s data, “in 2016, total US retail clinic sales are estimated at more than $1.4 billion, an increase of 20.3% per year from $518 million in 2010.”
This increased use of retail clinics is a mixed blessing. On one hand, easy accessibility, low-wait times, and flexibility combined with lower costs for basic care is a boon for certain patients. On the other hand, this emergent healthcare model requires that traditional healthcare facilities address the impact of retail clinics on traditional practices, patient care, and regulatory standards.
Here are five reasons why retail clinics could threaten traditional healthcare models:
Retail Clinics Disrupt the Normal Healthcare Delivery Environment
Retail clinics are designed for immediate treatment of symptoms and vaccinations, not in-depth examination or long-term healthcare relationships between physician and patient. However, because retail clinics are a convenient low-cost option for patients, they become direct competition for full-service. Why visit a primary care physician (PCP) when you can receive off-hour care at lower prices and with faster wait times?
Based on data from peer-reviewed journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings, the graph above illustrates the huge growth of retail clinics over just the past 10 years, which is expected to continue. (Image copyright: Accenture Consulting.)
There is a rising fear among PCPs that the quick fix of retail clinic services will translate into poorer overall health for patients who fail to establish permanent long-term healthcare connections. This fear is validated by an American Medical Association (AMA) report that states, “only 39% of retail clinic users report having an established relationship with a primary care physician, which contrasts to about 80% of the general population reporting such a relationship.”
Retail Clinics Increase Competition for Primary Care Practices
Rather than competing with emergency departments, retail clinics directly compete with primary care clinics, according to Kalorama and the AMA. Staffed primarily by nurse practitioners and physician assistants, retail clinics treat symptoms of acute and easily identifiable health issues. There is growing concern that this limits opportunity for patients to receive more comprehensive healthcare that includes identification and treatment of chronic diseases.
And though competition in the healthcare market is good, physicians worry that retail clinics may push smaller stand-alone clinics out of business. The Kalorama report explains that “ultimately, medical practices are businesses that rely upon a steady flow of [patients] for their success.” When primary care facilities close due to loss of patients, it can create immediate healthcare gaps in communities.
Retail Clinics Could Increase Strain on Medical Laboratories and Pathology Groups
Kalorama’s data shows that retail clinics could place strain on medical laboratories and pathology practices. The study notes, “retail clinics are becoming relatively large users of point-of-care (POC) tests, clinical chemistry, and immunoassay laboratory tests and vaccines.” Kalorama’s report states, “the combined sales of these three types of products to retail clinics reached $240 million” in 2015, reflecting a 26% per year growth in testing since 2010. Projections from Kalorama suggest further increases in retail clinic test ordering in years to come.
The COLA newsletter also warns that pathologists and clinical laboratory managers “should expect to see, over time, a steady increase in the menu of diagnostic testing offered by retail clinics.” COLA suggests that pathologists and laboratory scientists will experience increased demand from retail clinics for their services and expertise, but that because retail clinics often require high-volume, fast-paced testing without the benefit of full clinical laboratories (both in terms of staff and equipment) there is potential for retail clinic testing to fall short of industry standards.
Retail Clinics Fragment Health Records
According to an article in AMA Wire, the AMA House of Delegates (HOD) established guidelines for retail clinics that focus on continuity of medical records and the safeguarding of patient care. The guidelines state that retail clinics “must produce patient visit summaries that are transferred to the appropriate physicians and other healthcare providers in a meaningful format that prominently highlights salient patient information.” The fear, according to the AMA, is that the fragmenting of medical records may bring harm to patients via miscommunication that undermines patient-physician relationships and complicates oversight in treatment plans.
The Kalorama report echoes this sentiment. It states that physicians often take a negative view of retail clinics because of the lack of communication between retail clinics and primary care practices, citing a lack of cooperation or “unwillingness or inability on the part of convenience clinics to share medical information about patients with primary care providers.”
Retail Clinics Are Expanding Their Reach
Despite the fact that the AMA Council on Medical Services 2017 report on delivery reform recommends that retail clinics limit the scope of their care, expansion of retail clinic services has gone unchecked in many areas according to the Kalorama report. AMA policy states that retail clinics must have a “well-defined and limited scope of clinical services,” and the AMA’s 2017 guidelines state that “retail health clinics should neither expand their scope of services beyond minor acute illnesses … nor expand their scope of services to include infusions or injections.”
As retail clinics open around the country and expand their offerings there is a call for increased regulation of retail clinics to check that growth. COLA states that retail clinics are positioning themselves to play a major role in the delivery of primary care services. And the Kalorama report suggests that the trend towards retail clinic use will continue to rise, creating both challenges and opportunities for providers, clinical laboratories, pathologists, and healthcare policy makers who will be required to address the disruption to their businesses.
