Retail clinics vs. your doctor: It may come down to branding

istock_000009005405xsmallThey treat cuts, burns, sprains, rashes, allergies, fevers, and infections.

They are called MinuteClinic, Take Care Clinic, RediClinic, The Little Clinic, The Clinic at Walmart, and Target Clinic.

They are located in the aisles of Walgreens, Walmart, CVS, Target, and Kroger.

There are more than 1,100 of them in the U.S., and more are on the way. (Find the one nearest you at Merchant Medicine.)

They are retail-based medical clinics — and your doctor doesn’t like them.

The primary advantage of retail clinics (also known as walk-in clinics and convenient care clinics) is convenience.

They accept walk-in appointments (no waiting for an opening at your doctor’s office) and they may be open late. They are often less expensive. You can usually fill a prescription on premises.

Your doctor says retail clinics don’t provide the same quality of care. (Meanwhile, he or she may be losing patient visits to them.)

Here is your doctor’s argument. Retail clinics:

  • do not have a physician on site (Usually they are staffed by a nurse practitioner.)
  • have limited medical capabilities and resources
  • do not provide continuity of care (coordinated care over time)
  • do not provide full-spectrum care
  • do not know if you have a pre-existing condition which might impact treatment

In marketing terms, your doctor is claiming the quality position.

However, a new study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine by the RAND Corporation, the nation’s largest independent health policy research program, concluded “retail medical clinics located in pharmacies and other stores can provide care for routine illnesses at a lower cost and similar quality (my emphasis) as offered in physician offices, urgent care centers or emergency departments.”

Uh-oh. Lower cost and similar quality? And more convenient? That’s a problem for your doctor.

How should he or she respond?

  • Join ‘em? Some practices have accepted they can’t compete and instead have aligned themselves with retail clinics for referrals and follow-up treatment.
  • Lower prices? Keep in mind: retail clinics treat only simple conditions. And they generate revenue through the in-store pharmacy. Your physician has higher overhead because he or she must maintain the resources needed to diagnose and treat more complicated conditions. Your practice probably cannot lower its prices.
  • Improve convenience? Most physicians I know prefer practicing medicine to running a business. Few will experiment with innovative consumer-friendly concepts, such as expanded hours, walk-in appointments, and in-house clinics.
  • Enhance quality? This may be the best option. Your doctor’s advantage is that he or she knows you, your family, and your medical history. You have a personal relationship, perhaps long-term.

Doctors call this concept your “medical home.” At your medical home, your personal physician serves as the coordinator of all of your medical needs and maintains your comprehensive health records. This centralized control results in care that is customized, instead of off-the-shelf.

Brands are built on perceived intangible attributes. The attributes your doctor should own are dependable, trustworthy, knowledgeable, concerned — attributes that may be difficult to perceive in the aisles of a discount store.

When it comes to health care, which do you prefer? Convenience or quality?

Is having a medical home of value?

How should doctors respond to the threat of retail clinics?

This entry was posted in brand essence, health care, retail, strategy. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Retail clinics vs. your doctor: It may come down to branding

  1. G Judd says:

    “Enhance quality? This may be the best option”.

    It would be a terrific option, except for one thing: docs today, especially primary care docs, can’t systematically demonstrate superior quality. Can’t create the perception of it – which in the murk of existing clinical data, may be the same thing.

    Doctors have avoided – have disdained – performing so many of the important health care “jobs to be done” (to borrow a coinage from Christensen/Grossman/Hwang), they have lost control of the “what is health care?” agenda. They are not really in charge, will have to work too hard to resume being in charge; and the “medical home” concept, while a promising abstraction, is probably an effort that will be consigned to the particular historical dustbin labeled “too little too late”.