Wal-Mart can be good for your health

coyote · #1 (**permalink**) 03-27-2008, 02:58 PM

The medical establishment is opposed to drop-in clinics in Wal-Marts and other retail stores. But self-interested doctors need to get over their archaic ways of doing business, says Rahul K. Parikh, M.D.

In our current system, costs keep rising and being shifted to consumers in the form of higher premiums, deductibles and co-pays, while access to care is unpredictable for almost any practice. Despite having the brightest medical minds and therapies, basic medical quality in America remains poor, says Parikh:

According to a 2004 report by the Government Accountability Office about Medicare preventive services, 30 percent of people over age 65 did not receive a flu vaccine and 37 percent had never had a pneumonia vaccine.
Another example: In 2000, Medicare estimated that 6.6 million beneficiaries were never told by their doctor that they had high blood pressure.

On the other hand, retail clinics are thriving, says Parikh. They provide excellent access. After all, what's more convenient than showing up any day, night or weekend to have your sore throat checked? No telephone time spent on hold trying to make an appointment, no shuffling your personal schedule to get there.

Then there's cost:

Retail clinics operate on a fee-for-service basis and don't accept insurance.
Most charge a maximum of $50, which is significantly cheaper than the $100-plus your insurance company will pay when see your doctor for the same concern.
That relative savings makes retail clinics a great place to go if you're uninsured and have a minor medical problem.

Overall, the growth of clinics, and the desire to pay out of pocket, is a not-so-subtle sign that consumers are asserting their purchasing power in the health sector, just as they would with other goods and services, says Parikh.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/200...ealth_clinics/

J04miller · #2 (**permalink**) 03-27-2008, 06:15 PM

I think this is one positive answer in an ailing system. There is no reason to pay over $100 to have a sore throat checked out. These retail based clinics are smart.

Upton · #3 (**permalink**) 03-27-2008, 07:55 PM

Wal Mart can be bad for you health too, plus their lack of humanity has reached a new low.

Quote:

Wal-mart's lawsuit: legal, but wrong

The retail giant's pursuit of funds paid to a severely injured former employee puts hardship on a family.

Deborah Shank's story would have been sad enough, considering the devastating injuries she suffered in a traffic accident seven years ago. Nevertheless, Wal-Mart found a way to add a brutal coda.

As chronicled in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, Shank, a former overnight shelf-stocker for Wal-Mart in southeastern Missouri, was driving her minivan when she was broadsided by a semi and suffered permanent brain damage. Unable to walk without help, she lost the ability to care for herself or interact meaningfully with her family. Now 52, she lives in a nursing home.

Wal-Mart started out as one of the good guys in this story, paying almost $470,000 of her initial medical bills. But three years after Shank's husband sued and settled with the semi driver's employer, the retail giant changed hats. It demanded every penny back, plus interest and legal fees -- more, in fact, than the $417,477 the settlement had placed in a special-needs Medicaid trust fund for Shank's future healthcare expenses.

The company persuaded a federal district court judge and the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to award it the full amount, even though Shank's family had paid for the lawsuit. Nor did it matter that the settlement covered a fraction of her expenses and losses. Wal-Mart's healthcare plan clearly states that it gets first dibs on any money recovered by injured employees. Such provisions aren't uncommon in health plans, and Wal-Mart isn't the first to enforce one.

Doing what the law allows isn't the same as doing the right thing, however. The company made itself whole at the expense of a helpless former employee who will never be whole again. Instead of having some resources to improve her care, Shank will receive only the basic services afforded her by Medicaid and Social Security. Nor will the trust fund be in a position to reimburse Medicaid (i.e., taxpayers), which stood to collect any unspent money upon Shank's death.

Wal-Mart argues that it's just trying to be fair to those still paying into the company's healthcare plan. Big payouts to insured workers can drive up the plan's premiums. The half-million dollars it spent on Shank's care, however, translates into less than 40 cents per Wal-Mart employee. In its most recent quarter, its stores generated that much in operating income every eight minutes.
Wal-Mart has spent the last few years working hard to rebut healthcare reformers, labor unions, anti-globalization groups and other critics who've argued that it puts profits ahead of humanity. While its advertising campaigns try to put a friendlier spin on the company, its behavior toward Shank tells a different story. If Wal-Mart can't restrain itself, perhaps Congress should prevent health plans from draining settlements won by injured workers with more bills to pay.

Crooks and Liars » World’s Worst: BillO/James Dobson/Wal-Mart

satv365 · #4 (**permalink**) 03-27-2008, 07:58 PM

So, just because you don't like Wal-Mart you want everyone to pay high prices at Unionized K-Mart or Target? Screw that, the lowest prices make the best money and bring the most prosperity.

Besides, Wal-Mart does nothing different than any other retail chain, does. They just do it better.

lassie · #5 (**permalink**) 03-27-2008, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satv365

So, just because you don't like Wal-Mart you want everyone to pay high prices at Unionized K-Mart or Target? Screw that, the lowest prices make the best money and bring the most prosperity.

Besides, Wal-Mart does nothing different than any other retail chain, does. They just do it better.

You need to read Uptons post..Its about Walmarts lawsuit against one of their own employees. Its amazing how poorly the employee is getting treated by Walmart.

satv365 · #6 (**permalink**) 03-27-2008, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lassie

You need to read Uptons post..Its about Walmarts lawsuit against one of their own employees. Its amazing how poorly the employee is getting treated by Walmart.

As opposed to what other Store? All of them pay little better than minimum wage, with crappy benefits and orwellian Corporate Policies of the most arbitrary in nature.

I find it absurd that Wal-Mart is singled out here.

wow · #7 (**permalink**) 03-27-2008, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lassie

You need to read Uptons post..Its about Walmarts lawsuit against one of their own employees. Its amazing how poorly the employee is getting treated by Walmart.

Why should her medical bills be paid twice?

lassie · #8 (**permalink**) 03-27-2008, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wow

Why should her medical bills be paid twice?

Did you know when you pay for your insurance and you use it your insurance company can go back and sue you for all your medical bills if you win a law suit with another company? I sure didn't. Wal-mart could have been sooo much more understanding considering its a drop in the buckett as far as money goes for them and the lady is being sued for more than her lawsuit awarded. To add insult to injury, Walmart knew her son soon after her injury died in Iraq. Seems very cold and heartless to me and not a good marketing move either by Wal-mart

satv365 · #9 (**permalink**) 03-27-2008, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lassie

Did you know when you pay for your insurance and you use it your insurance company can go back and sue you for all your medical bills if you win a law suit with another company? I sure didn't. Wal-mart could have been sooo much more understanding considering its a drop in the buckett as far as money goes for them and the lady is being sued for more than her lawsuit awarded. To add insult to injury, Walmart knew her son soon after her injury died in Iraq. Seems very cold and heartless to me and not a good marketing move either by Wal-mart

If they are more understanding than they will most likely end up losing money. Which passes the costs on to the Consumer and loosens their market share in the retail market.

A business as big as Wal-Mart has policies. If you sign on for them. You are legally obliged to be held accountable for anything that pertains to those policies. My advice is do not sign up for Wal_marts benefits unless your management. Who get the better of the benefits.

Upton · #10 (**permalink**) 03-27-2008, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satv365

If they are more understanding than they will most likely end up losing money. Which passes the costs on to the Consumer and loosens their market share in the retail market.

A business as big as Wal-Mart has policies. If you sign on for them. You are legally obliged to be held accountable for anything that pertains to those policies. My advice is do not sign up for Wal_marts benefits unless your management. Who get the better of the benefits.

The half-million dollars Wal-Mart spent on Shank's care, and then demanded back, translates into less than 40 cents per Wal-Mart employee. In its most recent quarter, its stores generated that much in operating income every eight minutes. I don't think losing money is an issue. However greed and heartlessness are.