Authorizes retail clinics to provide certain services

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Gustavo Rivera says this is needed

Retail clinics already exist in several locations throughout New York State. One concern is that high-profile retail branding may influence clinical judgment, such as prescribing, or skew public perception of the value of a retail clinic's services to the detriment of primary care providers who instead choose a normal neighborhood location. Today there is nothing to limit the scope of services offered by a retail clinic. Around the country, they are purporting themselves to be full-service medical practices. With the marketing power and capital support they receive, they would out-compete more conventional prac- tices. Healthcare would become increasingly dominated by corporate controlled providers. As retail entities become merged with insurers, healthcare providers could become controlled by health insurers. Regu- lating retail clinics is necessary to prevent this scenario. New York law prohibits business corporations from actually owning healthcare practices or healthcare providers. However, a corporation can rent health providers space and offer various services such as market- ing, equipment rental, management support, and electronic health record systems. Combined with the power of a commercial landlord, the corpo- ration virtually owns the retail clinic, undermining professional inde- pendence. This makes it all the more compelling to limit the scope of services that these clinics are allowed to offer and provide. The consolidation of pharmacies and insurers, with pharmacy benefit managers influencing clinical decisions and costs, adds concern that without sufficient regulation retail clinics become the final link in a vertically integrated closed loop. Even if the host business is only renting space to the practice, the proximity and branding may blur how the practice is perceived. Patients deserve unfettered power to consent to or refuse treatment, and to purchase prescribed drugs or supplies at their own discretion, free of the overwhelming influence that retailers seek to exert over the public. This bill would ensure that all retail clinics are operated according to set standards that assure convenience, clinical autonomy, and support rather than detract from regional primary care. Family practice and primary care are already stressed by a healthcare delivery system that is disproportionately driven by hospitals, special- ists, drug manufacturers, and insurers. Population health improves when access to preventative and necessary care is available and timely, which retail clinics can offer, and even more so when such care is connected to systems that offer continuity and follow-up, which this bill would assure.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.