Wal-Mart won't expand its health-care offerings
This article was published November 9, 2011 at 1:31 p.m.
- Comments (35)
- aAFont Size
Wal-Mart said Tuesday that it would not be expanding in the medical field after a report suggested that the world's largest retailer was planning to offer such services as chronic illness management and diagnostic care.
The Bentonville-based company said in a statement that a request for information to potential vendors was "overwritten and incorrect."
"We are not building a national, integrated, low-cost primary care health care platform,” said Dr. John Agwunobi, senior vice president of Walmart US. Health & Wellness.
National Public Radio and Kaiser Health News first reported that Wal-Mart was looking to expand its medical services in a story on "Morning Edition."
In the 14-page RFI that NPR had a copy of, Wal-Mart said it sought to lower the cost of health care by expanding access to quality services by becoming the largest provider of such services.
The retailer, which already offers in-store medical clinics, asked vendors in the RFI to "articulate their value proposition" to be a strategic partner with Wal-Mart in such areas as chronic care, diagnostic care, preventative care, acute care and health and wellness services. That covers everything from thyroid tests to HIV management.
Comments on: Wal-Mart won't expand its health-care offerings
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.
You must login to make comments.
jackalope says... November 9, 2011 at 1:44 p.m.
Hey wal-mart, you can lower the cost of health care nationwide by actually offering your employees health insurance and a living wage.
( permalink | suggest removal )
pat72209 says... November 9, 2011 at 2:13 p.m.
jakalope...right. I just wish Americans weren't so spoiled to instant everything and could cut way back on their gas and way back on foreign made products...FOR THE SAKE OF MAKING A STATEMENT...BUT "NO" NOT UNTIL GAS AND MONEY ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE LOL
( permalink | suggest removal )
lazybar says... November 9, 2011 at 3:43 p.m.
hey jackalope i hear target is hiring maybe you`ll get a better deal there.ever since i began in the work force some odd 25 years ago i heard about walmarts low wages.well look around they are expanding while others are failing.better to have a low paying job than no job.
( permalink | suggest removal )
jackalope says... November 10, 2011 at 10:44 a.m.
I don't work for Wal-mart (in fact, have never worked in retail). However, Wal-Mart, as the largest private employer in this country should be setting a good example, not lowering the bar. It's inexcusable that Wal-Mart has many employees whose pay is so low that they qualify for food stamps. It's inexcusable that the idea of the largest private employer in the country's idea to reduce the cost of health care is not to provide their employees with insurance to reduce the burden on emergency rooms.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Reason says... November 10, 2011 at 11:29 a.m.
Crony capitalism is socialism. Open the markets!
( permalink | suggest removal )
GAITOR says... November 10, 2011 at 12:05 p.m.
What's the problem? Obamacare is supposed to fix it all, right? :-))
( permalink | suggest removal )
lazybar says... November 10, 2011 at 12:06 p.m.
how many discount stores pay thier employees enough not to be on food stamps?don`t get me wrong,i have issues with walmart and rarely shop there.i also have problems with people or gov telling private businesses how to spend thier money.
walmart or the rest of the usa paying more to reduce the er burden is not the answer.allow the er the right to refuse service in nonemergancy classes is the answer.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Reason says... November 10, 2011 at 12:35 p.m.
Gaitor: Obviously, you do not know how law is made. It takes congress. Congress is corporate owned. Congress is not doing anything.
Nobody expects Walmart to pay anymore than their fair share in an open free market. They have market control and control the consumer prices, profits and wages. It is not just government-corporate collusion but also corporate-corporate collusion and corporate-association collusion.
It is not that people are not working... it is they have no purchasing power. They have no purchasing power because of consumer prices and suppressed wages. And these corporations are smart enough to know if they keep suppressing those wages and price gouging that congress will step in and raise the minimum wage. When they raise minimum wages it eliminates more of their competition. It is a vicious cycle. And remember that these corporations have over a trillion dollars just in tax credits that their competition do not receive.
I do not have a problem with Walmart expanding overseas. But I do have a problem with the tax code that pays them for doing so. I really think that if people would look at the WHOLE picture that Americans would agree and demand true capitalism. Because for everything that is not true, there will be social crumbs thrown to off set what the corporations reap.
Restore competition and let the markets govern.
( permalink | suggest removal )
GAITOR says... November 10, 2011 at 12:53 p.m.
But the law has been passed by the Lib/Progressives controlled Congress....it's Obamacare, which is suppposed to "SAVE US ALL", right? Never fear Obamacare is here?????
( permalink | suggest removal )
Reason says... November 10, 2011 at 2:01 p.m.
Fox News may have reported it that way so it is easy to understand why you would be mistaken. Health care reform passed in 2009. It was a campaign promise kept. That was 2 years ago. It is affordable health insurance. Employee coverage starts in 2014. The cost of insurance is one issue. The cost of medical care is a separate issue. Many cities have no hospitals. Many counties have only one hospital. Where is the competition? Without competition what happens to prices? The republicans have controlled the House since 2010. What has this congress done about the soaring cost of medical care? Nothing!
( permalink | suggest removal )
Razorbacosanostra says... November 10, 2011 at 2:46 p.m.
From what I can see most Wal Mart employees are paid what they are worth; there are some that are definitely worth more but for sure I see some and wonder how they have a job. When I worked for Safeway back in the 80's we busted our butts and we were paid for it, and from what I see the employees at Kroger, etc as a whole are much better employees. If Wal Mart decided to raise their wages and hire more competent workers in entry level positions where are all those unqualified ones going to end up?
( permalink | suggest removal )
Reason says... November 10, 2011 at 3:18 p.m.
"Some" of Wal Mart workers are "special needs" and their salaries are paid by taxpayers.
( permalink | suggest removal )
80Redux says... November 10, 2011 at 4:38 p.m.
Most are trying to get out of the medical field since Obamacare was passed. I have a couple of friends that are doctors and they are trying to get the point where they can retire and get out of the MESS that the democrats have created.
Why would anyone, including WalMart, want to get in the middle of that cauldron?
( permalink | suggest removal )
Reason says... November 10, 2011 at 5:24 p.m.
I know.... It should've had the public option.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Jjackk says... November 10, 2011 at 6:40 p.m.
They were unloading their employees long before Obamacare. These companies claim they can't tell if a worker is an illegal but they know someone's entire medical history before they hire them. They are part of the problem, doesn't matter how much you defend them. And if doctors want out then they were just in it for the money anyways, the easy government money. Thats is what is getting cut.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... November 10, 2011 at 9:12 p.m.
Why would someone go into debt to a doctor if one of the reasons wasn't to make money?
( permalink | suggest removal )
80Redux says... November 10, 2011 at 10:36 p.m.
Jjackk - Right, it wasn't Obamacare, blame something else. You sound just like your leader. Google "Obama Blames" and you'll find 7.9 million results.
( permalink | suggest removal )
jdw139 says... November 11, 2011 at 9:08 a.m.
Love'em or hate 'em . Tighter than two coats of paint. Always have been.
( permalink | suggest removal )
GAITOR says... November 11, 2011 at 9:33 a.m.
Reason: As I have asked other before, and have yet to receive a wrokable solution for an answer: What are we all going to do when there are not enough doctors to perfrom needed procedures?
( permalink | suggest removal )
Reason says... November 11, 2011 at 11:22 a.m.
Gaitor:
It may that you are searching for a problem instead of a solution.
According to the Romney's state of Massachusetts data (2010 medical society survey): Waiting time to see a doctor was on the rise before insurance reform was enacted. It was found that the waiting time for internal medicine had gone up by 6 days since 2005 but average family medicine waiting time went down by 15 days, including cardiology, gastroenterology and orthopedic surgery. The report cites a continued doctor problem rather than the enactment of insurance reform being the cause.
Fox News reported from data surveying only 71 practices by Merritt Hawkins & Associates. The 2010 medical society survey was based on 995 physicians and 150 other medical professionals. Which do you believe?
My question is: Why are our medical schools turning away 57.3% of its applicants?
wallstreetpit. com/5769-the-medical-cartel-why-are-md-salaries-so-high
( permalink | suggest removal )
GAITOR says... November 11, 2011 at 2:08 p.m.
Reason: And that pesky "continued doctor problem" (too few doctors, becuase they are leaving the practice of medicine) is only to get worse. You have not answered my question, but instead just danced around it.
( permalink | suggest removal )
jackalope says... November 11, 2011 at 2:37 p.m.
If you know more than one medical professional who is leaving practice because they don't want to see their profits go down, I think that says more about your friends than it does about doctors as a whole. Personal anecdotes are no substitute for research (which Reason has enumerated above).
( permalink | suggest removal )
GAITOR says... November 11, 2011 at 3:34 p.m.
jackalope: It seems to me you can't answer the "what are we going to do" question either, or toy would have. If you are speaking for Raeson now, then you tell me what else the "continued doctor problem" would be other than too few doctors? And again if you are speaking for Reason, you tell me how Obamacare will better the situation, instead of worsening it. HMMMM...HMMMMM
BTW, I think Reason probably doesn't need your "Hey, Hey, me too" help.
( permalink | suggest removal )
lazybar says... November 11, 2011 at 4:06 p.m.
i don`t see any leaving the medical field but why go into debt to become a doctor for min wage?if it was not for capitalism there would be no growth.no growth=no crumbs to feed welfare.
i don`t see many with a masters degree being a cashiers for walmart.why would anyone spend years and money for a better education just to waste it?
( permalink | suggest removal )
jackalope says... November 11, 2011 at 5:34 p.m.
@lazybar, there are people with Master's degrees working in fast food now. That's part of the whole problem in that there are not enough jobs for the people who are jobless, and the few jobs that are opening up are mostly in the low-wage manual or menial labor sectors.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Reason says... November 12, 2011 at 9:31 a.m.
Gaitor:
For the most part, Obamacare was a republican plan and the republicans were for it before they were against it. Five years ago Mitt Romney signed into law health insurance reform for the state of Massachusetts, which is basically the same as Obamacare.
Massachusetts now has 98% coverage rate
Nearly all children at 99.8% and seniors 99.6%
Popular support for the law remains high, ranging from 59% to 75% in independent polls.
90% of individuals reported having a primary care provider
Only 5% said there was a time in the past year that they needed medical care, test or treatment that they did not get, compared to 20% of the US population.
62% of physicians say it did not have an adverse effect on waiting time.
Remember, these reports come from a republican, Mitt Romney, who is a republican presidential candidate. By using Massachusetts as a model for the rest of the nation one can conclude that access to health care did not cause a doctor shortage. Just because I purchase car insurance does not mean that I will rush out and crash my car. Likewise, just because people have medical insurance does not mean that everybody at one time is going to rush out and go to the doctor. (Most of us try to avoid the need for a doctor.) Markets always fluctuate because of demographics and supply and demand...
Like I said, doctor shortages is a continued concern but access to healthcare is only one factor. Population, for example, a growing number of the older population will be eligible for Medicare (the baby boomers) but that has nothing to do with Obamacare because it would have happened anyway. Also, the age of the physician workforce, some of the doctors are getting older and they are working fewer hours a week but this has nothing to do with Obamacare. All of the concurrent factors resulted in a 11% doctor shortage but in 2009 there was a 9% increase in doctor graduates to offset most of that shortage. And as you know, there are varying medical fields and it is a continuing problem to balance the field in primary care or specialities but that has nothing to do with Obamacare. You say that physicians salaries will be cut and doctors will quit but this because of Medicare. In 2003, congress enacted law to control the cost of Medicare expenditure with mechanisms called "the claw" and "the cliff" along with other laws that were passed in 2004, 2004, 2005 and 2006. (continued)……
( permalink | suggest removal )
Reason says... November 12, 2011 at 10:04 a.m.
The above should have read in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006......
Clawbacks were used in each of the following laws:
2004 The Medicare Modernization Act (P.L. 108-173) allowed for updates of 1.5 percent in both 2004 and 2005; and
2006 The Deficit Reduction Act (P.L. 109-362) froze payment rates at the 2005 level for 2006.
The results were twofold: First, Medicare’s spending for physicians grew more in the short run than it would have otherwise. Second, because the legislation did not adjust the spending target, the gap between cumulative spending and the cumulative target became larger than it would have otherwise been. Specifically, each time the clawback approach was used, more of the subsequent years became subject to the maximum reduction of MEI minus 7 percent. Since payment rates in years subject to the maximum reduction under the baseline would not be reduced below the levels in then-current law, there could be no offsetting savings for a further payment increase until an even-later year that was not subject to the maximum reduction in the baseline. By 2007 the clawback mechanism could not recoup the cost of a one-year override within the 10-year budget window.
This has nothing to do with Obamacare!!!! Containing medical cost is a continuing problem and congress is continuously trying to adjust the cost of government spending. My question is how much of the cost is supply and demand and how much of it is caused by monopolized price gouging? The entire medical industry is a monopoly and congress MUST act to control the cost. Almost everything that a doctor or hospital purchases comes some medical supply, pharmaceutical monopoly industry, or service contractor that have no competition. When you remove competition from the market..... Consumer prices soar with record high corporate profits.
Open the markets and restore competition!
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... November 12, 2011 at 12:11 p.m.
The Kalamazoo, MI. based Stryker, maker of artificial hips and knee devices is cutting 5% of its' 20,000 global workforce by the end of next year to reduce costs in the face of new fees on device makers required by ObamaCare . Obamacare was supposed to create jobs and control premiums. Wasn't it?
`
reason says....Massachusetts now has 98% coverage rate:
Nearly all children at 99.8% and seniors 99.6%
Popular support for the law remains high, ranging from 59% to 75% in independent polls.
90% of individuals reported having a primary care provider
Only 5% said there was a time in the past year that they needed medical care, test or treatment that they did not get, compared to 20% of the US population.
62% of physicians say it did not have an adverse effect on waiting time.
`
Reason, In a forbes article more people are covered but can't get care. The Massachusetts Medical Society found that 56% of physicians are not taking on new patients. Wait times for appointments are climbing. Just two years after reform took root, one clinic in Western Massachusetts had amassed a waiting list of 1,600 patients.
Of the previously uninsured individuals who have signed up, 68% are receiving free or subsidized coverage.
Many of these people aren't even citizens of Massachusetts but individuals from 48 other states and several foreign countries.
Emergency room visits climbed 9%--or 3 million visits--between 2004 and 2008. The bill for uncompensated care has exceeded $400 million.
Romneycare has not worked and neither will Obamacare.
forbes. com/2011/04/25/health-care-mitt-romney_2. html
( permalink | suggest removal )
lazybar says... November 12, 2011 at 1:13 p.m.
jackalope i see job openings everyday oh yeah right you said manual sector.so what your saying is since you have a masters your to good to get your hands dirty to support your family?
almost every hospital has openings,i don`t see many doctors,nurses,or techs going jobless unless its by choice.well really i don`t see anyone going jobless unless its by choice.next your gonna say well at min wage they can`t afford childcare,hmmm maybe they should have thought of that before they spread thier legs.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Reason says... November 12, 2011 at 1:40 p.m.
T6: Oh, the politics!!!! What the article fails to mention from The Massachusetts Medical Society report is the wait time predates the reform.
Health care reform and primary care
- Primary care shortages continue in Massachusetts, but they predate health reform by many years, and mirror shortages in many other areas of the country. Notwithstanding these shortages, 47% of FPs and 49% of IMs are still accepting new patients; and 62% of FPs and 53% of IMs still accept Medicaid.
Emergency department visits rose only slightly (4%) since the implementation of health reform, but visits for non- urgent care fell by 2%
Uninsured from the other 48 states? Obamacare will take care of that problem. Don't you think?
Additional cost to state: 1.3% of the entire state budget.
Here is the link to latest: Massachusetts Health Reform: Fact Sheet
massmed. org/AM/Template. cfm?Section=Health_Care_Reform2&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay. cfm&CONTENTID=55782
( permalink | suggest removal )
Reason says... November 12, 2011 at 1:53 p.m.
Lazybar: Monopoly-crony-capitalism is NOT true capitalism. And when jacklope said that people with a masters degree WERE WORKING in fast food. What part of that did you not understand? Geeeezzz...
( permalink | suggest removal )
Jjackk says... November 12, 2011 at 1:58 p.m.
I stand by my statement. If doctors are cutting patients or cutting their practice it is because they are spoiled with medicare money. Funny how Rand Paul wanted everything cut except the money paid to doctors. Over half of his income as a doctor came from the government. If the government is footing the bill then they are the customer as well as the patient. They are no different than any other workforce in this country. The standard of living continues to fall, theirs is no different. They can always move their business overseas and make more. Or better yet, start bringing boat loads of doctors from India and saturate the market, that'll drop their income just like every other industry.
( permalink | suggest removal )
lazybar says... November 12, 2011 at 3:01 p.m.
reason geeez if your smart enough to get a masters you should be smart enough to get a good job.i do know lots of people with degrees that work for low wages because either there was no demand for the job they trained for or because after getting the degree they decided that was not the field they wanted to be in.might not be what you want to do or what you want to make but with a degree or without there is no reason to be out of work.again i`ll say it better to work a low paying job than no job at all.
jjackk i see what your saying and i agree with it for todays doctors.i don`t see them cutting and running yet,money is still good.its tommorrows doctors.some go to school because they want to make a differance in the world and are willing to work in a clinic for low wages but most do it for the money.this field or any other take away the incentive and the numbers will drop.
friend of mine taught math for ten years,came from a const background.when housing market started booming he stopped teaching,built houses for 10 years.went back to school and now teaches history.point being he loved to teach but knew on a teachers salary he would always barely break even.he worked just long enough to pay off his and his wife student loans,house,and cars.now he can raise his family doing what he loves without living from check to check.to me thats the american dream.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Jjackk says... November 12, 2011 at 6:28 p.m.
Yeah future doctors are a different story. And yes, the government is doing the same thing that companies are doing in other sectors. The plan is to get more work for the same amount of money. So the government is attempting to manipulate the market because they are increasing the demand without increasing the supply and at the same time not increasing the money at the same rate. I can see how that really upsets doctors that create their own rates of pay. Bottom line, what I do not like about Obamacare is that insurance companies will make out like bandits and its a set of federally run programs instead of empowering states. If you look at how Canada implemented the changes, the provinces actually did it.
( permalink | suggest removal )
lazybar says... November 14, 2011 at 12:56 p.m.
agreed and most gov run programs really dont work so great.my problem with obamacare is there are to many things that need to be fixed that could lower cost instead of just forcing us.to many companies overcharging and to many people on medicare that shouldn`t be.a er can`t ask for id or proof of address.
( permalink | suggest removal )
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.