How does Wesfarmers align with cervical screening, asks RACGP

Two years after acquiring Priceline Pharmacy, Wesfarmers has not only released a report on heart health but also announced plans for a cervical screening program.

---

Retail giant Wesfarmers is showing an increasing interest in the healthcare space – and while it has been touted as a win for convenience, health peaks say there is reason for concern.

The owner of Target, Bunnings and Priceline Pharmacy released a report on Australia’s “health index” in early October warning that nearly half the population have an elevated risk of heart disease.

Just days earlier, according to Pharmacy Daily, Priceline announced a pilot program which would provide cervical cancer screening and some medications under the banner of women’s health checks.

The screening program would reportedly be run in conjunction with Wesfarmers-owned telehealth company Instant Scripts.

While details are still scant, Pharmacy Daily reported that the screening program would involve women collecting self-test samples in a pharmacy consult room with results delivered to patients directly.

Announcing the initiative at a beauty event, Priceline pharmacist and spokesman Amy Jones said the new program would allow the pharmacy to “play an even greater role in delivering accessible, holistic healthcare services to our communities”.

The Wesfarmers health index report, meanwhile, used data collected from SiSU Health Stations, which are unmanned kiosks located predominantly in Priceline pharmacies that are available for free five-minute health checks.

The SiSU machines measure blood pressure, heart rate, body fat percentage, height, weight, BMI and diabetes risk.

Since their introduction to Priceline stores in 2016, according to Wesfarmers, the machines have recommended people visit their regular GP 565,000 times.

According to the report, which captured a sample of about 290,000 SiSU consults between 2018 and 2024, one quarter of Australians are obese, 13% are daily smokers, 29% have high blood pressure and 6% have diabetes.

“Data helps paint the picture, it gives an indication of the status of what’s happening in communities and what the driving forces are,” Ms Jones told The Medical Republic.

“That’s probably something that needs to be explored further … there’s only a hypothesis you can create from that narrative, from that data set.

“There was a lot of disparity across the regional versus metropolitan areas or electorates, that was a key pattern that we started to see emerging from the data sets.

“The hypothesis around that is that it is accessibility to healthcare services and having access to healthcare in a timely fashion and having it be affordable and then also lifestyle implications … and socio-economic status.”

The common thread between the SiSU report and a potential cervical screening program is that both focus on testing in isolation, without the consideration of longitudinal care.

“With my governance hat on: what is the mission of Wesfarmers, and how does that actually speak to the scope of this [initiative]?” RACGP specific interests chair Dr Lara Roeske said.

“Again, does this fit appropriately within their scope?”

Dr Roeske, who was heavily involved with the National Cervical Screening Program self-collection implementation committee, stressed that cervical screening was not a one-off incident.

“There’s a danger in taking the doctor and the trained nurse out of that equation, because they add that’s the injection of quality and standards right there and then,” she told TMR.

“In a clinical practice, we are only accredited if we have systems in place for reminders and recourse and reporting appropriately and for acting on reports.

“The National Cancer Screening Register communicates with us and prompts us as well.

“All those inputs and outputs are a safety web, as I see it, all around that one episode that then repeats every five years.

“Lots can happen along the way.”

Dr Roeske said she frequently saw women who were unsure about the process of self-collection, and questioned whether “respectful, dignified and socially appropriate conversation” could occur about self-testing in a pharmacy context.