Retail clinics aren't the health savings juggernaut they once were thought to be, according to a new study.

The research, published in Health Affairs, found that although clinics at pharmacies and supermarkets were indeed cheaper than conventional health care providers, they likely contributed to increasing overall health spending because they make it easier for people to consume more health care services.

The study examined claims made by customers of Aetna, the insurance giant. The researchers estimated that 58 percent of the services received at clinics would not have been sought in their absence.

Essentially, clinics are sort of serving their purpose. They are making health care more accessible, meaning that people who wouldn’t schedule a full-fledged appointment with a physician to address a minor medical concern will drop by the CVS for a quick clinic appointment.

“Convenience has an Achilles’ heel,” study author Dr. Ateev Mehrotra, a professor of health policy at Harvard, told the New York Times.

The study is not without its critics. Predictably, a few of them run retail health clinics. They argued that even if clinics result in more primary care visits, they likely save money by identifying and preventing more serious conditions that could result in major medical events and hospitalizations.

Aetna does not appear bothered by the study conclusions, either.

“Retail clinics are a convenient and flexible option that are available during extended hours, while traveling, and for minor health needs,” Kristine Grow, a spokeswoman for Aetna, said in a statement to the New York Times. “They are also a good option for consumers who do not have a primary care physician, and a far better setting for care than an emergency room.”