4 ms·

We hear about medical tourism from the US to India, Thailand, etc., but with these kinds of price discrepancies between the US and UK private practices, I wonde

We hear about medical tourism from the US to India, Thailand, etc., but with these kinds of price discrepancies between the US and UK private practices, I wonder why there aren't more Americans who go to the UK for surgery?

twoodfin 13y ago
The fraction of patients without insurance but with enough cash and motivation to fly to the UK purely to seek savings on medical treatment has got to be fairly tiny. My impression is that medical tourism from the U.S. is not typically for cost savings, but rather because particular procedures are either completely unavailable (experimental stem cell treatments) or could require long wait times (liver transplants). I'd love some data on this. Wikipedia's rather poorly written article suggests MT is more popular from countries with socialized systems in order to reduce wait time, but I'm skeptical.
- apendleton 13y ago
  Were we looking at the same Wikipedia article? Its first sentence is "Medical tourism (MT) is patient movement from highly developed nations to other areas of the world for medical care, usually to find treatment at a lower cost." Later: "[I]n the US, the main reason is cheaper prices abroad." And while I agree that it's not especially well-written, it does provide some hints as to why even insured people might like to go: elective cosmetic surgery, elective orthopedic procedures that may not be necessary but may improve quality of life (knee replacements, etc.), or reproductive procedures like IVF, all of which may not be covered by insurance.
- defen 13y ago
  > The fraction of patients without insurance but with enough cash and motivation to fly to the UK purely to seek savings on medical treatment has got to be fairly tiny. Well, if my options are to spend 60 grand on an ACL repair in the U.S., or significantly less than that on a first-class ticket to London, some serious fun, and an ACL repair...I know which one I would choose.
  - rogerbinns 13y ago
    Those weren't your options. As with most things health related in the US, someone else was paying (the "insurer" in this case). Given the choice between you paying $2,400 in the US (and the insurer paying an amount you don't see or care about), or you going to the UK and paying 3,000GBP plus accommodation and tickets, I'll bet you pick the former. It is in the insurer's interest for you to go somewhere cheaper as it saves them (not you) money. There are various press articles about this happening such as this 2009 article http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-08-22-medical-tourism_N.htm?csp=34 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-08-22-medica...
    - kriro 13y ago
      If the insurance company pays the remainder i.e. >60k why don't they offer you this deal: - No out of pocket cost - Free all expenses paid one week trip to England with your surgery Would cost them the 3k pounds+2.5k$ of your share+maybe another 3k for a good trip..<10k total compared to 60k I take it they simply can't get that 3k pounds deal as an insurance company.
      - woobar 13y ago
        Insurance company will not pay >60K. It will be <10K. Typical insurance pays around 80%, patient 20% of the 'negotiated rates'.
larrys 13y ago
"I wonder why there aren't more Americans who go to the UK for surgery?" Potential issues with follow up care as one drawback.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> I wonder why there aren't more Americans who go to the UK for surgery? Because a sizable share of the Americans who could afford even the UK surgery prices plus travel and accommodations to/in the UK also have health insurance which covers the procedure in the US, and makes it cheaper for the patient to have the procedure done in the US even if the total cost is more expensive.

twoodfin 13y ago

The fraction of patients without insurance but with enough cash and motivation to fly to the UK purely to seek savings on medical treatment has got to be fairly tiny. My impression is that medical tourism from the U.S. is not typically for cost savings, but rather because particular procedures are either completely unavailable (experimental stem cell treatments) or could require long wait times (liver transplants). I'd love some data on this. Wikipedia's rather poorly written article suggests MT is more popular from countries with socialized systems in order to reduce wait time, but I'm skeptical.

apendleton 13y ago
Were we looking at the same Wikipedia article? Its first sentence is "Medical tourism (MT) is patient movement from highly developed nations to other areas of the world for medical care, usually to find treatment at a lower cost." Later: "[I]n the US, the main reason is cheaper prices abroad." And while I agree that it's not especially well-written, it does provide some hints as to why even insured people might like to go: elective cosmetic surgery, elective orthopedic procedures that may not be necessary but may improve quality of life (knee replacements, etc.), or reproductive procedures like IVF, all of which may not be covered by insurance.
defen 13y ago
> The fraction of patients without insurance but with enough cash and motivation to fly to the UK purely to seek savings on medical treatment has got to be fairly tiny. Well, if my options are to spend 60 grand on an ACL repair in the U.S., or significantly less than that on a first-class ticket to London, some serious fun, and an ACL repair...I know which one I would choose.
- rogerbinns 13y ago
  Those weren't your options. As with most things health related in the US, someone else was paying (the "insurer" in this case). Given the choice between you paying $2,400 in the US (and the insurer paying an amount you don't see or care about), or you going to the UK and paying 3,000GBP plus accommodation and tickets, I'll bet you pick the former. It is in the insurer's interest for you to go somewhere cheaper as it saves them (not you) money. There are various press articles about this happening such as this 2009 article http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-08-22-medical-tourism_N.htm?csp=34 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-08-22-medica...
  - kriro 13y ago
    If the insurance company pays the remainder i.e. >60k why don't they offer you this deal: - No out of pocket cost - Free all expenses paid one week trip to England with your surgery Would cost them the 3k pounds+2.5k$ of your share+maybe another 3k for a good trip..<10k total compared to 60k I take it they simply can't get that 3k pounds deal as an insurance company.
    - woobar 13y ago
      Insurance company will not pay >60K. It will be <10K. Typical insurance pays around 80%, patient 20% of the 'negotiated rates'.

larrys 13y ago

"I wonder why there aren't more Americans who go to the UK for surgery?" Potential issues with follow up care as one drawback.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> I wonder why there aren't more Americans who go to the UK for surgery? Because a sizable share of the Americans who could afford even the UK surgery prices plus travel and accommodations to/in the UK also have health insurance which covers the procedure in the US, and makes it cheaper for the patient to have the procedure done in the US even if the total cost is more expensive.