4 ms·
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 p
by 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 $2,400 in the US (and the insurer paying an amount you don't see or care about), or you going to the UK and paying 3,000GBP plus accommodation and tickets, I'll bet you pick the former.
It is in the insurer's interest for you to go somewhere cheaper as it saves them (not you) money. There are various press articles about this happening such as this 2009 article http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-08-22-medical-tourism_N.htm?csp=34 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-08-22-medica...
- kriro 13y agoIf the insurance company pays the remainder i.e. >60k why don't they offer you this deal: - No out of pocket cost - Free all expenses paid one week trip to England with your surgery Would cost them the 3k pounds+2.5k$ 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 agoInsurance company will not pay >60K. It will be <10K. Typical insurance pays around 80%, patient 20% of the 'negotiated rates'.