Medical Tourism Considered by Nearly 30% of Americans

[FayeforCure]

Medical tourism considered by nearly 30% of Americans


You may remember the article we published last November about the issue of medical tourism in Mexico and around the world -- you can read it here:  http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/02/business/fi-cover2

A guide for Americans seeking affordable medical treatment abroad
TICKET TO TREATMENTImproving quality and bargain prices are luring U.S. patients to developing countries for increasingly sophisticated procedures.

At the time, we also followed the case of Paul Hambleton, a Texan, who went to Monterrey, Mexico, for mild knee surgery. He said that the same operation in the United States would have cost him twice as much.

A survey from Gallup this week found that the availability of medical services in foreign countries isn't something that American consumers have failed to notice.




Up to 29% of Americans would consider traveling abroad to countries as close as Mexico and as far away as India for procedures such as heart bypass surgery, hip or knee replacements, plastic surgery, and cancer diagnosis and treatment, as well as for alternative medial care, according to the poll. Gallup conducted the study in April through telephone interviews with 5,050 participants.

"The increasing cost of medical care in the United States and large numbers of uninsured (at least 48 million people, according to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured) may be making outbound travel an option worth considering," says the survey.

Also:

"Those who report that they don't have health insurance are more likely to consider going abroad for medical treatment. For example, 37% of respondents without health insurance would seek cancer care abroad as compared to 22% with health insurance."

Read the full survey on the Gallup link:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/118423/Americans-Consider-Crossing-Borders-Medical-Care.aspx

-- Deborah Bonello in Mexico City

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/2009/05/you-may-remember-the-article-we-published-some-months-ago-about-the-issue-of-medical-tourism-around-the-world---you-can-r.html

[FayeforCure]

When opponents to universal healthcare tell me about a handful of Canadians coming to the US for elective medical procedures, I always stun them with the fact that 250,000 Americans travel abroad for their medical care.

Now it turns out I have quoted a number that in reality is far higher:

Last year, 750,000 Americans traveled abroad for care, according to estimates by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, a Washington-based research center that's part of the consulting firm Deloitte & Touche. Other analysts say the numbers are lower. But hardly anyone disputes that medical care, once a highly local business, is going global like never before. By 2010, Deloitte projects, 6 million consumers a year will venture outside the United States for medical treatment.

The idea of jetting off to India for heart surgery might strike some as a radical way to save money. But proponents say it's a logical outgrowth of the globalization that's reshaping the industry.

Already, offshore firms handle Americans' medical records and read their X-rays. Top U.S. hospitals such as Johns Hopkins have established outposts abroad. Rising prosperity in many parts of the developing world is luring foreign-born, U.S.-educated doctors home to practice in modern hospitals catering to increasingly affluent consumers.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/02/business/fi-cover2

[Sigma]

The idea of jetting off to India for heart surgery might strike some as a radical way to save money. But proponents say it's a logical outgrowth of the globalization that's reshaping the industry.

So, Faye, since its so easy to get less expensive health care in other countries, which is a result of free market systems (globalization), then why do we need a new heavily bureaucratic (not to mention expensive) system here in the US?  Looks to me as if the markets have once again created a solution.

There are a couple of issues we've got to deal with - a) the cost of medical procedures and rates that doctors charge, and b) the costs of insurance and the ability to afford and maintain coverage.

For a) we have to reduce the enormous amounts of malpractice insurance that US doctors must carry.  So many people in the US will sue for the most frivolous things.  I would be interested in comparing US doctors and their costs of doing business to other countries' docs.

For b) see http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,5061.0.html

 

[civil42806]

When opponents to universal healthcare tell me about a handful of Canadians coming to the US for elective medical ptocedure, I always stun them with the fact that 250,000 Americans travel abroad for their medical care.

Now it turns out I have quoted a number that in reality is far higher:

Last year, 750,000 Americans traveled abroad for care, according to estimates by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, a Washington-based research center that's part of the consulting firm Deloitte & Touche. Other analysts say the numbers are lower. But hardly anyone disputes that medical care, once a highly local business, is going global like never before. By 2010, Deloitte projects, 6 million consumers a year will venture outside the United States for medical treatment.

The idea of jetting off to India for heart surgery might strike some as a radical way to save money. But proponents say it's a logical outgrowth of the globalization that's reshaping the industry.

Already, offshore firms handle Americans' medical records and read their X-rays. Top U.S. hospitals such as Johns Hopkins have established outposts abroad. Rising prosperity in many parts of the developing world is luring foreign-born, U.S.-educated doctors home to practice in modern hospitals catering to increasingly affluent consumers.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/02/business/fi-cover2

"according to estimates by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions" Just a quick question what is the "deloitte center for health solutions"?  And do these estimates include folks going overseas for organ transplants  to have prisoners harvested organs implanted.


And the poll is silly, its asking who would consider going overseas for health care.  Hell I'd consider going overseas for health care, hell I'd consider sleeping with Pam Anderson, doesn't mean either will happen.


Another point is that the population of the us is around what now 300 million?  so 250k go overseas, how many go over for surgery treatment that is illegal in the US, anyone remember Steve Mcqueen or Andy Kaufman.


there are lies, damn lies and statistics

[FayeforCure]

By 2010, Deloitte projects, 6 million consumers a year will venture outside the United States for medical treatment.

Heart bypass surgery, knee and hip replacements and cancer chemo are hardly illegal procedures in the US.

But I guess many Americans are ok with oursourcing healthcare or having "our citizens board Angel flights on gurneys."   

Maybe you should have a hard look at this shocking video:



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/28/60minutes/main3889496.shtml

<embed src="http://www.cbs.com/thunder/swf/rcpHolderCbs-prod.swf" width="370" height="361"allowFullScreen="true" FlashVars="link=http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4256735n&releaseURL=http://release.theplatform.com/content.select?pid=_3ZEq2NbMlIzUeFRtyWrOOrMUXzIkg8u&partner=newsembed&autoPlayVid=false&prevImg=http://thumbnails.cbsig.net/CBS_Production_News/756/880/60_lifeline_71308_480x360.jpg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" />

[Sigma]

Wow, Faye, once again you proved that government is NOT the answer.  In your "shocking" video - charities and volunteers appear to be motivated to provide treatment without the Federal government?  Say it ain't so!  They appear to be getting it done more efficiently and on a lot less funding.

Now just imagine when the Fed gets control of this wonderful RAM idea? 

[Sigma]

Faye,

your RAM "shocking" video reminded me of another example of why the government should stay out of managing  anything!

Look at this "shocking" story:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/09/hawaii.volunteers.repair/index.html

The state Department of Land and Natural Resources had estimated that the damage would cost $4 million to fix,money the agency doesn't have, according to a news release from department Chairwoman Laura Thielen.

"It would not have been open this summer, and it probably wouldn't be open next summer," said Bruce Pleas, a local surfer who helped organize the volunteers. "They said it would probably take two years. And with the way they are cutting funds, we felt like they'd never get the money to fix it."

And after only eight days, all of the repairs were done, Pleas said. It was a shockingly quick fix to a problem that may have taken much longer if they waited for state money to funnel in.

[FayeforCure]

Sigma, I'm afraid you've got it backwards:

Because there is no government safetynet for those who do not qualify for private insurance, either through work or on their own, we have to rely on a FOREIGNER organizing medical charity expeditions into America.

Shameful!

To see America's working poor stand in line for hours and 400 still being turned away, doesn't embarrass the heck out of you?

[FayeforCure]

Now just imagine when the Fed gets control of this wonderful RAM idea? 

HMMM, yeah, a wonderful idea to have people line up after midnight in the frigid air, taking numbers,.... a veritable third world scene:

The first clue came a little before midnight, when Stan Brock, the founder of Remote Area Medical, opened the gate outside. The clinic wouldn't open for seven hours, but people in pain didn't want to chance being left out. State guardsmen came in for crowd control. They handed out what would become precious slips of paper - numbered tickets to board what amounted to a medical lifeboat.

It was 27 degrees. The young and the old would spend the night in their cars, running the engine for heat, but not much - not at $3 a gallon. At 5 a.m., Pelley took a walk through the parking lot.

"We got up at three o’clock this morning and we got here about four. We’ve been out where a little while it's cold," Margaret Walls, a hopeful patient from
Tennessee, told Pelley.

"Why did you come so early?" Pelley asked.

"'Cause we wanted to be seen," Walls replied.

Marty Tankersley came with his wife and his daughter, asleep behind the front seats. Tankersley says he drove some 200 miles to get to the clinic and slept in the parking lot for hours.

Wetern nations' governments are far more civilized, and provide needed services. You won't see these third world pictures anywhere in Europe.

Remember RAM was set up for Third World Nations, but now does 60% of its charity work in the US.

The wealthiest nation in the world!

Obama: "America's worst moral failing is its refusal or inability to care for "the least" among us."

[BridgeTroll]

http://www.canada.com/Health/Canadians+still+waiting+long+surgery/932246/story.html

Canadians still waiting too long for surgery: Report
 
Surgeons operate on a patient. Canadians are waiting less time for surgery but are still experiencing delays of more than 17 weeks for treatment, according to research published by the Fraser Institute.
Photograph by: Shah Marai/AFP/Getty Images, Canwest News ServiceCALGARY - Canadians are waiting less time for surgery but are still experiencing delays of more than 17 weeks for treatment, according to new research published Tuesday by the Fraser Institute.

The Vancouver-based, right-wing think-tank's annual hospital waiting list survey concluded that median wait time for Canadians seeking surgical or other therapeutic treatment dropped to 17.3 weeks in 2008 from 18.3 weeks in 2007.

Although waiting times dipped slightly, Nadeem Esmail, co-author of Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada, said the amount of time patients must wait for necessary medical treatment is disappointing.

"Despite the small improvement, many Canadians are still waiting 121 days or more for necessary medical treatment,'' said Esmail in a news release Tuesday.

"Is this something we should be proud of? Absolutely not. A seven-day reduction in total waiting times is far removed from the goal of providing timely access to health care.''

The 2008 survey shows the median wait time between seeing a specialist and receiving treatment dropped to 8.7 weeks in 2008 from 9.1 weeks in 2007.

Ontario recorded the shortest total wait time between visiting a general practitioner and receiving treatment, at 13.3 weeks, a decrease from 15 weeks recorded in 2007.

British Columbia had the second shortest total wait at 17 weeks, down from 19 weeks in 2007. Manitoba at 17.2 weeks was third, a decrease from the 20.2 weeks in 2007.

The longest waits between seeing a doctor and having surgery were found in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia.

Procedures that have the longest waits are orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery and neurosurgery, while medical oncology and elective cardiovascular surgeries have the shortest wait times.

Patients in Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia must wait the longest out of all the provinces for consultation with a specialist, the report concluded.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/17/1/225.pdf

[BridgeTroll]

Holy Smokes... The Canadiens travel to the U.S. for treatment???

  Not exactly an endorsment of the canadien system...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070914/belinda_Stronach_070914/20070914

Stronach went to U.S. for cancer treatment: report
Updated Fri. Sep. 14 2007 7:57 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Liberal MP Belinda Stronach, who is battling breast cancer, travelled to California last June for an operation that was recommended as part of her treatment, says a report.

Stronach's spokesman, Greg MacEachern, told the Toronto Star that the MP for Newmarket-Aurora had a "later-stage" operation in the U.S. after a Toronto doctor referred her.

"Belinda had one of her later-stage operations in California, after referral from her personal physicians in Toronto. Prior to this, Belinda had surgery and treatment in Toronto, and continues to receive follow-up treatment there," said MacEachern.

He said speed was not the reason why she went to California.

Instead, MacEachern said the decision was made because the U.S. hospital was the best place to have it done due to the type of surgery required. Stronach was diagnosed last spring with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). The cancer is one of the more treatable forms but Stronach still required a mastectomy -- which was done in Toronto -- and breast reconstruction.

Stronach, who announced last April she would be leaving politics before the next election, paid for the surgery in the U.S., reports the Star.

"As we said back in June when we confirmed the surgery, this is a personal and private matter between Belinda, her family and her physicians. I think you'll understand that because of respect for Belinda's privacy, we refrained from offering specific details around her medical treatment," said MacEachern.

While it is rare for MPs to seek treatment outside Canada, MacEachern said Stronach was not lacking confidence in the system.

"In fact, Belinda thinks very highly of the Canadian health-care system, and uses it when needed for herself and her children, as do all Canadians. As well, her family has clearly demonstrated that support," MacEachern told the Star.

MacEachern did not offer any other details regarding what type of surgery Stronach had or what she paid for it.

[fsu813]

Bridge,

Your 2 articles have little relevance.

1st - it's a right-wing study (which does not support the Canada's current health care system) and says that the types of surgery that take a long time are either elective or non-emergency........obviously. If you are going to receive a free procedure that would otherwise cost thousands & thousands of dollars i think most would ok with waiting longer than usual (usual meaning in the States). If they don't want to wait they can always cross the border.

2nd - This article is even more ridiculous. You highlighted the line that said the patient traveled to the States b/c the hosoital in California was the best place place to have the procedure. Perhaps you are not aware, but this is common practice in the US as well. Hospitals refer to better suited hospitals all the time, even if they are very far away. For example, many Floridains have been referred tp Pittsburgh, PA for brain surgery.

[BridgeTroll]

They are as relevant as the articles Faye is posting.  This is the problem with this so called debate.  There is none.  Counterpoints are touted as irrelevant or framed as evil greed mongers vs sick babies. 

1st - it's a right-wing study (which does not support the Canada's current health care system)

Clearly those who oppose their own system are irrelevant.

that take a long time are either elective or non-emergency........obviously.

Surgery for cancer is elective??

This article is even more ridiculous.

Nothing ridiculous about it at all...

This... however IS ridiculous...

Ontario recorded the shortest total wait time between visiting a general practitioner and receiving treatment, at 13.3 weeks, a decrease from 15 weeks recorded in 2007.

British Columbia had the second shortest total wait at 17 weeks, down from 19 weeks in 2007. Manitoba at 17.2 weeks was third, a decrease from the 20.2 weeks in 2007.

[fsu813]

1) yes, not fully credible. Bi-partisan or non-partisan would be credible.

2) Yes, some surgery for cancer is elective.....such as prostate cancer. many doctors advise "watchful waiting" for many months, if not years.

3) You didn't address the second article at all, so i assume to conceed that point.

4) your last statment about Ontario seems to have already forgotten #2, that those procedures are non-emergency and/or elective.

Important medical procedures get done right away, obviously.

There is a reason why we are the only modern, civilzed nation that has privatized healthcare and no other nations are clamoring to get in on it. We get a bad return on our dollars spent, that's well known, and to supposed health issurers bottom line is money. How much money you happen to have at a certain time in your life shouldn't determine what kind of healthcare you receive. And being unlukcy enough to have some major health issue or cornic health issue should equate to going into massive debt or bankruptcy.

[BridgeTroll]

2) Yes, some surgery for cancer is elective.....such as prostate cancer. many doctors advise "watchful waiting" for many months, if not years.

There is a long list of elective cancer surgeries... thanks for pointing out one of them.  What makes you think hers is one of them.  This is but one article... there are many examples of people flocking to the US to get what most in this country would call routine... to avoid prolonged waits, and sub standard care.  To claim otherwise is silly.

To be clear... I and many like me understand that reform is needed within the system.  The system has gaps that leave some people under insured or lacking coverage.  Most of us agree that costs are too high.  Our argument is with what we see as a heavy handed governmental approach to a problem.