You’ve probably heard about “medical tourism,” the traveling of patients to foreign countries in order to receive care. But what you may not know is just how popular medical tourism has become: according to Deloitte LLP, an international consulting firm, an estimated 750,000 Americans traveled abroad for medical care in 2007. Aggressive projections put this number somewhere around 6 million by 2010.
As interest in medical tourism increases it’s important to understand the nuts and bolts behind its allure, and the risks that it poses—both for patients and health care systems at home and abroad.
Over the past few years insurers and employers have warmed up to medical tourism as a way to save money: its cheaper for insurance plans to help fund patients’ trips to foreign doctors who charge much less for procedures than their U.S. counterparts.
The price differentials are stunning. According to a recent Deloitte report, Thailand, the world’s leading medical tourism hub, saw 1.2 million medical tourists from around the world in 2006. On average, medical procedures in Thailand cost a mere 30 percent of American prices. India, another destination that sees more than 400,000 medical tourists each year, charges just an average of just 20 percent as much as the U.S. Thousands of Americans also flock to Mexico and South America every year for cosmetic and dental surgery, where procedures cost anywhere from 75 to 50 percent less than they do in the U.S.
Data from the University of Delaware offers
more specific numbers: “A heart-valve replacement that would cost
$200,000 or more in the U.S., for example, goes for $10,000 in
India—and that includes round-trip airfare and a brief vacation
package. Similarly, a metal-free dental bridge worth $5,500 in the U.S.
costs $500 in India, a knee replacement in Thailand with six days of
physical therapy costs about one-fifth of what it would in the States,
and Lasik eye surgery worth $3,700 in the U.S. is available in many
other countries for only $730. Cosmetic surgery savings are even
greater: A full facelift that would cost $20,000 in the U.S. runs about
$1,250 in South Africa.”
Sine insurance doesn’t cover cosmetic procedures insurers and employers
don’t care too much about cheaper facelifts (though patients do, of
course). But medical tourism isn’t all about vanity. According
to the National Business Group on Health, some of the most popular
procedures pursued by medical tourists include heart procedures (e.g.
coronary artery bypass graft, heart valve replacement, pacemakers,
etc), orthopedic procedures (e.g. hip and knee replacement),
laparoscopic surgery for gall bladder and hysterectomy, and many kinds
of transplants. Given this, the consulting firm McKinsey and Co.
aggressively estimates that increased medical tourism over the next few
years can save health care purchasers as much as $20 billion in benefit
Insurers and employers are quickly catching on to the savings opportunity represented by medical tourism. In June, MSNBC reported
that “CIGNA, Aetna and Blue Cross/Blue Shield…have begun or are
considering pilot programs that provide limited coverage for foreign
care.” Last month CNN reported on an Albuquerque construction firm that
has included a medical tourism component in its health coverage that
encourages employees to seek care in countries like Costa Rica,
Singapore, and India. In South Carolina, BlueCross BlueShield and
BlueChoice recently formed an alliance with one of Thailand’s premier
hospitals to promote medical tourism to its 1.3 million members. United
Group Programs, a smaller insurer in Florida, also has begun to offer a
plan that sends patients to Thailand for expensive procedures. Insurers
Blue Shield and Health Net of California also both offer low-cost
policies that allow members to receive medical treatments in Mexico.
It would be wrong to say that providing coverage for medical tourism is common practice amongst employers. A January survey
by the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans found that
just 11 percent of employers cover medical tourism under their plans.
to the National Business Group on Health, another 9 percent of large
U.S. employers are interested or very interested in sending employees
off shore for major surgeries over the next five years.
Still, these proportions are noteworthy given that (a) medical tourism
was a non-issue a few years ago and (b) these employers are willing to
pay to send their employees halfway around the world for
medical care. All things considered, this is a pretty drastic
measure—the fact that it’s gaining traction, however slowly, means
Patients also are warming to the idea of going abroad for medical care: Deloitte’s 2008 Survey of Health Care Consumers found that
almost 40 percent of the 3,000 Americans aged 18-75 that the company
interviewed said they would go abroad for medical care, provided the
procedure was half the cost and of comparable to quality to what they’d
get in the U.S.
Yet for all the appeal that medical tourism holds, it’s not without its
downsides, which are in fact considerable. The first big problem is
that medical tourists have little legal recourse if things go wrong. In
2007, one patient wrote the U.S. embassy in Bangkok, describing her horror story after undergoing botched plastic surgery.
“…I have been scared, mutilated, and disfigured by offshore plastic
surgery in Thailand,” she began. After surgery, the patient removed her
facial bandages and was appalled at what she saw, but could do little
about it: “After the doctor refused to refund my money, or pay to have
the damage he had done to my face fixed by another doctor, or do the
surgery over again himself, I attempted to report the doctor to
government and professional medical associations to no avail. I was
completely ignored by the Thailand Medical Council, the Thailand
College of Surgeons, and the Medical Association of Thailand. I wrote a
formal complaint to the hospital where the surgery was performed…and it
“Even the attorney I attempted to hire just gave me a run around for
several weeks promising to take action against the doctor and never
doing so. He initially was very eager to take my case, but shortly
after doing so, he not only lost interest in the case, but became an
apologist for the doctor. This appeared to have everything to do with
me being a foreigner, attempting to take legal action against a wealthy
and influential Thai plastic surgeon.
“I later discovered that there are extremely few successful medical
malpractice cases against medical doctors in Thailand that result in a
cash award. Currently, there are only about 60 outstanding medical
malpractice cases on file with the Medical Council of Thailand for the
entire country, and this number of cases is being pointed to by Thai
Medical Council authorities as being unacceptably large.”
This is just one story, of course, but it illustrates an important fact, best summed
up by Miami plastic surgeon James Stuzin in a 2006 Fox news segment:
"The liability and the responsibility that physicians have to their
patients in America is very high, and that doesn’t necessarily exist in
foreign countries if you have a problem."
Another barrier to patient satisfaction is culture. The same news story
presented the case of Amie Goldberg, a patient who went to South
America for surgery and almost bled out on the table. Her doctors tried
to talk to her about performing another surgery to help her, but she
couldn’t understand them. "When you don’t know what someone is trying
to tell you, and your life is at stake, it’s really scary,” she said.
If a surgery is botched abroad, the options for getting a ‘fix’ here in
the states are few: most surgeons aren’t thrilled at the prospect of
trying to mess with a surgery that they themselves did not perform. And
even if things go perfectly in Bangkok, patients don’t get much by way
of follow-up—after all, their doctors are 9,000 miles away and speak
But the problems with turning to medical tourism as an answer to health
care problems goes beyond personal stories and into to the realm of
hard policy. There are a lot of stakeholders that are eager to trump up
medical tourism as a silver bullet for health care costs. Firms like
GlobalChoice, IndUShealth, and PlanetHospital exist to connect
employers and patients with medical tourism opportunities—and like any
other business they want to convince consumers that their services are
essential. The claim here is that, since insurers and employers can pay
less to cover procedures, the U.S. health care system will benefit
greatly from medical tourism. It will “help drive costs down in the
U.S.,” the CEO of GlobalChoice said in an interview last year. Other advocates say
its time for “the U.S. Marketplace to seriously step outside the box
and look at medical tourism as a real solution to the rising costs of
This isn’t the case. According to a 2007 article in Health Affairs,
medical tourism is unlikely to reduce total U.S. health spending by
more than 1-2 percent. Why such a small impact? First, because most of
our health care costs are related to supply-side factors, not to
patients demanding care—so even if you reduce demand by shunting
patients to Thailand you won’t make a huge dent in the system’s overall
spending. Second, medical tourism carries with it its own extra costs.
A 2006 piece in
Health Affairs, authored by a lead economist from the World Bank,
points out that if patients get bad care abroad and come back to the
U.S. in bad health, insurers might have “to cover the costs of
subsequent treatment,” resulting in little savings. Monitoring the
quality of care received overseas—something that insurers will have to
do if they want to institute medical tourism programs—can also become
costly since it’s administratively cumbersome.
Another important consideration is this: as more people get care from
abroad, what happens to those who are left behind? As medical tourism
catches on, people may grow more open to the prospect of cheaper care
abroad; as more people hop to India for care when they need it,
attachment to U.S. public health care systems would likely diminish.
Why does this this matter? Because, according to Deloitte’s consumer
survey, the people most willing to consider going abroad for care are
young and healthy—the very people who cross-subsidize care for the old
and sick by paying into our health care system. And traveling to India
is expensive, meaning medical tourists are also more likely to be
relatively well-off. When our system loses contributions from those who
can pay into the system but don’t need that much care, it “could again
increase costs for those” who are too poor, frail, or scared to travel.
Inequality is also a problem for medical tourism hub countries. Slowly
but surely, it’s becoming clear that an influx of wealthy foreign
patients siphons the attention, resources, and medical labor force of
developing countries. The result is a two-tiered system of posh,
concierge care for foreigners and sub-par leftovers for citizens. In
Thailand, one newspaper
recently opined that “most of the benefits of the $6.4 billion Medical
Tourism Promotion in Thailand over the past five years have gone to
private hospitals, while the public health system has shouldered much
of the cost in terms of the ‘brain drain’ and deteriorating working
conditions for government-employed doctors and nurses. The country’s
public health system is still a long way from meeting its target of
providing one doctor per 1,800 people…thousands of vacancies remain
unfilled due to an exodus of government-employed doctors to the
lucrative private healthcare industry.”
The WHO has expressed
a similar concern with regards to India, where “medical tourism could
worsen the internal brain drain and lure professionals from the public
sector and rural areas to take jobs in urban centres.” Last year, Dr
Manuel Dayrit, director of WHO’s Human Resources for Health department,
noted that emerging data on medical tourism “does not augur well for
the health care of patients who depend largely on the public sector for
their services.” Dayrit pointed out that revenues from medical tourism
are unlikely to be fed back into public health systems “unless national
laws or regulations are set up so that these revenues are taxed
explicitly and channeled to the public sector.”
In the end, medical tourism might reduce our national health care bill
by 1 percent to 2 percent—not enough to solve our problem. For
insurers, medical tourism means taking on extra duties that they may or
may not be able to perform. Finally, the patients who need the most
care—both in the U.S. and in destination countries—end up getting the
short end of the stick.
Undoubtedly, medical tourism will become more popular as time goes on.
To a certain extent, it’s a reality of globalization, and no doubt it’s
here to stay. But that doesn’t mean it’s a viable solution to the
United State’s health care crisis.