An increasing number of Americans are opting to travel to other countries to save money on various medical procedures. Many have traveled to Mexico for healthcare services, although according to a recent report, medical travel to that country has been on the decline.
The American Medical Association's new policy on medical travel puts the rights of patients ahead of American physician protectionism. That's good news for global hospitals, payers, employers, medical travel companies, and most of all patients.
I spoke last week with J. James Rohack, MD, a cardiologist from Bryan, TX, and the new president-elect of the AMA. He says some members were concerned that employers and insurers were forcing patients into medical tourism. In fact, according to a report on the association's Web site, the New York delegation last year called on the AMA to "seek legislation to prevent insurance companies from incentivizing subscribers in this country to have to go overseas for medical treatment that could be provided locally."
With a healthy dose of common sense, the AMA didn't buy the rhetoric of medical protectionism and instead adopted a policy that respects the patient's right to choose a healthcare provider, whether it's down the block or in Bangkok.
"One of the excuses [protectionists] are using is that insurers are forcing patients to go overseas, which is an absolute lie," says Jonathan Edelheit, president of the Medical Tourism Association. Most insurers that offer patients incentives for medical travel are not drastically changing plan designs; they're simply waiving deductibles and coinsurance and then paying for travel expenses, he adds.
The irony is that the protectionists are the ones attempting to limit choice and force patients to pay the higher price for U.S. healthcare. Even if an employer or insurer offers a patient a financial incentive beyond waiving coinsurance and deductibles, it wouldn't amount to forced medical travel.
Rohack points out that the policy is meant to educate patients about things like the risks associated with traveling with a medical condition, legal rights abroad, and how to identify qualified healthcare providers. In addition, the AMA says follow-up care should be coordinated prior to travel. These are measures any right-thinking healthcare provider would want patients to take before they commit to medical travel.
Not long ago, I wrote that American providers need to get over the fact that healthcare globalization is here and decide whether medical travel is an opportunity to collaborate or a threat that they must compete against. Pushing for legislation against this emerging movement is just a wasted effort. The AMA correctly diagnosed this, but the next step remains.
If Americans continue to seek high-value healthcare from global destination hospitals, as many industry analysts predict, how can providers from across nations create incentives that promote cooperation in the best interest of these patients?
Note: You can sign up to receive HealthLeaders Media Global, a free weekly e-newsletter that provides strategic information on the business of healthcare management from around the globe.
Directors of the Marrero, LA-based West Jefferson Medical Center pulled back the veil on their decision-making after the board drew criticism from several Jefferson Parish Council members for conducting the bulk of its meetings behind closed doors. The group conducted eight out of 21 agenda items in public view at its most recent meeting, although it still saved the bulk of the board's business for a closed session. The Marrero hospital board has gradually relented on a philosophy of restricting access that it tested earlier this year.
Atlanta has been selected as the site of a $250 million National Health Museum designed to teach visitors about healthier living and serve as a stage for international health events. The National Health Museum has actually been in existence since 1997, but its presence so far has been limited mainly to the Internet and to sponsoring health education events and exhibits.
In this Wall Street Journal blog entry, Sarah Rubenstein notes that with primary-care doctors more frazzled than ever, the number of hospitalists has been growing. But while there are more than 20,000 hospitalists working in this country, there's still some debate over their role in health are, Rubenstein says.
The cost of surgery for a spinal fusion of the lower back in southeastern Wisconsin can range from $25,000 to more than $50,000. The price depends on the hospital, the doctors, and the insurer covering the procedure. The wide disparity in prices shows why many contend that more information on what hospitals and doctors charge is needed to lower costs and make the healthcare system work better. The effort to provide consumers with meaningful pricing information, however, is slow and complicated.