The U.S. reform of health and medical tourism

Caroline Ratner at IMTJ has just published a summary of the u.s. reaction to Obama's health reforms in the sector of medical tourism, then I suppose I'd better play my comments into the mix.

Firstly, I would like to stress that I'm not the world expert on reforms of the health of the u.s.! (A exist?) But I have been asked by the media UK recently for commenting on reforms and, in particular for comparisons with the health system of the United Kingdom. It has been interesting to watch from afar as a nation is having to deal with the rising costs of health care and demands for increased spending on health care.

It is recognized that the United States are one of the health care systems more expensive in the world, spending 15.3% of GDP of the country in health care (statistics from who). Compare with approximately 8.2% of GDP for the United Kingdom and similar to other European countries. Despite high costs, the USA Gets atrocious value for money with what it spends.

Take a look at these comparisons:

The United Kingdom spent less than half of the per capita value compared to the USA, but provides a similar number of doctors, nurses, more and more beds per 10 thousand people. Not bad Value for taxpayers ' money.

Despite these facts .... that the debate about health care reform in the United States, the NHS UK has been used as an example of "how not to do it" and at one point those who fight against the reforms launched a series of television ads using "tragic" stories from the national health service in Britain to challenge Barack Obama plans. The reality of UK NHS is something different ... it works pretty well most of the time and costs the nation, half of which the United States spends (as a percentage of GDP). If. .. .you were U.S. political and could wave a magic wand that would transform the US healthcare system during the night to a NHS system of universal health care, free (in most cases) at the time of delivery, And would cost the country half the money .... what would you do. It is a no-brainer. But there's no magic wands.

The perception of NHS abroad is very different from NHS experience within the United Kingdom here is a pair of recent quotes, typical of industry commentators about medical tourism and health reforms from the u.s.:

"People of the United Kingdom and Canada is (sic) which do not seek treatment outside their countries due to denied health insurance or financial constraints, is due to the high costs of care and long waiting times for elective surgery" (reforms) will also create potentially lengthy wait times for medical procedures that will create situations as in Canada and United Kingdom, where patients traveling outside their country because of long queues for major surgeries.

Note the references for the long lines and long waiting times in the United Kingdom. This type of comment uninformed and warns does little for the credibility of the medical tourism industry. Is political dogma.

Here are the facts about waiting lists from UK:

The average wait time reference to NHS treatment is about 8 weeks. It is often much shorter. Any person suspected of having cancer has the legal right to expect no more than 2 weeks to see a specialist that any person referred to elective procedures has the legal right to start treatment within 18 weeks if there is a significant waiting list in your area, you have the right to exercise the choice of patients and go to another hospital anywhere else in the country to avoid waiting. (internal medical tourism). You can also compare result data, infection rates and many other data online through NHS Choices, if you have severe and fatal problem, there is virtually no waiting list. That's why I always knew a patient from British heart surgery that went abroad for treatment. Nevertheless, I'm amazed regularly by overseas providers or ignore the consulting companies that call me to discuss your plans to attract British patients abroad for surgery, as the heart.

And some recent experience "real life here is".

The Manager of Web communications at my company recently celebrated the birth of their first child. Unfortunately, the birth was 27 weeks so it was not easy for him or his wife. The child stood in Pediatric ICU for a few weeks at a local hospital and was recently transferred to Great Ormond Street Hospital in London for cardiac surgery. He's happy with the care of NHS? .... Yes. It cost him a penny? .... Not. My wife has a recurring problem inflammatory on the back of the eye. She has regular reviews of local NHS eye unit and recently went to a minor procedure. Was urgent, so she doesn't have to wait. She went to the eye drive high-end NHS eye brandnew in Stoke Mandeville Hospital. How long she expect? .... a week or so. As she pays? .... Nothing?

British floods Are patients abroad for treatment due to "long lines" and "long waiting times"? Not. Most tourists doctors UK isn't patients requiring elective surgery that they cannot obtain or will not wait on the NHS. The reality of health care is that patients want treatment accessible (or free) close to home, or within your country. Before they even consider going abroad for treatment, they explore all avenues for treatment within their own country. The NHS has his faults, of course, but no system is perfect. And it would change our NHS for the current American model? No, I couldn't pay them ..... or as an individual or as an employer!

So, Obama's health reforms will lead to a massive rise of medical tourism, as some have suggested? Not.

Medical tourism will continue to grow as more patients become aware of the possibility of low-cost treatment abroad. But never forget that whatever each patient is affordable health care in their own door .... and traveling for treatment is for many a last resort.