[Skip to content]

GoSomething to say?
Join the forum, ask us a question, or comment
on the blog
Search our Site
Email Newsletter
Sign up for our free weekly
newsletter
Advertisement
.

USA healthcare reform and medical tourism: Separating myth from reality (Part One)

Confused

Much has already been said and written about the impact of US healthcare reform on medical tourism... a sprinkling of fact, pure fiction and plenty of wishful thinking. Ian Youngman from IMTJ puts US healthcare reform in perspective and separates myth from reality.

In this article he deals with ten aspects of healthcare reform. More myth and reality to come next week in Part 2.


The problem with “industry comment” on any major issue is that initial “sound bites” can often become unquestioned truths. Every industry commentator has an agenda and he or she will reflect an issue in the way that best suits their political and business interests. That’s the way it is.  By pinning down the main myths early, with help from experts who really know what they are talking about, we can stimulate serious discussion and analysis of the real issues from a more accurate starting point. 

So, let’s look at what is fact and fiction in the debate so far.

 

Myth One: Early comment on healthcare reform was based on facts.

Reality

Early comment was based on pre-conceptions, newspaper headlines and the “sales message” that the individual commentator wanted to promote. There are 3,000 pages of regulation; the real experts are still combing through it weeks later.

Congress approved major health care legislation in the form of two pieces of legislation: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 which made a number of changes to provisions of the first act. Many misleading comments were made before the final legislation was published

 

Myth Two: We know how healthcare reform will work.

Reality

“ As hospitals, clinics and doctors prepare for the coming changes, little is certain except that it will be a process of discovery for all.”  - LA Times 

Weeks after the new healthcare law was enacted, people are still scouring it to figure out precisely what it allows. Many of the details are unknown until government officials translate the legislative language into specific regulations. 

The key is that this is not long complex legislation that details everything. It is enabling legislation that allows government to get through hundreds of bits of legislation in the future without having to argue the need for healthcare reform every time.

 

Myth Three: Legal challenges will kill healthcare reform. 

Reality

“ Unless some 70 years of U.S. Supreme Court rulings are reversed, the new health-care-reform legislation is unquestionably constitutional. Congress decides whether the plan is in the national interest, not a court. In scores of cases, the Supreme Court has upheld broad congressional power to deal with economic issues affecting the nation through its powers of taxation, spending and control of interstate commerce. Federal insurance mandates are not new. In 1937, the Supreme Court approved Social Security and federal unemployment compensation, both funded by taxes on employers and employees. Social Security also insures against disability. Medicare is not voluntary — it forces people to buy health insurance. Congress also has passed many laws regulating health care, employee benefits and insurance. The new law uses the same constitutional means that support these long-standing measures.”

Stewart Jay, professor of constitutional law at the University of Washington School of Law.

 

Myth Four: If the Republicans get in, they will reverse the law. 

Reality

Even the Republican Party is divided on health care reform. Only extremists believe they could stop it in future years. Many welcome it and will work to amend it to a more workable system.

 

Myth Five: Last year, more than one million Americans traveled overseas for medical treatment.  

Reality

Deloitte says outbound US medical tourist numbers declined to 540,000 in 2008, and have no 2009 figures. Others argue that Deloitte underestimated the fall-out from the recession. Josef Woodman, author of the Patients Beyond Borders series, estimates that only 240,000 Americans traveled for medical procedures in 2009, although numbers are growing.

 

Myth Six: By 2012, there will be 5 million American medical tourists, and by 2017, 17 or 23 million. 

Reality

Pure fiction, worthy of a literary prize for imagination. This kind of hype actually does considerable damage to the industry. New and existing businesses enter the medical tourism sector pursuing the promised pot of gold at the end of the rainbow….to be disappointed when they discover the reality. 

 

Myth Seven: Increased pressure on healthcare services will cause treatment delays and waiting lists, as in the UK 

Reality

  • There are few queues in the UK.
  • Some medical tourism destinations promote the number of American trained doctors they have. Increased demand in the US could be bad news for them and increase US recruitment from overseas.
  • The legislation offers encouraging steps to accommodate demand, and 28 states are considering expanding the authority of nurse practitioners- nurses with advanced degrees who practise without a doctor's watchful eye.  

 

Myth Eight:Medical tourism can still target the 17 million uninsured

Reality

The Congressional Budget Office says that by 2019, legislation will reduce the number of non-elderly people who are uninsured by about 32 million, leaving about 23 million non-elderly residents uninsured. Americans who remain outside the health care system includes those who opt out, who don't know how to enroll, or who are exempted from the health insurance requirement because they can't afford the premiums, even with a subsidy. 

By 2017, only 8% of the population will be uninsured. 3% are 11 million illegals with no passport and who cannot become medical tourists. Most of the remaining 5% are too poor to buy subsidized insurance, have no money to pay for travel or care overseas, rarely travel, and have no passport.

 

Myth Nine: There will still be millions who are underinsured who will be key medical tourism targets. 

Reality

Only one in five Americans has a passport. Both in the exchanges and privately bought personal and small business health policies, there will be restrictions on exclusions and co-payments, plus controls on what covers must be included and price controls. This will greatly reduce the number of under-insured Americans.

 

Myth Ten: Forcing almost everyone to have health insurance will make costs rocket for all. 

Reality

Those suggesting this have no grasp of how insurance pricing works. Robert Stover at Liberty Mutual Insurance Company explains:

“Unless we have mandatory coverage for all citizens it will have a hugely negative impact on prices if companies are allowed to decline coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. If the young and relatively healthy are simply allowed to drop out the system, a larger pool of sick people will increase costs for all. Most people don't understand that insurance is merely an agreement for risk sharing among policyholders. It is never based on one individual's claim experience alone. What makes insurance work is that low risk people and entities pool their money with high-risk people and entities in sufficient quantifies to cover the claims of all insured persons or entities in the event of a claim. Mandatory coverage, whether in a group plan, individual plan, health care cooperative or other arrangement is necessary to make health insurance work. We think nothing of a government system that mandates that everyone has car insurance, yet we balk at the notion of a government that is thinking of requiring mandatory health insurance coverage.”

Comment

Related links

Add your comments below

Comments provided below do not represent the views of IMTJ. Comments will be published "as is" and will not be edited by IMTJ staff. IMTJ is hosting these comments, and is not  undertaking an editorial role in the content of these comments. However, it is editorial policy not to publish comments which have been submitted anonymously.

Use the comment submission form below
Just as the article claims there is a whole lot of fiction in the industry, I am seeing a similar lack of fact in this article - just a lot of authoritative sounding assertions. Self payers are flocking to outsourcing as a means of cutting costs, . If you aren't seeing this from where you are sitting, then you need better contacts on the US side of the industry.

Really, on what basis can you say "5 million Americans traveling for health care by 2012 is pure fiction'? Give me some facts, give me some data. Where are interviews with TPAs, insurers and employers and will put some meat on the bones of this assertion? That is the only credible source for projection, since the US healthcare system is and will remain an employer-based and driven system.

While no one can accurately predict exactly what will happen, the author of this article seems pretty certain it's possible to predict perfectly what will *not* happen, but provides zero basis for the prediction.

Sandra Miller (07/05/2010 17:45:41)

It is common sense to understand that increasing health care for all will increase the load on the health care providers and increase costs for whosoever is responsible. What Ian is saying is incredible and self contradictory. You don't need to read through the report which is 2000 pages long. You just need to get the theme that the health care reform is nothing but socialized medicine. It is saying that if somebody's need is most important and that everybody should pay increase taxes to cater for this need. Nobody every pays any tribute to the doctors who will have to cater to this increased work load of treating more patients in the face of face of reduced payments.
Socialized medicine has not worked in the UK where I presume Ian is located. Has he any idea of how many patients from Europe travel outside for health care?

AK VENKATACHALAM (07/05/2010 10:12:58)

Ian, I'm quite puzzled about your work. I thought that this was supposed to be an educative magizine for medical travel. As I'm reading more and more of your articles, I detect that you're very negative about the whole idea. We all understand that Deloitte's inital estimate was over blown but the reality of Americans traveling overseas for procedures is unquestionable. We can find people in every day's life that had gone through experiance of medical travel ( nearly every day).
I wonder why you are posting on this journal if you're completely opposed to it? What is your goal with such negative ( and totally estimative and not affirmative) statments? I would really like to find out.
thank you

Dan Drljaca (01/05/2010 14:15:01)

I need to dispel another myth here!

Fascinating. I have no idea how anyone could have formed this opinion.

I struggle to think of a single private hospital built in the UK in the last five years. The private hospital boom in the UK was in the 1980's. I know because I worked for the US company that built most of them!
New hospitals have been built - NHS hospitals not private hospitals. This has meant improvements in efficiency. But Blair's increases did not go on a massive building programme. Much was spent on increasing staff numbers and pay:
NHS spending increased from £43bn in 2001 to £100bn in 2008.
The number of doctors rose from 1.9 to 2.3 per 1,000 population and number of nurses from 8.4 to 9.2. Number of patients treated rose by 24%.
Blair didn't get the best value for money for his billions but he delivered results.
>>>I have visited several of these AND public hospitals in England. The difference is stark, Ian. And this is EXACTLY the direction that we don't wish to go in here.<<<

It probably is the direction you want to go in, if you want better healthcare, AND universal coverage AND at a vastly reduced cost. I use both NHS and private services depending on my family's needs. I don't have any major concerns about NHS standards. People go private not because they are seeking better quality care. If you are really sick, the best place to go for care is the NHS NOT a private hospital. Private hospitals are deliver straightforward elective surgery and treatment in a hotel style environment. People go private for convenience, reduced waiting time, and hotel style services.
If the US could emulate the NHS and other European health systems, it would be saving billions on healthcare and delivering better clinical results.
Keith Pollard, IMTJ, Treatment Abroad and Private Healthcare UK

Keith Pollard (23/04/2010 16:03:44)

To Mr. Stackpole's point, the reason that queues have diminished somewhat in Great Britian is because Mr. Blair recognized that NHS was simply NOT working and they infused hundreds of millions of pounds in paying American hospital construction companies to build private hospitals throughout the country. I have visited several of these AND public hospitals in England. The difference is stark, Ian. And this is EXACTLY the direction that we don't wish to go in here in American.

Steven Watkins (23/04/2010 14:52:49)

While wise to challenge the hype, I wish to address or challenge a few of their points.
1. The Deloitte report was an overstatement, but it was based on a meta analysis of real sources. And there is also the McKenzie report and the OECD data; the market is indeed very large and growing.
2. Neither the US Secretary of State's office nor the Department of Homeland Security knows how many Americans hold passports. (Sometimes, the truth is stranger than fiction.) The real issue is the parochialism of Americans, of which the lack of passports is evidence.
3. The sudden surge in demand within the US system is a legitimate concern, and delays are anticipated. The most often cited analogy is to the Canadian system. With the exception of Scotland, recent data about delays in the UK have decreased.
The demand for trained providers within the US will stop the brain drain and create a reverse in the trend.
4. In Myth Ten, Mr Youngman misses the point. The characteristics about PPACA which will most certainly cause prices of both health insurance premiums and healthcare costs to rise are:
a. The rapid enrollment of 30 million people, many of whom are less healthy than the population which is currently insured;
b. Almost no restrictions on premium increases on any of these populations
c. Removal of lifetime and annual limits of coverage
d. Removal of prequalification restrictions and right of recision (i.e., ability of the carrier to terminate a beneficiary.)
e. Weak healthcare costs containment provisions
Individuals will sign up when they get sick (insurance carriers will have to take them) then drop the insurance when they're better. In the near term, American consumers will take a wait and see attitude. Ultimately, more Americans will be pushed toward international health travel, In the mean time, the same dental, cosmetic, lifestyle and adventurous consumers will remain the best markets for destination providers.
Irving Stackpole, RRT, MEd

Irving Stackpole (23/04/2010 06:57:08)

Here is a more realistic view of what is happening in our country:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_law_costs

Steven Watkins (23/04/2010 03:22:22)

Very well said, Mahatma Davis. This industry does need qualified leadership and direction. The claims of high numbers of medical tourist is a common feature of some players in the industry. A commitment and a promise to provide quality treatment and post care medical services carries with it a legal duty of care of the highest order. Are the industry players capable to manage such risks and legal liabilities. A legal framework and clear acceptance to guidelines is imperative as a standard format. It is also time we define "Medical Tourism". Does a country that carries with it a foreign labour population of more than a million register such treatment as Medical Tourist?.

Charles Gonzalves (23/04/2010 01:13:04)

On your last point-forcing almost everyone to have health insurance will make costs rocket for all. Your source is not credible. Liberty Mutual does not sell health insurance. They sell P&C, workers comp and personal lines. Everyone on coverage will not cause rates to sky rocket. And indeed in theory should help rates. but other provisions of the reform will cause rates to increase, especially in the first few years. Many of the improvements in plan design, i.e. no pre-existing conditions, no annual or lifetime caps on benefits and no cost for preventive services were all mandated with no money to pay for them. Where real costs will rise in everything else Americans purchase. Added taxes and increased insurance premiums means higher cost of goods and services sold in the USA.

Tino Versoza (23/04/2010 00:41:24)

While I generally enjoy Ian's take on things, not only does this miss the bulls-eye, it misses the target entirely. Unfortunately, the article falls into the same trap as those it critiques in the first sentence as it too recites sound bites in the name of reality. The greatest myth of the debate is also passed over. The debate was never about healthcare. It was and remains about health insurance, the payment means for many Americans, and increasing federal tax revenues in order to pay for other projects.

Questions:
1. Has Ian read the legislation (over 4000 total pages) before commenting?
2. What was the source of the myths? There seems to be a myth about the myths themselves.







David Mair (22/04/2010 21:13:12)

Apparently this Wall Street Journal article has no merit? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704254604574614123304945580.html?KEYWORDS=personal+mandate+to+buy+health+insurance

Ian, your rationale fails to consider that the US healthcare system is still largely an employer based system and self-insured employers will seek opportunities to lower their costs. Medical tourism provides huge savings.

While this is obviously a new market for medical travelers and different that individual patients who have previously been uninsured, it is a significant growth opportunity with an aging population and fewer physicians and nurses to meet demand.

99% of the reform bill is centered on small, fully insured busineses and individuals. Self-insured companies are not directly impacted except that you will see increased demand from providers, leading to higher underlying medical costs which will affect self-insured companies. From there expect more Americans to travel abroad for surgery.

Todd Madden (22/04/2010 20:13:09)

Mahatma!
Tell us how you really feel! :)

Myth 3, a few health law attorneys and I just discussed this point over lunch this week here in Denver. This is why I don't put much stock in building a strategy around what has been recently proposed. Wake me up when they decide something real and I will respond to it with strategy, vision and a work plan. Until then, I stand with the heretics over on that side of the line that it's all noise.

I've been called that before and I always seem to land better than the namecallers. Go figure.

Myth 4, the Repubs are just angry it wasn't there to use to blame for "not achieving it". I wouldn't be so sure that the show is over.

Myth 5: I challenge anyone to provide me verified actual numbers and cite their source.

Myth 6: I challenge anyone to provide me the source of these projections with plausible numbers. Can anyone spell N-O-S-T-R-A-D.... you get my point! Hey, my investors would like to borrow the crystal ball too!

Myth 7: I have more problem with the "as in the UK" qualifier in the title. Without a doubt, as a person with advanced degrees and 30+ years' experience in US healthcare administration, I guarantee we will have long ques in the US, we don't have enough doctors or advanced practice nurses to accommodate all the treatment that has been delayed or foregone or the unidentified acuity it has created. Not sure how it relates or matters to "as in the UK".

Maria K Todd, MHA PhD
CEO, Mercury Healthcare

Maria K Todd, MHA PhD (22/04/2010 17:02:59)

Good article.....but don't hold your breath waiting for US-board certified practicing abroad to be "enticed" to return to the US to practice under ObamaCare. Recall that many physicians have moved OUT of the US so that we may practice medicine the way we were trained. What would be enticing about treating 40-50 Medicaid patients per day for $23 per visit?

Grace DeBold (22/04/2010 16:38:17)

Ian, Great article. But, I would also like to point out there are no 100,000 or 200,000 or any other large numbers being thrown out there to depict the US outbound flow of patients. Like the Deloitte numbers, such market sizes do not exist.

The Deloitte study was simply a literature review. They cited two sources; an article by a Dr. Horowitz, and an article in India Daily in 2006 (you can find them listed in their study). In fact, the Horowitz article cites India Daily as its source. And, the India Daily article was just a hearsay comment. There never was or has been any large American outbound patient flow on this scale. Furthermore, no competent professional would ever cite such numbers without knowing the composition of the data (i.e. percentage of inpatients vs. outpatients, what disease indications or procedures make up this number, median age, which countries received patients, etc.).

Moreover, everyone in this industry should have known that the data was invalid when Deloitte reduced their projections from 6 million in 2010 to 1.6 million. I am sorry to say this, but it doesn't work that way in the medical industry. You have to be accurate in your projections. That's how you distinguish a competent professional from an incompetent one.

This industry is also in serious need of qualified leadership and direction. It currently does not exist at any level at the moment. I would suggest going forward that media outlets around the world challenge medical tourism players to validate their claims. This ongoing misleading of the public and the global community at large, by using high numbers to attract buy-in, needs to stop.

Mahatma Davis

Mahatma Davis (21/04/2010 21:17:44)