Posts Tagged ‘medical tourism’

Toothless Healthcare Reforms May Boost Prospects for Medical Tourism

Tuesday, March 16th, 2010 by

For many reasons, health insurers in the U.S. have been reluctant to jump on the medical tourism bandwagon.  They are concerned about taking business away from doctors and hospitals already resentful of payment rates virtually dictated by the plans.  Insurers realize that promoting medical treatment abroad would be perceived as a cost control measure at a time when politics is making cost containment an ever “dirtier word” with the public.  Finally, patients would likely hold insurance companies responsible for malpractice committed in the course of medical tourism. But overriding these serious concerns is the prospect of backbreaking costs brought on by the healthcare reforms now poised to become law.

We now understand that the proposed legislation would require health insurance companies to change the way they do business (by covering pre-existing conditions, accepting all applicants for coverage, e.g.), thereby eliminating avoidance of adverse risk and potentially increasing premiums dramatically. According to the Cato Institute, federal legislation that is working its way through Congress strongly resembles the reforms enacted in Massachusetts in 2006, which have accelerated costs significantly. As a result, despite the imposition of fines for non-compliance, many individuals and small employers may not be able to afford health insurance.  This outcome could, in the long run, actually increase the number of uninsureds, who must pay medical bills themselves and thus may seek less expensive care outside the U.S.

Unfortunately, current healthcare reform proposals do little to address the underlying reasons why healthcare costs are so high: defensive medicine, overutilization of specialists, the shortage of primary care physicians, excessive drug costs and patients’ expectations of heroic measures at the end of life, for example. These relentless price pressures bode well for the medical tourism industry, which will continue to represent a lower cost alternative to double digit annual increases in medical costs in the U.S.

Share

Organ Transplants: What Are the Risks of Going Abroad?

Friday, January 8th, 2010 by

The recent discovery of a rare amoebic infection in two organ transplant recipients catapulted an unusual, but catastrophic, risk of organ transplantation into international headlines. The Centers for Disease Control reported that four people in three states received organs from a patient suffering from neurological problems who died at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in November.  Two of the organ recipients are now critically ill.      

Transplant patients are particularly susceptible to developing severe symptoms of infectious diseases, as they must be given drugs that weaken the immune system in order to prevent organ rejection.  Although organ donors are routinely tested for common pathogens such as the hepatitis and human immunodeficiency viruses, unusual infectious agents may escape the screening process.  According to Dr. Kenneth Kokko, the medical director of kidney transplants at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, “We test for the known harmful diseases, but there’s not a test for every single pathogen out there.”

Though the occurrence of Balamuthia mandrillaris amoeba is extremely rare, even more common entities, such as bacterial infections, tuberculosis, rabies, and cancer may evade detection prior to the harvesting of organs. Many organ donors are young, healthy victims of severe trauma who have had little or no medical screening.  Such patients may be asymptomatic carriers of chronic infections or have undiagnosed tumors. For example, an Oregon donor in his 40s with a history of alcohol abuse who tested negative for hepatitis C, was later found to have the virus.  Ninety one different tissues and organs were given to forty patients over a 22 month period.  Eight patients were infected, and two later died.  In this case, the donor escaped detection because of the eight to ten week window between infection and the development of detectable blood markers for the disease.

All these cases have been reported in the country with the reputation for the highest standards in medical care. Of course, the potential transmission of life threatening illness is potentially even greater for those wishing to travel overseas for an organ transplant.  Although there are very few U.S. residents who do this today, the number is likely to grow as the availability of organ donors fails to keep pace with the demand.  Indeed, over 9,000 people per year in the U.S. die waiting for organ transplants.  Given the choice between succumbing and finding a donor overseas, most people would be willing to take the risk of an exotic, undetected illness to receive a life saving transplant. Even in the United States, transplant centers seem to be more accepting of deceased donors with high risk behaviors, such as intravenous drug use.  The short interval required to match sick patients with donors also increases the risk of missing a transmissible disease that is not routinely tested for.

In conclusion, “caveat emptor” or “let the buyer beware”  As the widow of one unfortunate recipient commented  “The kidney transplant was supposed to be the gift of life, but the infection that came with it ended up taking it away.”

Share

Medical Tourism: Who Is Tracking Quality?

Monday, November 16th, 2009 by

medical tourismDespite the rapid rise in medical tourism over the past five years, the vast majority of Americans remain reluctant to travel outside of the United States for medical care even if it means saving thousands of dollars.  Perhaps the main reason is concern about the quality of medical care, and the lack of universal credentialing and certification of foreign facilities and physician providers. (Read what Travel & Leisure has to say about the benefits vs. risk of medical tourism.) That may soon change, however, as at least two nonprofit organizations have begun tackling the formidable task of qualifying those who market medical care to an international audience.

The better known of the two organizations is the Joint Commission International.  The JCI has accredited 300 public and private health care organizations in 39 countries since 1999. These organizations include hospitals, ambulatory care centers, clinical laboratories, primary care services and disease or specific condition care centers using international best practice standards. It does not, however, investigate the practices of individual physicians or allied health professionals, or provide ratings based on consumer feedback. 

The more recent entry into the medical tourism space is the Medical Tourism Association, also known as the Global Healthcare Association. According to their website, the MTA is the “first international non-profit association made up of top international hospitals, healthcare providers, medical travel facilitators, insurance companies, and other affiliated companies and members with the common goal of promoting the highest level of quality of healthcare to patients in a global environment.”  Although this organization is designed to promote the interests of its members, it does collect and disseminate consumer driven data to insurance companies and prospective patients.  In an attempt to remain credible, they attest to transparency in quality, pricing, and patient safety.  They claim that their information is “unbiased with regard to patient outcomes.”

Anyone contemplating travelling abroad for medical care should contact these organizations for information, and, while we aren’t in a position to endorse their credentialing methods, we would advise prospective medical tourists to give some weight to their findings. We would also note that there are many places in the world that have yet to come under their scrutiny.

Share