They've cracked my mother open 3 times. Not pleasant. At all. Skip the Big Macs.

of course you have little recourse if something goes wrong. but that never happens, does it?

The reason the U.S. is a bigger user of medical tourism than Britain is that we are a very litigious society. The fact is that if we just let the free market decide which doctors are most qualified instead of the trial lawyers there would be an abundance of quality medical care for everyone, right here in the U.S.. We simply have to cut taxes on health providers and limit their liability.

MEDICAL TOURISM

Why is that a bad thing? It sounds good to me. This is called free trade. Right now America buys many things from other countries like toys from China and oil from Iraq. In return Americans export items like food and cars to them. Free trade is good because it allows each country to specialize in what it's best at when creating products to sell. This results in maximum benefits for everyone involved.

The only reason I can think of liberals would be against this is because they think foreigners should not be as rich and prosporous as Americans are. Or perhaps they just don't care about how the brown people around the world are doing. But the brown people are just as skilled and talented as white Americans and they should be given a hand up instead of being oppressed and kept down. This left wing anti-free trade nativism of liberals is indefensible and borders on racism.

Better get that surgery now, while Mr. Dollar can still shake hands with Mr. Rupee. Mr. Dollar has been looking a little shaky lately, and Mr. Rupee might decide that Mr. Dollar is an 'untouchable'...

I hope the real tbrosz gets a royalty. But in any event he can know that he's now an internet icon, albeit a dubious one.

If you show up to see what they're saying in your name, tbrosz, all my best and hope your wife is doing well.

The U.S. is generally conservative in approving new medical devices. The foreign clinics can often offer newer state of the art techniques available in the U.S. only if one participates in a clinical trial. This was brought out in the Sixty Minutes piece where the patient was able to have her hip joint resurfaced in India, as opposed to the more invasive complete replacement done in the U.S

Fafner1, darn FDA! ;)

Kevin, "It all began when our co-founder's mother was searching for affordable, quality elective medical procedures, not covered by her insurance company. After getting numerous quotes ranging from $20,000 to $30,000, she knew there had to be a more viable option."

The question really is "what procedures are being used for medical tourism and why?"

You can't just dismiss medical tourism as 'everyone is doing it' unless you are sure that you are talking about the same things in each country. I suspect (I don't KNOW, I'm just suspecting) that you really aren't.

"This left wing anti-free trade nativism of liberals is indefensible and borders on racism."

Wingnut projection at its finest.

The fact is that if we just let the free market decide… cut taxes on health providers and limit their liability. tbrosz at 12:56 PM

"The reason the U.S. is a bigger user of medical tourism than Britain is that we are a very litigious society. The fact is that if we just let the free market decide which doctors are most qualified instead of the trial lawyers there would be an abundance of quality medical care for everyone, right here in the U.S.. We simply have to cut taxes on health providers and limit their liability."

Incredible. What about the 8-10 % of physicians that are incompetent?

Am I the only one that's fucking appalled by the notion of affluent Westerners traveling to countries like India -- where huge segments of the population lack even the most basic care -- for "cheap" medical procedures?

"Am I the only one that's fucking appalled by the notion of affluent Westerners traveling to countries like India -- where huge segments of the population lack even the most basic care -- for "cheap" medical procedures?"

Wow. Such outrage. Ever been sick? Without insurance? Ever been given a diagnosis of lung cancer with a price tag of $100,000 here, and maybe $15,000 in India? Until then, why not just show a little empathy?

We took a hard look at medical tourism when the estimated bill for The Spouse's upcoming dental work started approaching $20,000.

Unfortunately, multiple dental implants are not a one-time surgical event, so we passed. I'd still consider it for other needs, though.

Pardon my hyperbole, and apparent lack of empathy. Our health care system is in desparate need of fixing so that people shouldn't have to contemplate these kinds of options. But at bottom, medical tourism is another instance of Westerners cashing in on the cheap labor and low standards of living in other parts of the world.

Kevin,
I see a way that you could make money off the medical tourist industry.

Just offer Inkblot's services for CAT scan pre-screening. At $2400 a pop, you could retire early and still have enough money to fill your bathtub with cat nip so that Inkblot could enjoy his wild hair in the butt adventures.

I have family that lives near the Mexican border, and right on the other side there is a large number of pharmacies catering to Americans.

My aunt's prescription, which cost over $450 a month here, cost less than $80 a month there.

Am I the only one that's fucking appalled by the notion of affluent Westerners traveling to countries like India -- where huge segments of the population lack even the most basic care -- for "cheap" medical procedures?

Who says they're affluent? They may be affluent by Third World standards, but the reason they're travelling there in the first place is because they can't afford medical treatment here, which hardly seems to indicate they're affluent.

Moreover, will those countries do better if the sick Westerners stay home? The money they spend there will in some small measure work to making those societies wealthier, which in the long run will contribute to more of their populations having access to health care.

Okay, I've already apologized for the hyperbole. But the point is that those "attentive nurses" who cater to relatively affluent Westerners could perhaps be doing more useful work. And if I'm uninsured and sick, what are the chances I can even afford to travel overseas for less expensive treatment?

I'm not saying I wouldn't do the same thing to save the life of a member of my own family. Just that there's something fundamentally wrong with our system, and something fundamentally unjust about the "medical tourism" option.

The money they spend there will in some small measure work to making those societies wealthier sounds like trickle-down to me.

Hey, Kevin, think about what you're saying. If you want to go to India and be pampered, with dirt cheap prices etc., why don't you go now and stay healthy? You'll save whatever the hospital fee is, and you could spend it by upgrading to a top-flight resort, say in Goa on the ocean. Get massages, spa treatments, hang around the beach and the pool, eat Indian food.

You could put the Big Mac money in a fund for your India trip. My husband had to go there for work, and took a weekend to go to Goa. He's still raving about it.

Just sayin'. Be careful what you wish for. It's too bad if you think you have to get heart disease to take a nice vacation...

I think I remember some article or news bit on the rise of Americans going overseas for surgical procedures from various cosmetic procedures (who cares)to fertility treatments to organ transplants. Except I think it has more to do with cost than quality.

Going overseas for organ transplants opens another whole ethical can of worms. But I've had enough flogging for one day.

thersites,
I didn't find your comments so outrageous as to warrant a flogging.
weenie

Okay, I've already apologized for the hyperbole. But the point is that those "attentive nurses" who cater to relatively affluent Westerners could perhaps be doing more useful work.

OK, but let's face it, they won't be. These are nurses in affluent big city hospitals. If they're not tending to Westerners, they'll simply be tending to wealthy Indians.

And if I'm uninsured and sick, what are the chances I can even afford to travel overseas for less expensive treatment?

Pretty good, actually. As someone noted above, just because you can't afford $100K for treatment here doesn't mean you can't afford $15K for treatment there. That's like saying "if I can't afford a Porsche, what are the chances I can afford even a Toyota?"

I'm not saying I wouldn't do the same thing to save the life of a member of my own family. Just that there's something fundamentally wrong with our system, and something fundamentally unjust about the "medical tourism" option.

You get no argument from me that there's something fundamentally wrong with our system, and even that there's something wrong with medical tourism in that it's a small safety valve which, if it wasn't there, would perhaps cause even more pressure to be put on our politicians to reform our system. But I wouldn't blame the sick people who themselves see no choice but availing themselves of it, I'd blame our corrupt health care system and the politicians and insurance companies who support it. The problem is systemic.

The money they spend there will in some small measure work to making those societies wealthier sounds like trickle-down to me.

Not really, it's just simple economics, no different really from the way ordinary tourism works.

India is just so far away... I can't imagine having heart surgery, then having to take a 22 hour flight back home... It's too bad we have an embargo with Cuba.. maybe after Castro dies, they can become the leading provider of expensive medical care for Americans... It's not that far away, and their care is excellent...

Thanks,

Mike

I had valve surgery. Things went badly wrong afterwards and I was in a coma for 5 days.

It was two months before I was up to wandering around.

If you have to have it done, have it done early.

My family hails from Mumbai. I'm not a doctor so I can't list off the short comings of the Indian health care system but many of my relatives doctors (surprise) and many times they find ways to have family from the old country come to the US for treatment.

Just an observation.

Kris Lotlikar: many times they find ways to have family from the old country come to the US for treatment.

In the old country, could they afford the level of treatment that Westerners travel to India for? (I'm really asking, not snarking.) Or is there some other reason?

Kevin, you must never have been driven from
Delhi to Agra (where the Taj is). Much of it
is on one of India's best roads ... yet is so full
of crumbling street scenes, bizarre modes of
transportation, congestion, quick horns and quick brakes, and all-around traffic insanity,
that your recently-repaired heart would soon be
calling for replacements.

"Pardon my hyperbole, and apparent lack of empathy. Our health care system is in desparate need of fixing so that people shouldn't have to contemplate these kinds of options. But at bottom, medical tourism is another instance of Westerners cashing in on the cheap labor and low standards of living in other parts of the world."

WTF??? This has to be one of the stupidest comments I've yet read.
What exactly would you prefer happen? That doctors and nurses leave India and settle in America? That they charge the locals more money rather than making money from foreigners?

Please explain to us exactly who is being hurt by this process, how they are being hurt, and how your ban on medical tourism would make things better.

Please explain to us exactly who is being hurt by this process, how they are being hurt, and how your ban on medical tourism would make things better.

thersites didn't propose or even hint at a "ban on medical tourism."

Whatever little I know about some of the clinics in India catering for relatively affluent Westerners is that income from Westerners is used to subsidize large numbers of Indians who are not in a position to pay for the required treatment.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/18/news/international/stem_cells.fortune/index.htm?section=money_latest

tbrosz lies, because we know (demonstrated in this here blog) that litigiousness has no impact upon medical insurance fees and subsequently, medicine.

Now, there is certainly something wrong with our system, in that in the greatest free market in the world, people have to look outside the country to get not just world-class access - but access at all for many elective or modern medical procedures.

I know more than several people (including my neighbor) who've had to seek medical care outside the country. Most for procedures unavailable in our region. Of course, what shouldn't be available in California, right?

Only one of these friends got treatment outside the US because they weren't in the US at the time of requiring it.

But at bottom, medical tourism is another instance of Westerners cashing in on the cheap labor and low standards of living in other parts of the world.

That does not make even a rat's whisker of sense.

The medical industries in Thailand and India are probably the single type of outsourcing that is least assailable on any grounds, in terms of the overwhelming benefits it provides to locals, its encouragement of locals to pursue higher education and of local governments to invest in higher education and infrastructure, its effect in fighting the brain drain of third-world professionals away from their own countries, the high working standards and excellent conditions of the jobs (nurses and service employees at foreign-oriented hospitals work shorter hours, are better paid, and have vastly better conditions than sweatshop or agricultural workers, and they often have access to health benefits)...and on and on and on.

There may be some grounds for arguing that garment industry sweatshops are oppressive to third-world workers. But there are no grounds whatsoever for arguing that medical tourism to third-world hospitals has any bad effects whatsoever on the countries that attract it. In Thailand Western medical tourism literally made it possible for the country to institute a universal health insurance system. Maybe it hurts somebody -- but it sure ain't them.

But at bottom, medical tourism is another instance of Westerners cashing in on the cheap labor and low standards of living in other parts of the world.

Uh, medical tourism isn't just happening in the developing world. A friend of mine here in Japan, as a foreigner, has private health insurance and when she need a screwed-up hernia operation repaired, was sent by the company to New Zealand. Yes, they also paid for the flight and two weeks accommodation. (She liked the experience so much that when she needed another, entirely different operation when she was covered by a different insurance company, she insisted on having it done in New Zealand, too. And did some dental work while she was there.)

The reason the U.S. is a bigger user of medical tourism than Britain is that we are a very litigious society.

And would someone explain what the hell the connection is supposed to be between the first and last clauses of that sentence -- other than overheated libertooninan handwaving, that is?

"The reason the U.S. is a bigger user of medical tourism than Britain is that we are a very litigious society. The fact is that if we just let the free market decide which doctors are most qualified instead of the trial lawyers there would be an abundance of quality medical care for everyone, right here in the U.S.. We simply have to cut taxes on health providers and limit their liability."

Posted by: tbrosz

I would give you credit for such a polished catechism, but I know that it's a copy and paste. And probably from a right-wing website.

"The U.S. is generally conservative in approving new medical devices. The foreign clinics can often offer newer state of the art techniques available in the U.S. only if one participates in a clinical trial. This was brought out in the Sixty Minutes piece where the patient was able to have her hip joint resurfaced in India, as opposed to the more invasive complete replacement done in the U.S"

Posted by: fafner1

I can understand ignorance, being behind the times a bit, but this takes the cake. Hip arthroplasty has been done in the US as a regular procedure since the 1960's. If you are below the age of 50, many surgeons prefer that to the total replacement, since the replacement prostheses have a life expectancy of 20 years (i.e., you'll need it redone if you live a normal life).

And a total replacement can be less invasive, from the viewpoint of the size of the incision.

brooksfoe on October 30, 2007 at 6:10 AM:

It that's actually the case, I guess I'll have to take my flogging and shut up. (I hear Singapore's a good place to go for that ;)
I just have a reflexive suspicion of the "benefits" that accrue in developing countries simply by Westerners dropping in for less expensive services, having seen some of the more unsavory manifestations of that close up.

I have US medical and I'm getting my thorough checkup in Thailand this winter -- the total bill will be far cheaper than my deductible in the States.

Al the Troll in the fourth comment misses the point, as rightwing trolls seem always to do. He doesn't care, apparently, about his country, or he'd be upset that we can't manage to come anywhere near matching European health care systems that cost them half as much per capita as ours costs us.

I've got the Mayo clinic (2nd in the nation, curse you John's Hopkins!) nearly in my backyard and walking in there is like walking into an extravagant cathedral! I'm talking granite imported piece by piece from Europe and exotic glass chandeliers and wood paneling. Yeah, maybe some of it comes from donations from satisfied clients but in general I think it is the patients who pay for it. Just like in Vegas with the extravagant casinos you know who is really paying for it.

On the other hand they truly do give excellent care and they do get huge endowments now and then. The latest is a great exercise center for employees from, I think, the founder of Slim Fast or something like that. He had a cough for a year and no one could cure him until he came to the clinic. With the proper diagnosis and antibiotic he was cough free in a couple days and EXTREMELY grateful.

Note that in the UK that in addition to National Health they have a fully functioning private heathcare system for anyone that is willing to pay.

So British medical tourist are not only rejecting National Health, they are also rejecting a private healthcare system in the UK.

By the way, do the comparisons we see on British healthcare spending including the private spending are is it just what is spent on National Health?

Cortez frames the questions I will attempt to answer. He questions where free market or government regulation will fail or be futile, and I think we've already got an answer. Free market has spawned medical tourism out of price, quality and product because of demand. Government has already failed and should have failed because it never produces anything (except frustration). We can well hope they will stay out of it. Government only needs to regulate the legal and ethical questions, like illegal organ transplants.

In the information age we should already have applauded how the free market is doing it's job. As an owner director of a medical tourism company in India, America's Medical Solutions, we must be very keen to judge what is good and what is bad because the word will be on the street faster than anything. And that means policing our own industry, and I think medical tourism companies are for that reason all the industry needs.

Don Wood, Dir. Americas's Medical Solutions, www.AmericasMedicalSolutions.com