Posted on 08/13/2019 4:47:48 PM PDT by buckalfa
Some U.S. companies are paying for employees to travel to other countries for medical care. To alleviate concerns about quality of care, American surgeons are traveling to perform their procedures, The New York Times reports with Kaiser Health News.
The report highlights the story of one patient who traveled to Cancun, Mexico, for knee replacement surgery. The patient, Donna Ferguson, gets her health coverage through her husband's employer, Ashley Furniture Industries. In exchange for having her surgery performed in Mexico, Ashley Furniture paid Ms. Ferguson $5,000 and covered her travel costs. She also received the surgery free of out-of-pocket copayments or deductibles, according to the report.
An orthopedic surgeon flew from Milwaukee to Cancun to perform Ms. Ferguson's knee surgery. The surgeon was paid three times the Medicare rate for performing the procedure. He is one of roughly 40 orthopedic surgeons in the U.S. who have teamed up with Denver-based North American Specialty Hospital to treat patients abroad.
When patients are deciding whether to travel abroad for surgery, a key consideration is the quality of care they will receive. NASH hopes having American surgeons perform the procedures will alleviate quality of care concerns for patients and self-insured employers considering whether to offer this option to their workers, according to the report.
How government screws up everything it touches.
But how is the post-surgery care?
I have a cunning plan!
From my experiences the fees in Germany dont have that ridiculous BC/BS markup that never needs to be paid unless the patient is a cash patient. The fees in Germany are directly proportional to the level of care.
Another reason could be because of insurance companies not approving a needed preventative procedure until you are almost dead. Folks have died because of this control over life or death the government handed to insurance companies.
Gotta worry bout the aftercare...i.e infections...icu services...cardiac monitoring...inhalation treatments...pharmaceuticals...hospital cleanliness...but it might be cheaper for insurance company to build hospital and run it to american standards without unions...bennies...lawsuits...could be a better deal..
Its happened before.
Artificially restricting the number of doctors, as we do now, is hardly representative of a free market. Its just the opposite - a restrictive guild system. Any so-called free market reform of health care that doesnt lift the medical professions limits on accessibility to medical school for qualified applicants, is a fraud
One additional reason why hospital costs in the US are so high, is they are forced to give service to people who don’t pay. That means that they have to charge the people who DO pay extra.
But we have the best medical care system in the world!
Horsefeathers.
I don’t have a problem lifting the number of people entering medical school. However, because med school is subsidized, we shouldn’t expect the taxpayers to pick up the additional amount required to expand the number of slots.
That being said, increasing the number of physicians would not likely reduce total healthcare expenditures because although physicians fees do not comprise a large percentage of healthcare costs they do generate healthcare spending via tests, hospital use, medications ordered etc. so increasing their numbers would increase total healthcare spending.
But, if people were paying for most or all of their healthcare, the total expenditures wouldn’t matter. It does matter now because most healthcare has essentially been socialized with taxpayers picking up the bill. Remember, when there were medieval guilds, there were no subsidies for the goldsmiths, cabinet makers, and tailors. They were set up as monopolies and required a licensing fee issued by the king or ruler.
Are you or a friend trying to get into med school?
Are you or a friend trying to get into med school?
No. Ive just been struck by the many free market health care analysts who seem fine with our guild-like system of limiting medical schools, clearly designed protect members of the profession from too much competition
No suing though. While I hate frivolous medical malpractice suits, the fact that the doc CAN be sued for malpractice does keep them at the height of patient concern.
Some Mexican doctors have killed patients out of sheer negligence and are treating and slicing the very next day and then on for years.
I suspect a US court would take jurisdiction of a dispute between an American doctor and an American patient.
A trusted doc of this family contends that you STILL get what you pay for in medicine - anywhere in the world.
You are absolutely correct! I've worked as an insurance consultant for several large hospitals, attempting to lower their costs. The attorneys pile on and bleed them. The insurance brokers, insurance trusts and actuaries take shark bites. The only thing they can buy cheap is property insurance. Even the hospital executives are often disinclined to change methods or hire different services because of the "good ol' boy network" or the excuse, "we've always done it this way".
And I have a whole bunch of relatives fond of using wordplay so I have a punning clan!
CC
“Its happened before.”
Yep, even back in the 1990s I had figured out that Hillary-care was going to send people out of the country, in large numbers, for surgery. Thankfully it didn’t happen then, but now it is happening.
“Gotta worry bout the aftercare...i.e infections...icu services...cardiac monitoring...inhalation treatments...pharmaceuticals...hospital cleanliness”
All true, but if the doctors are top rate Americans, they won’t put up with crappy conditions.
“But how is the post-surgery care?”
I know that at least some of the doctors have arrangements for follow-up care in the US - obviously much cheaper than the actually surgery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.