Thursday, August 9, 2007
The Right to Healthcare
David Williams, on the WorldHealthCareBlog, has a pretty comprehensive Q & A for employers and health plans curious about medical tourism. He covers just about all the angles, so I don't want to repeat that here. What I would like to add is that the biggest problem that employers and health plans face is opposition from unions who have absolutely no interest in helping the employer reduce overheads by sending employees abroad.
This is what usually happens. "Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, said in a prepared statement on Sept. 11: "The right to safe, secure and dependable health care in one's own country should not be surrendered for any reason -- certainly not to fatten the profit margins of corporate investors." As a result of the union's objections, Blue Ridge abandoned its attempt to offer medical tourism as a health care option. Garrett still has his gallbladder and a rotator cuff in need of repair; he said he's pondering his next step."
For the record, I sent Leo Gerard an email, asking for clarification, and there's been no reply. I understand their point of view, and I also admit that I'm far from unbiased on this issue. Still, looking at it objectively, both the employer and employee are enthusiastic about medical treatment abroad, but hospitals and unions are dragging their feet. Let's get one thing clear here - Medical tourism is mainly about saving money. Money which would otherwise end up in the deep pockets of billion dollar healthcare corporations. In the example quoted above, a surgery in the U.S. would have cost Blue Ridge $80,000 and Carl Garrett an additional $20,000. The same surgery in India would have been covered entirely by the company, and Garrett would not have had to pay a single penny, neither for treatment, nor airfare or accomodation. So who exactly is the loser here?
You are entitled to an obligatory tantrum about globalization and healthcare outsourcing, but a deeper look at the facts shows that ultimately, it is John Doe who will pay the price, while the Hospitals and Unions celebrate another victory over the corporate fatcats.
Update: Just found a quote by Carl Garrett, who says he can't wait long enoug for medical tourism to go mainstream. Instead of two free operations in India, he says he'll have to borrow the money to have them done at home. "I'm still in a, kind of a state of disbelief. It's a crying shame that, uh, I don't have that option, simply because of a union that I have supported for 40 years. And as far as I'm concerned they have taken money out of my pocket." The irony, he says, is that the other union members he works with couldn't wait for him to get back, to decide whether to sign up for an overseas operation themselves.
This is what usually happens. "Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, said in a prepared statement on Sept. 11: "The right to safe, secure and dependable health care in one's own country should not be surrendered for any reason -- certainly not to fatten the profit margins of corporate investors." As a result of the union's objections, Blue Ridge abandoned its attempt to offer medical tourism as a health care option. Garrett still has his gallbladder and a rotator cuff in need of repair; he said he's pondering his next step."For the record, I sent Leo Gerard an email, asking for clarification, and there's been no reply. I understand their point of view, and I also admit that I'm far from unbiased on this issue. Still, looking at it objectively, both the employer and employee are enthusiastic about medical treatment abroad, but hospitals and unions are dragging their feet. Let's get one thing clear here - Medical tourism is mainly about saving money. Money which would otherwise end up in the deep pockets of billion dollar healthcare corporations. In the example quoted above, a surgery in the U.S. would have cost Blue Ridge $80,000 and Carl Garrett an additional $20,000. The same surgery in India would have been covered entirely by the company, and Garrett would not have had to pay a single penny, neither for treatment, nor airfare or accomodation. So who exactly is the loser here?
You are entitled to an obligatory tantrum about globalization and healthcare outsourcing, but a deeper look at the facts shows that ultimately, it is John Doe who will pay the price, while the Hospitals and Unions celebrate another victory over the corporate fatcats.
Update: Just found a quote by Carl Garrett, who says he can't wait long enoug for medical tourism to go mainstream. Instead of two free operations in India, he says he'll have to borrow the money to have them done at home. "I'm still in a, kind of a state of disbelief. It's a crying shame that, uh, I don't have that option, simply because of a union that I have supported for 40 years. And as far as I'm concerned they have taken money out of my pocket." The irony, he says, is that the other union members he works with couldn't wait for him to get back, to decide whether to sign up for an overseas operation themselves.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]