I would be shocked – shocked! – if the surgeon took home more than 10% of the cost of the operation. Maybe not even 5%. The reason it’s far cheaper in other countries has very little to do with surgeon fees and everything to do with the cost of malpractice, paperwork, employees, OR time, and everything else. In India they don’t have to do multiple pre-operative “correct site” checks, nor do they have to have “timeouts” and “medication reconciliation” for every patient who comes in for same day surgery. But of course the insurance company plays it like the $200 they’ll whittle off the surgeon fee is the real difference.

Also, where is the wisdom in having someone sit for the very lengthy flight home when they are at most risk for DVT? Joint replacement pts are very high risk for this, despite the preventive therapies we have instituted.

I’m jus’ sayin’………

If the insurance company wants to shop for the cheaper provider, then they should assume the liability. Period. They are getting what they pay for-doctors operating in a lower cost medico-legal environment, and a lower cost economy. But no followup for complications and no patient protection in case of medical injury from that lack of followup.

If the insurance wants to outsource, they should do it for EVERYTHING. Got the sniffles? Fly to India for your doctor visit. Why should they cherry pick just the elective surgeries and then underpay the urgent or emergent problems here in the states? My malpractice has to be spread across all my work. That is part of the cost of my doing business. The higher charge for the elective stuff helps pay for the underpayment or non-payment by Medicaid and soon Medicare.

Then they will be our problem in the ER.

Or your problem in the ED.

We’re going to grapple.

The experience? Was horrible. For us and for him. The first two weeks after he got out of the hospital were *miserable*. I don’t think he got in the car, other than to go to doctor appointments, for a couple of months. And that was with NO complications. He was just in pain, and the pain scared him.

I can’t *imagine* how much worse it would have been if we hadn’t been at home. And the thought of a long flight back at some point in those first couple of weeks? Eeeek! Not me. Not my family.

Interesting to see where this goes…..

You say medical tourism is a good idea, and to support that you only offer a couple of thoughts pertaining to how money changes hands.

Immediately thereafter, you spend very nearly the rest of your post proposing dozens of reasons why “medical tourism” is a TERRIBLE idea.

It sure seems to me a Medical Tourism safari is just as likely to ultimately end up in an American Emergency Department anyway. And note that it’s called “Emergency Department” and not “Good Idea Department”. I bet there’s a reason for that…

Maybe I’m suffering from Irony Deficiency. On the other hand, I *did* forget to take my meds this morning. Dang it!

Disciple! I have missed your comments! Good to have you back.
I think that when people arrange for their own medical tourism, they go into it knowing that they won’t get the follow up care and won’t have the same legal rights they have in the US. In essence, they are trading those positives for a lower cost. I wouldn’t even try to make the comparison that the treatment is “worse” – I’ve met foreign docs who have more knowledge in their little toe than I have in my whole body.
I have no problems with the “free marketization” of medicine – in fact, that’s the way that I think the system has to go in order to become viable. Get rid of the middle man. I’m actually working on a post about that. Look at Lasik surgeries and liposuction. Doctor provides service for price, patient agrees on price, surgery gets done. Both parties walk away happy.
Now comes the “middle man.” You continue to pay insurance companies the same premium, but now they shuttle you to another country to get you the same care – because it costs the insurance companies less money. Patients have no idea how much it costs to provide the service, but keep paying higher and higher premiums to the insurance company. Who benefits? Patients have potential for more problems and have less recourse. Doctors in India will have the rates for surgery “negotiated down” at the threat of insurers taking their business elsewhere. The only ones who win are the insurers.
Keep the third parties out of it and I’m fine with the idea of medical tourism – as long as the tourists know what they’re in for ahead of time.