Introduction
With exponentially rising healthcare costs in the United States, particularly for those lacking any or good insurance, medical tourism is a rapidly growing industry. In simple terms, health tourism is utilized by individuals who are unable to afford complex procedures or surgeries in the United States and choose to travel to another country where similar procedures can be performed at a fraction of the cost. Many times, these operations are critical, lifesaving, or greatly improve the quality of life for patients to the point that they are willing to take the risks of travel, lesser quality of care, or other potential complications (Yeginsu, 2021). The market for health tourists leaving the U.S. is estimated at 1.4 million, with the average cost per visitor being $3,800-6,000, with the global market worth ranging from $45-72 billion (Dalen & Alpert, 2019). This paper will explore the risks and issues in the health tourism industry and identify strategies for multinational companies and national governments to address them.
Summarize the Problem
The CDC notes that medical tourism carries a certain number of risks. While it recognizes that medical tourism exists due to elements of cost, culture, or legal reasons – the risks of complications exist, depending on destination, the facility where the procedure is performed, and the patient’s health. Some of the most common risks highlighted by the CDC (2021) are infectious disease, antibiotic resistance, quality and continuity of care, communication barriers, and air travel post-surgery. Individuals traveling abroad lack the same protections as they would in the U.S. and may struggle to receive aftercare or emergency care in case anything goes wrong.
Companies operating in the health tourism industry face various challenges, one of the primary being bottlenecks forming due to demand, with a compound annual growth rate of 16% (Dalen & Alpert, 2019). The companies have to through a complex process of navigating both domestic and foreign regulations, ensuring that the quality of care abroad is legitimate (certified facilities), and ensuring that all logistics are in place. There are also concerns regarding the impact of health tourism in destination countries, particularly access to care in the public system, which is often less than ideal but continues to decrease as facilities prioritize medical tourism (Snyder et al., 2013).
Key Actors
- Patients – their health and safety are directly impacted by the issues in the industry. Many patients need the services rather urgently but at the same time, their well-being depends on the recommendations made by the medical tourism companies regarding the facility chosen and all the travel arrangements.
- U.S. healthcare facilities – the U.S. healthcare system is directly responsible for the rise in health tourism, due to the exuberant costs. These facilities lose patient trust and financial gain by not doing procedures more cheaply, but at the same time, they are within a system that does not allow for much negotiation in terms of costs.
- Health tourism agencies – these companies make a profit off commissions for the services of the patients. It is in their interest to provide the best services and connections to legitimize the process. However, they are challenged with many barriers in navigating international borders in healthcare and some may be incompetent at achieving the best for the patients.
- Medical facilities abroad – the medical facilities receiving health tourists differ significantly, some being large multi-hospital systems, others being private facilities. Modern health tourism however seeks to ensure that the facilities are accredited and have the professionals specializing in the treatment necessary. At the same time
- National governments – given the increase in the size and worth of the sector, national governments are forced to intervene to regulate it, especially since medical tourism and public health sectors overlap. In many countries, this requires additional resources as well as an exploration of the intersection of domestic and international regulation (Labonté et al., 2018). The national government does not want health tourism to negatively impact access in the public health sector.
- Insurance companies – domestically, insurance companies lose income as well due to medical tourism. However, for global medical insurance that many travelers in health tourism purchase, these insurance companies must take on large risks that no aspect of the trip will go wrong.
Pros and Cons of Potential Actions
Actions by MNCs may be positive for the general health tourism business due to the aspects of globalization. The industry is growing but both market and non-market players remain uncertain about how to address the concept. A globalized take on it through MNCs can close the gaps in many associated issues. For example, one of the more nuanced aspects is travel and accommodation for these medical tourists, including accommodating treatments in the rest of the in-destination experiences. MNCs have the ability and connection to make the process smoother and more official. As a result of their actions, medical tourism infrastructure in various countries can improve, with an increasing number of accreditations, quality of care, and range of specialist choices for patients (Peltier, 2017). There are really few downsides to the involvement of MNCs. Some of the major issues that remain are that private insurance rarely covers procedures globally. Meanwhile, international brands have to balance the accommodation of travelers with privacy rights of health histories.
Meanwhile, actions undertaken by national governments can significantly benefit the popularity, safety, and efficiency of medical tourism. Medical tourism is logically and financially challenging for individuals. Furthermore, whenever citizens of developed countries go abroad, governments have to invest resources to ensure their safety. Currently, health tourism consists of travelers taking a ‘vacation’ and then adding a hospital trip in the process. If medical tourism was to become an official travel reason, it would make much more legal sense than currently workarounds that are done ‘underground.’ Some governments have made efforts for hospitals and accommodations to support medical tourism, or cooperate with MNCs for effectiveness (Peltier, 2017). At the same time, involving national governments may create barriers. Some of these may be politically based, such as American citizens who may visit Latin American countries such as Cuba for medical tourism may suddenly find themselves restricted from doing so. Governments will also bring more regulation, creating even greater issues for health tourists to navigate and greater bottlenecks.
Strategy Recommendations
The best strategy recommendation for global MNCs that provide health tourism services is to create service networks within the countries of destination. Within these service networks, when patients purchase a health tourism package, they will be supplied with everything including travel, accommodations, transportation in the country, health treatments, and recovery. By building partnerships with national governments, local hospital systems, and airline/tourism companies, it is possible to create an efficient pipeline for patients on an official, large scale. Patients will not have to worry about planning a ‘vacation’ to justify the medical tourism, they will have the necessary accommodations based on their health needs pre-and post-treatment. Most of the destination countries, such as India, have dedicated private hospitals aimed at health tourism, most of them run by large MNCs. If the company providing the service could directly oversee medical tourism agencies or directly partner with them, it would be a much more direct impact on the process, quality, and safety.
Another strategy is to address any weak links that may cause safety concerns for health tourism. This may include improving infrastructure, ensuring accreditation of facilities, and training staff, including linguistic skills. Once that is achieved, marketing organizations to attract health tourists with all appropriate resources and transparency may be viable. MNCs influence significantly the development of this sector in some of the core nations for medical tourism. By ensuring clear communication and marketing, with coherent and targeted programs for medical tourists, there can be a success in building partnerships and legitimacy across the world.
Conclusion
Health tourism is a rapidly growing sector that has gained much legitimacy and popularity globally. The prospect however remains relatively risky for patients, despite the process including accredited hospitals and professionals in other countries. These risks of receiving treatment abroad can be largely mitigated with more agencies from health tourism agencies, the MNCs involved, and national governments. There is a need for greater oversight without compromising efficiency. It is also possible to create official networks among healthcare facilities, insurers, and governments so that if individuals choose to pursue this course of action, they remain within the verifiable and protected services of such networks throughout treatment and recovery.
References
CDC. (2021). Medical tourism: Travel to another country for medical care. Web.
Dalen, J. E., & Alpert, J. S. (2019). Medical tourists: Incoming and outgoing.The American Journal of Medicine, 132(1), 9–10. Web.
Labonté, R., Crooks, V. A., Valdés, A. C., Runnels, V., & Snyder, J. (2018). Government roles in regulating medical tourism: Evidence from Guatemala.International Journal for Equity in Health, 17(1). Web.
Snyder, J., Crooks, V. A., Turner, L., & Johnston, R. (2013). Understanding the impacts of medical tourism on health human resources in Barbados: a prospective, qualitative study of stakeholder perceptions. International Journal for Equity in Health, 12(1), 2. Web.
Yeginsu, C. (2021). Why medical tourism is drawing patients, even in a pandemic. The New York Times. Web.