Ken’s Take: If the U.S. healthcare system is so bad, why do foreigners from the utopian systems come to the U.S. for critical treatment?
I like the notion of making them pay list prices – very high list prices – to offset citizen healthcare costs.
Idea: why not put a high tax on healthcare services delivered to non-U.S. citizens ?
* * * * *
WSJ, Replicating Cleveland Clinic’s Success Poses Major Challenges, July 23, 2009
The key to the Cleveland Clinic’s success, many policy makers say, is its integrated approach. Like other so-called multispecialty clinics, the Cleveland Clinic employs its own physicians, creating teams of specialists that collaborate in treating each patient. By contrast, at most traditional community hospitals, doctors remain independent, private practitioners.
The Cleveland Clinic stays profitable by offsetting its losses on Medicare patients with payments from private insurers and thousands of foreign patients who often pay its full list prices. Those prices can be two to three times higher than what U.S. insurance plans negotiate with the clinic.
Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124831191487074451.html
* * * * *
The Homa Files 
July 24, 2009 at 10:41 am |
Ken, you seem to be conflating conflating healthcare delivery quality, access to health care and the cost of healthcare. Economics 101 suggests that Foreigners will increasingly head to places like Switzerland as we raise our prices. It’s not like the U.S. has a lock on the world’s best healthcare. Why, for example, did Farrah Fawcett go to a private clinic in Germany for cancer treatment?
I lived in a socialist country in western europe for a few years and received healthcare under their nationalized system. The healthcare wasn’t bad. In fact, I would say healthcare was good overall, but not quite to the level that I receive in the U.S. I also found that some people took advantage of free and sought out treatments that were nice but not necessary. I’m sure healthcare has continued to improve in Europe just like it has improved in the U.S.
July 24, 2009 at 12:54 pm |
Non-US citizens are already paying a higher cost for medicine in the US. They are not eligible to receive most of the discounts like those with a US-based insurance policies.Foreigners do come here because they believe US is at the forefront of new technology and hospitals here are held to a very high standards. Yet so many did not realize that it takes a very long time for FDA to approve a new medicine compared to other countries (hence Americans go to Canada and Mexico for them!) and the systems here makes healthcare so expensive with the numerous number of tests which may not even be necessary.
The article mentioned physicians earning more with more tests conducted, a Medicare-style reimbursement. I think this is the main problem with the costs:
Physicians order more tests not only because they are compensated (fiscally or otherwise) in same cases, but also because they need to cover their back from malpractice lawsuits (sometimes very justified lawsuits). Those that only receives care for minor issues are not as concerned with test costs, since insurance paid for it and the premium increases are absorbed by the whole company over a span time. Without insurance everything is so expensive and those who couldn’t afford it the most wind up with the most expensive bills!
The quandary is who is going to say no to the physicians about tests besides another physician? Everyone would prefer to err on the cautious side.
July 25, 2009 at 2:48 am |
Amelia,
There was as an article in Forbes comparing the cost of human healthcare versus animal healthcare for the same procedures. End result: human healthcare is 10x more expensive largely due to higher insurance costs (throughout the supply chain) and costs associated with risk mitigation.
July 25, 2009 at 11:54 pm |
I agree that human healthcare is more expensive than animal’s simply because it’s difficult to “value” a human life, although those who are in insurance field have had to quantify it. Having worked in a company that focuses on medmal/negligence insurance, I can confirm that those risk mitigations do get very expensive.
To me it just seems wrong to have those who are least able to afford it foot the most expensive bill of all for healthcare in the US, yet I don’t really see immediate solution. Interestingly enough, a few global insurance companies (UK’s Prudential for one) actually have a clause in their rider that specifically exclude US from their coverage.
July 26, 2009 at 7:08 pm |
… the rider is inserted because they would have to charge higher rates to provide coverage in the U.S. We are a risk averse and we are willing to pay much higher medical costs to provide a safety net. Medical procedures are inherently risky.
Obamacare is going nowhere fast. I’m not sure anymore what Obama is trying to achieve other than providing coverage to 40M+ uninsured by charging higher taxes. I’m not sure how our existing healthcare system can absorb 40M extra customers except by rationing or expanding capacity.
The majority who enjoy healthcare do not want to share a constrained resource with others who do not currently have healthcare – especially high income earners that would help foot the bill.