Category Archives: MEDICAL COSTS

Global Medical Tourism Industry Market Analysis

Note: The following is a re-print from U.S. Domestic Medical Travel.com, one of two publications from CPR Strategic Marketing Communications. They also publish Medical Travel Today.com, and both publications have re-printed several of my posts on both of their newsletters, so I am returning the favor, which they have paid me many times over. I do not vouch for the accuracy of the data in the article, so please address any comments to the author.

Here is the article:

Global Medical Tourism Market By Treatment Type and by Region – Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth Trends and Forecasts (2016 – 2021)

The global medical tourism market has been estimated to be valued at USD 14,278 million, and it is anticipated to reach a market value of USD 21,380 million by the end of 2021 at a projected CAGR of 8.41% during the forecast period, 2016 to 2021.

Medical tourism involves travelling to another country for obtaining medical treatment. It is a high-growth industry driven by globalization and rising healthcare costs in the developed countries. A study shows that in United States, about 750,000 residents travel abroad for healthcare each year. A range of governments across the globe has taken up various initiatives to stimulate and improve the medical tourism in the respective countries in order to improve patient care and help expand the market. Many countries could see potential for significant economic development in the emergent field of medical tourism. Cosmetic surgery, dental care, elective surgery, fertility treatments, cardiovascular surgery and genetic disorder treatments are the most preferred healthcare treatments in this sector.

High cost of medical treatment in the developed countries and availability of those treatments at a lower cost in other countries have fueled the development of medical tourism. In addition, the availability of latest medical technologies and a growing compliance on international quality standards drive this market. The use of English as the main working language solves the problem of communication and patient satisfaction, adding to the growth of this market. Enhanced patient care, health insurance portability, advertising and marketing help the medical tourism industry to grow at a fast rate. On the other hand, infection outbreaks during or after travel, issues in following up with the patients before returning to their own country, and medical record transfer issues are the factors restraining the growth of the tourism industry. However, the unavailability of certain treatments at a lower cost hampers this market more than any other factors.

The global market for the medical tourism industry is segmented based on treatment type (cosmetic treatment, dental treatment, cardiovascular treatment, orthopedics treatment, bariatric surgery, fertility treatment, eye surgery and general treatment) and geographical regions. Cosmetic treatments hold the largest market share, as cosmetic surgeries are not covered by insurance.

Based on geography, the market is segmented into North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific. APAC holds the largest market share, followed by Europe. Thailand and Malaysia are strong markets with prospect for significant growth, followed by Korea.

The key players in the global medical tourism market are Bangkok Hospital Medical Center, Asian Heart Institute, Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd., Bumrungrad International Hospital, Fortis Healthcare Ltd., Min-Sheng General Hospital, Raffles Medical Group, Prince Court Medical Center, KPJ Healthcare Berhad, and Samitivej Sukhumvit.

For more information please click on:
http://www.researchandmarkets.com/publication/mkptu7l/4109970

Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t

“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.”

Winston Churchill

“Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country irrespective of means, age, sex or occupation shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available.

Winston Churchill

 

Veering away from the usual topics covered in this blog, I thought about some recent articles I saw about the attempt to repeal and replace, or to simply repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which the current political regime wants to do.

The first article, in yesterday’s [failing] New York Times, warned that repealing the ACA would make it harder for people to retire early. Those who retire early, before reaching 65, can get retiree coverage from their former employers, but not many companies offer that coverage.

Those early retirees poor enough could turn to Medicaid, and everyone else would have to go to the individual market. Without the ACA, health care coverage would be more difficult to get, cost consumers more where available, and provide fewer benefits.

According to the article, if the ACA is repealed, retiring early would become less feasible for many Americans. This is called job-lock, or the need to maintain a job to get health insurance.

This is one of the concerns the ACA was supposed to address, in that it would reduce or eliminate job lock. Repealing the law could, according to the article, affect employment and retirement decisions.

The second article, from Joe Paduda, also from yesterday, reported that improving healthcare will hurt the economy, and Joe lays out the arguments for doing something or doing nothing to improve health care and what effect they would have on economic growth.

For example, Joe states that healthcare employs 15.5 million full time workers, or 1 out of every 9 job. In two years, this will surpass retail employment. As Joe rightly points out, those jobs are funded by employers and taxpayers. He suggests that some experts argue that healthcare is “crowding out” economic expansion in other sectors, thereby hurting growth overall.

But Joe also points out that by controlling health care costs, employment will be cut, and stock prices for pharmaceutical companies, margins for medical device firms, and bonuses at health plans will also be affected.

So, if cost control and increasing efficiency works, these lost jobs, reduced profits, and lower margins, Joe says, will hurt the economy. The economy will suffer if the health care sector is more efficient, and since healthcare is also a huge employment generator and an inefficient industry, fixing that inefficiency will reduce employment and growth.

Thus, the title of this article, “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”

But wait, there’s more.

Yesterday, a certain quote has been making the rounds through the media. It was uttered by Number 45. “Nobody knew health care could be so complicated.”

Yes, it is complicated and complex, but does it have to be so? If we consider the second Churchill quote above, and realize that the UK, France, Germany, Canada, and many other Western countries have some form of single payer, then one must conclude that it is only the US that has complicated and made too complex, the providing of health care to all of its citizens.

There are many reasons for this, which is beyond the scope of this article or blog, but there is one overriding reason for this complexity…GREED. Not the greed of wanting more of one thing, but the greed of profit, as one executive from an insurance company stated recently.

This brings me to the last of the articles I ran across yesterday. It was posted on LinkedIn by Dave Chase, founder of the Health Rosetta Institute. He cited a segment on the Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson program, in which Carlson interviewed a former hospital president who said that pricing was the main problem with the US healthcare system.

Mr. Chase does not solely rely on Carlson’s guest in his article, but cites other experts in the field as evidence that pricing failure is to blame.

If we are to except this as true, then it buttresses my point that the overriding problem is greed, for what else is the failure to control prices but a symptom of greed inherent in the American health care system, and something that does not exist elsewhere in the Western world.

Which brings me to Churchill’s first quote above. Since we Americans have tried the free market system of health care wanting, and have tried a reformed free market system, perhaps it is time to go all the way to a government-sponsored, Medicare for All, single payer system.

The bottom line is: we’re damned if we do, damned if we don’t. The question is, which is the lesser of two evils.

UPDATE: Here is Joe’s take on what will happen to the ACA in the next two years. I agree with his assessment.

Americans Forego Treatment Due to Debt: Where is Medical Travel?

A report from the Kauffman Family Foundation, as mentioned in last week’s The Atlantic, stated that more than a quarter of Americans indicated that someone in their family is struggling to pay medical debt.

Higher rates of individuals are found among low-income and uninsured people, and many are not suffering from chronic illnesses, but rather from sudden or one-time illnesses, according to Gillian B. White.

This isn’t surprising, Ms White writes, given the state of most Americans’ finances. She says that most people are ill-prepared to deal with any financial shock.

Another report cited in her article from the J. P. Morgan Chase Institute (hey, didn’t they cause some of the financial shock Americans are experiencing?), looks at how medical costs factor into household financial instability.

They looked at 250, 000 Chase checking accounts where they could categorize about 80 percent of the expenditures, and found that for a median-income household (around $57,000 a year), expenses fluctuated by an average of 29 percent, or $1,300 month to month.

The authors of the study examined extraordinary medical expenses: large (more than $400 and more than 1 percent of annual income) and unusual ( falling more than two standard deviations outside a normal household’s spending for a month).

40 percent of middle-class and older families faced an extraordinary expense of $1,500 or more due to a medical expense, and around 16 percent of middle-income households had one large expense during a one year period. The authors found that these expenses tended to show up when they experienced an uptick in income.

Ms. White concludes her article by debunking the idea that having Americans spend a significant amount of their own money up front will encourage them to shop around for better health care deals. The reality, she states, is that they will forego treatment if they cannot afford it.

So What Does This Mean For You?

Well, for those in the medical travel industry it means that you need to focus on getting those middle-class families to get their treatment abroad where the costs are lower, and to concentrate less on cosmetic, plastic, reconstructive and augmentation surgeries, fancy medical treatments of dubious value, and concentrate on offering the kinds of treatments Americans are foregoing.

Debating whether or not certifications are valid or worth the paper they are printed on, is a nice academic exercise, but real people are skipping vital medical care while you debate and hold conferences around the world.

I’ll say this again: the market will not come to you, you must go to the market.

ACA Repeal Opens Up Medical Travel: A Second Look

Note: Here is Laura’s second article on repeal of the ACA and its’ impact on medical travel. She breaks the article down by areas of the healthcare industry that will be affected by repeal and that might benefit from medical travel.

Repeal of Affordable Care Act Impacts International Medical Travel
by Laura Carabello

wphealthcarenews.com- The repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been met with considerable market uncertainty. As the transition gets underway, many Americans will be scrambling to access affordable, quality care.

Fortunately, the international medical travel industry -“Travel for Treatment” – may finally gain the attention it deserves from the American public and U.S. employers. Experts predict that the number of Americans traveling abroad for medical care or episodes of treatment is expected to increase 25 percent annually over the next decade.

Medical travelers are likely to come from every market sector: the growing ranks of uninsured individuals, self-insured employers facing higher healthcare expenditures, disenfranchised Medicaid beneficiaries, as well as Medicare enrollees with high out-of-pocket expenditures and the loss of coverage for preventive care.

Individual Consumers
Once “minimum essential healthcare coverage” is no longer mandated, the burden of payment will transfer onto healthcare providers and systems that will be forced to continue cost shifting onto the backs of paying customers.

Fewer insurance companies will be willing to underwrite coverage in the exchanges. In fact, many will leave the individual marketplaces altogether because of the potential loss of federal subsidies for both beneficiaries and insurance companies themselves.

Burdened by hefty cost-shifting, more Americans will be forced to pay out of their own pockets for surgeries or treatments in the U.S. Those who can afford a plane ticket will find it increasingly attractive to travel outside the country for quality, affordable options, such as joint replacement, cardio-thoracic surgery, oncology, bariatrics, and a host of other medical procedures, including treatment for Hepatitis C.

Low-Income (Medicaid) and Seniors (Medicare)
For Medicaid beneficiaries who remained optimistic that their home state would offer expanded coverage, their prospects look dim. The unraveling of the ACA will leave millions of the poorest and sickest Americans without insurance. Many states may either abandon Medicaid expansion or be forced to significantly redesign their programs to ensure that individuals below 400 percent of the federal poverty level can receive affordable healthcare coverage and services.

While these low-income families may not have cash reserves to fund expensive care in the U.S., they might be able to gather the resources to access needed surgeries overseas – and pay less than half of the US rates. Those who have emigrated from Latin American countries, in particular, will take advantage of opportunities to travel to their homelands to gain access to care that is substantially less expensive, and in a familiar setting.

The 57 million senior citizens and disabled Americans enrolled in Medicare could also benefit from accessing international medical travel. Under a full repeal of the ACA, seniors face higher deductibles and co-payments for their Part A, which covers hospital stays, and higher premiums and deductibles for Part B, which pays for doctor visits and other services. Medicare enrollees may also lose some of their free preventative benefits, such as screenings for breast and colorectal cancer, heart disease and diabetes. The opportunity to access quality care at lower costs – plus prescription drugs that are sold at far lower price points outside the US – present attractive options.

Employers
Healthcare will continue to be driven through employers, and cost pressures will push high-deductible plans, risk-based contracting and consumerism. In the United States today, even a negotiated, discounted rate for a total knee replacement at a local hospital may well exceed $45,000, $60,000, or more. The bottom line for self-insured employers – the coverage model that now dominates the marketplace: even after factoring in the cost of travel and accommodations for the patient and the companion, as well as waiving deductibles and co-pays as incentives to program adoption, the savings on surgical procedures such as joint replacement are significant.

Employers will also be more likely to send workers to emerging COEs outside the country in light of the many partnerships that are underway between US providers and foreign hospitals. These collaborative programs are bringing American ingenuity, sophisticated technology and advanced levels of care to institutions throughout the world.

Quality and safety standards at many institutions are now equal to or exceed US benchmarks. Many foreign hospitals are accredited by Joint Commission International, an extension of the US-based Joint Commission. Select hospitals outside the country adhere to US clinical protocols.

In fact, one organization that serves self-insured employers – North American Specialty Hospital in Cancun – even offers U.S. surgeons with US malpractice insurance who perform pre- and post-operative care in the US and then travel to Cancun for surgery. This ensures continuous engagement and continuity of care.

Hospitals
The ACA has contributed to hospitals experiencing higher volumes of insured patients, but those volumes would drop with the law’s repeal. It could also cause fewer people to keep prescription coverage, which would be modestly negative for the pharmaceutical industry.

Experts believe the majority of primary care physicians are open to changes in the law but overwhelmingly oppose full repeal, according to a survey published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Insurance coverage for the 20 million people who obtained insurance from the exchanges sparked growth in patient numbers for hospitals, which offset lower payments. Without this, hospitals can expect deepening economic problems. This could lead to higher prices, and greater impetus among individuals to seek medical care outside of the U.S.

Key Destinations for International Medical Travel
With the growing ranks of uninsured, medical travel options are likely to emerge as a critical solution to healthcare cost woes. Hospitals and providers in nearby locations such as Latin America – known as the LAC Region – are likely to become destinations of choice: less expensive travel expenses, reduced language barriers, and cultural familiarity. Individuals and employers will require guidance in terms of choosing the right providers and determining costs to overcome the challenges that lie ahead.

To view the original article, click here.

Medical Travel Impact of ACA Repeal: The View from the Medical Travel Industry

Note: Laura Carabello’s Medical Travel Today has been the best partner a writer such as myself could have in getting my idea for medical travel out to the world, and it is only fitting that I return the favor. Here is an article written by Laura on a subject I have covered many times before.

Without the Affordable Care Act Will Medical Tourism Increase?
by Laura Carabello

mdmag.com- The impending repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has created uncertainty in the US healthcare marketplace. As the existing system is dismantled, and programs shut down or replaced, many Americans will be scrambling to access truly affordable, quality care.

This phenomenon has many implications for US physicians as people in every market sector begins to explore their options – from uninsured individuals to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, as well as employees covered by self-funded companies.

If the ranks of the uninsured grow as a result of the demise of the ACA, medical travel options could represent an ideal solution. According to the research published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in January 24, 2017, even after implementation of the ACA, 15% of people with chronic diseases still lacked health insurance coverage and more than a quarter of them didn’t get a checkup in 2014. About 23% of people with chronic disease went without care because they found that costs were still too high.

This signals a potential boon for the international medical travel industry, further propelling the steady growth it has experienced in recent years. Medical travel was valued at $439 billion, and is projected to grow 25% a year over the next decade. In 2016, an estimated 1.4 million Americans traveled abroad for a medical procedure.

US physicians may also find that even Medicaid beneficiaries and Medicare enrollees will be lured to hospitals and providers outside the US.

For Medicaid patients who remained optimistic that their home state would offer expanded coverage, their hopes are fading. Repeal of the ACA will leave millions of the poorest and sickest Americans without insurance. Many states may either abandon Medicaid expansion or be forced to significantly redesign their programs to ensure that individuals below 400% of the federal poverty level can receive affordable healthcare coverage and services.

While these low-income families may not have cash reserves to fund expensive care in the US, they might have the resources – or may be able to gather support from family and friends – to access affordable surgeries overseas.

As for Medicare enrollees, including 57 million senior citizens and disabled Americans, higher premiums, deductibles and cost-sharing could spark a shift toward medical travel, especially given the country’s aging population and the likelihood that many seniors will require surgery.

Seniors could face higher deductibles and co-payments for their Part A, which covers hospital stays, and higher premiums and deductibles for Part B, which pays for doctor visits and other services. Under a full repeal, Medicare enrollees may also lose some of their free preventative benefits, such as screenings for breast and colorectal cancer, heart disease and diabetes.

Self-insured employers are actively seeking to lower health-care costs and increase their financial margins, and they may opt to steer workers to more cost-effective Centers of Excellence outside their home state or region.  As a result, and despite long-term relationships with their hometown physicians, patients will be incentivized to leave the country and access care at foreign hospitals that demonstrate quality care at lower cost.  By waiving deductibles or copays – and even paying cash rewards for choosing the medical travel option – employers will prompt patients to make the decision to travel.

Further raising patients’ comfort levels regarding medical travel is the increased quality of care now offered at international hospitals. This improvement is due to the success of knowledge transfer programs and training offered by US institutions and providers to hospitals worldwide. These collaborative efforts are bringing American ingenuity, sophisticated technology, administrative simplification and advanced techniques to hospitals in Mexico and throughout the Caribbean, as well as to locations as far away as Malta and the United Arab Emirates.

If the ACA is fully repealed, distinct changes in medical travel patterns are expected.

While Americans traditionally traveled out of the country to access elective procedures — dental care, esthetic surgeries or wellness care not typically included in their health benefits packages – they are now more likely to seek reliable medical treatment for complex conditions in destinations that are cross-border but only requiring three to four hours of travel time.

Hospitals and providers in the Latin America-Caribbean Region are likely to become destinations of choice for employers, as well as individuals. The lure of less expensive and shorter travel, reduced language barriers, and more cultural familiarity are appealing to all.  The challenge will be to access benchmarks for selecting providers, ascertaining costs, determining legal recourse regarding less-than-optimal outcomes and other issues. Without the guidance of a health plan or administrator, this process may be challenging to many.

With the steady rise of medical travel, a growing number of US physicians will encounter patients seeking consultation prior to getting treatment abroad. This means providing medical records or consulting directly with the international team.

Physicians will also encounter more patients who require follow-up care after undergoing a procedure in another country. In this case, it will be important to access treatment information and discharge papers from the overseas hospital, as well as records for blood work, X-rays or other screenings for use as a roadmap for the patient’s post-care. Physicians may also be reticent to perform additional services that may be required following care performed outside the US and not in their control.

Beyond the medical details, physicians need to understand every aspect of medical travel to deal with the increased competition and cost pressures. They may want to look into making improvements and upgrading services to justify the expense of treatments here in the United States. The strongest transformation will occur in what is today the most lucrative part of the industry: high-cost surgeries and procedures. Keep in mind that US treatment costs often justify travel elsewhere, despite additional travel and accommodation costs.

Going forward, physicians can play a role in guiding patients to seek the best possible care – wherever it is available — while helping them understand the benefits and potential risks of medical travel.

To view the original article, click here.

Large Variations in Payments for Hospital Outpatient Care to Injured Workers

Back in April of this year, I wrote about a study by the Workers’ Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) in which it was found that fee schedules may increase the number of workers’ comp claims.

Today, the WCRI released a new study that said that “hospital outpatient payments per surgical episode varied significantly across states, ranging from 69 percent below the study-state median in New York to 142 percent above the study-state median in Alabama in 2014,” according to Dr. Olesya Fomenko, co-author of the study and economist at WCRI, and who also is mentioned in my previous post.

The report also stated that “variation in the difference between average workers’ compensation payments and Medicare rates for a common group of procedures across states was even greater—reaching as low as 27 percent (or $631) below Medicare in New York and as much as 430 percent (or $8,244) above Medicare in Louisiana.”

Here are the major findings:

  • States with no workers’ compensation fee schedules for hospital outpatient reimbursement had higher hospital outpatient payments per episode compared with states with fixed-amount fee schedules—63 to 150 percent higher than the median of the study states with fixed-amount fee schedules. Also, in non-fee schedule states, workers’ compensation paid between $4,262 (or 166 percent) and $8,107 (or 378 percent) more than Medicare for similar hospital outpatient services.
  • States with percent-of-charge-based fee regulations had substantially higher hospital outpatient payments per surgical episode than states with fixed-amount fee schedules—32 to 211 percent higher than the median of the study states with fixed-amount fee schedules. Similar to non-fee schedule states, workers’ compensation payments in states with percent-of-change based fee regulations for common surgical procedures were at least $3,792 (or 190 percent) and as much as $8,244 (or 430 percent) higher than Medicare hospital outpatient rates.
  • Most states with fixed-amount fee schedules and states with cost-to-charge ratio fee regulations had relatively lower payments per episode among the study states. In particular, for states with fixed-amount fee schedules, the difference between workers’ compensation payments and Medicare rates ranged between negative 27 percent (or -$631) and 144 percent (or $2,916).

Still think that workers’ comp is doing okay? Still think that keeping the status quo is the best option for injured workers? Still think that thinking outside the box, and considering alternatives to the ever increasing cost of medical care for workers’ comp is stupid, ridiculous and a non-starter?

Or do you believe, as Joe Paduda wrote about today in his blog, that workers’ comp is no longer needed for 90% of America’s employees, as the workplace has become safer than the non-occ environment.

The idea brought forth, and as Joe said, it is an intriguing, but wrong one, is that the medical care can be provided under health insurance, and the disability coverage can be added to long-term or short-term disability insurance.

Whichever way you look at the issue, workers’ comp is not going away, but it is getting more expensive to pay for medical care. The problem here is, too many Americans are slavishly wedded to outmoded ways of thinking, outmoded economic policies and models, as well as an outmoded economic ideology, to think rationally and seriously about alternatives.

Lastly, there are too many cooks (or should that be crooks) with their hands in the pot who have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are. If that is so, then the WCRI is only telling us what we should already know…injured workers are screwed and so are the carriers and employers. As long as outside interests have a hand in the system, and those who profit from higher costs block real change, this situation will only get worse.

I am sure glad it is not my money being wasted like this.

As always, to purchase the study click this link:

http://www.wcrinet.org/studies/public/books/hci_5_book.html

 

Florida Workers’ Comp Outcomes Similar to 14 Other States

Introduction

Earlier this week, the Workers’ Compensation Research Institute (WCRI), released a study that compared the outcomes for injured workers across 15 states. It can be purchased here.

Each state has a separate, multi-page report, so I requested a copy of the report for Florida, as that is where I currently reside (offers of employment elsewhere are greatly appreciated).

As this report has over 100 pages, it is reasonable to assume that 15 such reports would have a combined 1500 pages or more. So, I took the easy way and just looked at one state.

In the introduction to the report, there are two key dimensions of the performance of any workers’ comp system in the US:

  1. Post-injury outcomes achieved by injured workers and;
  2. Costs paid by employers.

The study measured the following worker outcomes:

  • Recovery of physical health and functioning
  • Return to work
  • Earnings recovery
  • Access to medical care
  • Satisfaction with medical care

The study was also conducted in three phases:

  • Phase 1: Eight states (IN, MA, MI, MN, NC, PA, VA, WI)
  • Phase 2: Four states: (IA, AR, CT, TN)
  • Phase 3: Three states: (FL, GA, KY)

The WCRI will collect data from other states and revisit states from earlier phases that implemented reforms to measure the impact of those reforms on outcomes in subsequent phases.

Key Findings for Florida

The WCRI found that workers in Florida reported outcomes that were similar to the median study on some of the key measures, but they reported somewhat higher rates of problems accessing desired services, accessing desired providers, and higher dissatisfaction with overall medical care.

For Recovery of physical health and functioning, they found that for Florida, it was similar to the other 14 states.

For Return to work, injured workers in Florida reported rates of return to work in the middle range of the study. 14% of Florida workers with more than seven days of lost time reported never having a return to work that lasted at least one month due to the injury as of three years’ post-injury; 17% reported no return to work within one year of injury. The median worker in Florida had a return to work about 12 weeks after injury.

For Earnings Recovery, 11% of Florida injured workers reported earning “a lot less” at the time of return to work; the median was 8%.

For Access to care, 21% of Florida injured workers reported they had “big problems” getting the services they or their provider wanted; 20% reported “big problems” getting the primary provider they wanted. Florida was among the states, the study reported, with higher rates of problems of access to care and providers, and higher or somewhat higher than in nine or eight other states.

For Satisfaction with care, the study found nearly three in four Florida workers were “somewhat” or “very” satisfied with their overall care (71%); however, 20% said they were “very dissatisfied”. This was higher than the median of the states, and higher than in 10 states.

Table 1 is a comparison of the medical costs and outcomes between Florida and the other 14 states in the WCRI study. What is interesting to note is that when compared to the other 14 states, Florida had similar outcomes in many of the measures, as the study suggested.

Table 1

Source: WCRI

The study found that medical costs in Florida, recovery of health and functioning, rates of return to work, duration of time before return to work were typical, while problems with getting desired services, and providers were somewhat higher or higher. Satisfaction was lower, but dissatisfaction was higher.

What I found interesting, and perhaps a little disturbing, but not unexpected, was that with the exception of the percentage of satisfaction, all the figures were below 50%, and while the score mechanism for recovery of health and functioning is not further discussed in the Summary, but is mentioned in the notes, those also seem to be very low.

I am not surprised that Florida has a higher percentage of dissatisfaction with medical care, this despite the fact that everywhere you look in Florida cities and towns, there are hundreds of medical offices, clinics, and many hospitals; some large, some small.

What to make of this?

While it is too early to tell how these 15 states compare with the other 35 states, what we can gather from this data is that the workers’ comp systems in these states are falling far short of where they should be in almost all of the measures.

Satisfaction percentages, notwithstanding, there are real issues with the way injured workers are treated in these 15 states.

That Florida is similar to 14 other states in five outcome measures, and not even above 50%, tells me that the industry needs to stop kidding itself that everything is honky-dory. It’s not.

How worse do you think it would be if the only current alternative being suggested is the opt-out option? If workers are not getting back to work or getting better care or better health and functioning under the current state systems, how do you think it would be if states like FL, GA, KY, NC, TN and VA go to opt-out as ARAWC is trying to do?

And without going into the details of each states report, it is hard to know just how much of these outcomes are related to common workers’ comp surgeries that could be provided for by outside medical facilities in other nations in the Western hemisphere?

Denying injured workers, the access to the services and providers they want or need is not a sign that everything is okay, having long-delayed return to work three years after injury is not okay, and earning less after an injury is also not okay.

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO WAKE UP OUT OF YOUR DREAMSTATES AND REALIZE THERE ARE MAJOR PROBLEMS HERE THAT ARE NOT BEING SOLVED?

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO STOP LISTENING TO PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WANT TO IMPROVE THE SYSTEM BECAUSE IT ONLY SERVES TO MAKE THEM WEALTHIER OR SOMEONE ELSE WEALTHIER?

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO REALIZE THAT AMERICAN PHYSICIANS ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN PRACTICE MEDICINE, AND MAY EVEN BE BETTER THAN THOSE HERE WHO ARE ONLY IN IT FOR THE MONEY?

No matter how many studies or reports the WCRI or NCCI, or anyone else issues, until you disavow yourselves of the notion that workers’ compensation is failing and that there are ways to fix it, it will just get worse, until one day it is no longer here for anyone.


I am willing to work with any broker, carrier, or employer interested in saving money on expensive surgeries, and to provide the best care for their injured workers or their client’s employees.

Ask me any questions you may have on how to save money on expensive surgeries under workers’ comp.

I am also looking for a partner who shares my vision of global health care for injured workers.

I am also willing to work with any health care provider, medical tourism facilitator or facility to help you take advantage of a market segment treating workers injured on the job. Workers’ compensation is going through dramatic changes, and may one day be folded into general health care. Injured workers needing surgery for compensable injuries will need to seek alternatives that provide quality medical care at lower cost to their employers. Caribbean and Latin America region preferred.

Call me for more information, next steps, or connection strategies at (561) 738-0458 or (561) 603-1685, cell. Email me at: richard_krasner@hotmail.com.

Will accept invitations to speak or attend conferences.

Connect with me on LinkedIn, check out my website, FutureComp Consulting, and follow my blog at: richardkrasner.wordpress.com.

Transforming Workers’ Comp Blog is now viewed all over the world in over 250 countries and political entities. I have published nearly 300 articles, many of them re-published in newsletters and other blogs.

Share this article, or leave a comment below.