Category Archives: Self-insured

Trumpcare and Medical Travel: What Will Happen

The following infographic shows what will happen to the US healthcare system when the Senate rams the ACHA down our throats, as many are indicating will occur because McConnell and a group of GOP Men are hiding behind closed doors and won’t even tell their own party what’s in the bill they are writing.

What this will mean for medical travel is not hard to figure out. For some, it will offer an opportunity to seek lower cost medical care due to premiums that will increase and costs rising as well.

This will be especially true for self-insured employers who will want to save money by offering this to their employees.

Here is the infographic:

fa97feb3-c0f5-4fdb-9c79-6cfe82add29e-original

Advertisements

Fam Tours for Self-Insured Employers

The subject of medical travel for self-insured employers is one that this blog has rarely discussed from the point of view of the medical travel facility.

Previous posts here have discussed a possible scenario for medical travel by self-insured employers under workers’ comp, the experience of one company that did so for its employees under their group health plan, and why self-insured employers are failing to adopt medical travel, as well as other posts that briefly mentioned self-insured employers.

Yet, at no time has this reviewer, in the position of content writer, ever discussed how the medical travel facilities can market their services to potential self-insured customers.

A new book by Maria Todd, her sixteenth in fact, does exactly that. Organizing Medical Tourism Site Inspections for Self-Insured Employers is a well-written manual for medical travel facilities seeking to highlight the services they offer by hosting site inspections, or more colloquially known as “fam tours,” or familiarizing tours.

Note: This writer had participated in only one fam tour to medical facilities when I spoke at a medical tourism conference in Mexico in 2014.

Knowing the Customer

Dr. Todd’s book focuses on the ways medical travel facilities can know their customers by knowing which self-insured employers are more likely to develop a medical travel program for their plan beneficiaries, and the criteria the Plan Administrators will look for to engage their services and the conditions under which such travel is possible.

One example given is if flying time to a medical tourism destination is less than three hours by plane. For American workers, who have US passports, longer distances would eliminate travel to parts of Asia, the Middle East, parts of South America, and Russia. Such locations would be possible if the employees were working there or nearby, and they were the closest facilities available.

She also discusses what will attract multinational employers who have workers around the world to select facilities that can handle industrial accidents, as well as general health and rehabilitative services. Some employers may be self-insured for their domestic employees, but purchase an insurance cover called an International Private Medical Insurance, or “IPMI.”

Selling Solutions

To educate hospital executives and managers on how to sell solutions to Plan Administrators, Dr. Todd includes a chapter on a topic she says executives and managers often do not consider important.

The chapter focuses on what not to say or do when conducting a site inspection. You, as the seller might consider certain areas of your facility important to highlight, or is one that you take pride in, but may not be something your guests are particularly interested in.

One such area is Accreditation. Not knowing abbreviations for accrediting organizations such as the Joint Commission International (JCI), or what the big deal is about accreditation, is something the executives and managers need to be aware of beforehand and to be prepared to explain why it is important.

Proper accreditation will go a long way to ease their minds over deciding to use that facility, and being presented with an unfamiliar or disreputable accreditor, or one whose certificates are not worth the paper they are printed on, is something to be aware of also.

Another area of concern when hosting a site inspection is scientific presentations. It is quite possible that some of your guests may be physicians and nurses who will benefit from seeing such presentations, but for those Plan Administrators who are not medical personnel, such tours maybe considerably boring, if not completely too technical for them to comprehend.

Technology Tours

A similar mistake made is taking business-focused guests to see the technology the facility has installed and uses. Dr. Todd recommends they create a spreadsheet of the expensive equipment they have and write a short blurb about each.

Her main point is this: Plan Administrators are seeking three things: transparency, good value, and superb, culturally-sensitive customer service.

Other areas to avoid on Fam tours

The Emergency Department, laboratory, radiology and imaging department, cardiac catheterization lab, and the PET/CT, and PACU’s are a waste of time, per Dr. Todd, and may even disturb the patient’s privacy and recovery.

Final five chapters

The final five chapters deal with developing relationships, the contracting and provider network criteria (where to get preliminary data, contract terms and payment agreements, and avoiding payment hassles with the right language), the basics of ERISA (ERISA fiduciary responsibilities, self-insurance plan sponsorship not limited to the US, and government employers pay for healthcare services outside of their countries), how to prepare for site inspections, and lastly, rate proposals.

Closing

Dr. Todd’s book is a must for any self-insured employer considering a medical travel program for their beneficiaries. For those employers who self-insure for general health care, this book provides them with the knowledge they need to have to explore doing so. For those self-insured employers who self-insure for workers’ comp, this too is an important book.

The likelihood that the Affordable Care Act will be repealed or replaced, with something worse, or with nothing at all, grows stronger every day now. Once that happens, premiums will rise, and alternatives such as medical travel will seem much more plausible and cost-effective.

While this book was written from the perspective of the seller of healthcare services, purchasers of such services, either domestically or internationally, can benefit from reading it. Not knowing what to look for will only cost you time and money and be harmful to the health of your plan and your employees. I highly recommend this book to you.

Self-Insured Employers Fail To Adopt Medical Travel

When I began my writing, one of the ways I saw medical travel could be implemented into workers’ comp was through employers who self-insure.

There are not that many companies who do self-insure for several reasons, one of which is the administrative costs and extra hoops they would have to go through just to get approval from state regulators to be self-insured. This is something most small employers will not do. More on what I think about this later.

Today, Irving Stackpole, President of Stackpole & Associates (a LinkedIn connection of mine), wrote an article in the International Medical Tourism Journal (IMTJ) about why US employers have failed to adopt medical travel benefits.

For the sake of transparency and honesty, I have never met Irving, but have had discussions with him a few times on LinkedIn in some of the groups we have in common. I have met his co-host of his radio show, Elizabeth Ziemba, when we both attended the 5th Medical Tourism and Wellness Business Summit in Reynosa, Mexico in November 2014.

In his article, Irving mentions that while some small employers such as HSM (who I have written about in earlier posts), Hannaford Supermarkets, the Casino and Hotel of the Blue Lake Rancheria Tribe in Northern California, and IDMI Systems have added medical travel to their health plans, he does not know of any large employers who have.

When I attended the 5th World Medical Tourism & Global Healthcare Congress in 2012, large employers such as Disney Institute, American Express, and Google sent representatives to speak at the Congress. If they attended, then surely their companies must be involved in some degree with medical travel? What did they discuss? Certainly not the weather (Hurricane Sandy was right outside the hotel).

But I digress, yet again.

According to Irving, six percent of firms offering fully-insured plans reported that they intend to self-insure because of the ACA. So, he is correct in that not many companies are self-insured.

However, Irving also states that it is estimated that the average self-funded plan covers between 300-400 employees, and that 59% of them in the US self-fund as part of their health plan.

And he goes on to say that many small companies are looking to self-fund to reduce their share of the cost burden, but that because small employers are not able to assume the same risk levels, stop loss rates are rising. This pressure, he adds will serve as a limitation on the expansion of self-funded health insurance into the smaller market.

Irving concludes that there are four reason why large self-insured companies would add an additional medical travel benefit to their insurance plans:

  • Current implementation of the ACA has distracted or absorbed attention of insurance markets, including self-insured companies. Many companies are wrestling with far issues of how many employees will be included/excluded, potential penalties, and avoiding fines under the ACA;
  • Self-insured plans are exempt from many of the more costly and burdensome requirements of the ACA as long as they don’t make significant changes, therefore they are careful about keeping their plans unchanged;
  • Reinsurance, or stop loss coverage may be limited for plans offering a medical travel benefit, and;
  • There is no history of outcomes , evidence or actuarial models to support the case among employers for a disruptive change such as international medical travel. Reports suggesting cost savings and quality outcomes are not yet supported by evidence.

One other factor Irving suggests as to why many employers have avoided medical travel is because many find it necessary to contract with a third party administrator (TPA) to collect premiums, manage membership enrollment, claims adjudication and payment. These TPA’s are sometimes referred to as providing “Administrative Services Only” contracts or “ASO” contracts, where they provide typical third party administration services, but assume no risk for claims payment.

Because of these contracts, Irving says that while economic logic suggests that self-funded employers should be interested in high quality, lower cost destinations, it is necessary to convince both the benefits manager and the TPA/ASO  of the value of being a destination provider, and the low risk associated with accessing international medical travel.

Okay, now it’s my turn.

“Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they’ve been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It’s an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It’s a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing.”

Muhammad Ali

While everything Irving wrote about appears to be factually true at the moment, and I cannot dispute what he says, the fact that employers have been unwilling to pursue medical travel is more complicated than the reasons he gives above.

True, the ACA has many things in it that may or may not seriously impact health care and the health insurance industry, but what he does not mention is that many of the things holding employers back pre-date the enactment of the ACA, and are more concerned with keeping health care the purview of those along the supply chain who profit the most from the system we have created, and not concerned with providing people either under health insurance or workers’ comp, with the best medical care possible, at the lowest cost, no matter where it comes from.

TPA’s and ASO’s and ERISA, and many other mechanisms such as stop loss insurance, and risk avoidance, etc., are mere barriers to the implementation of medical travel into both health care and workers’ comp.

Using my oft-time quoted analogy of going to the Moon, imagine if the baby steps we took to get there such as the Mercury, Gemini and early Apollo programs were not baby steps to the Moon, but actually barriers set up so that we are thwarted every step of the way to getting there or to go even further, such as landing humans on Mars. Don’t you think there would be people just like Irving who would say that it cannot happen?

That is why I quoted the late Muhammad Ali. For a poor black kid from Louisville, he sure had a better understanding of what can be than most folks who did not grow up like he did.

But this does not let the medical travel industry off the hook. I said so in my post, “Ensuring Patient Safety: Making Sure Medical Tourism Puts Its Money Where Its Mouth Is“.

But it is not just the industry itself that needs to come clean. Foreign governments and their travel ministries, the medical travel facilities, the providers, and the facilitators must present hard evidence that better quality and lower cost is possible, and so that when some of the dire predictions of the impact of the ACA are fully realized, or the US health care system collapses of its own weight (see my post, “Colorado “Single Payer” in Health Care Industry’s Sights“), medical travel as an alternative will become more acceptable to US employers, large and small, and not just for health care, but for workers’ comp as well.


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.

Follow-up to Employee/Employer Choice: Three Years Later

Not that long ago, Michael Grabell of ProPublica, and Howard Berkes of NPR, published a report called “The Demolition of Workers’ Compensation”.

There was much industry condemnation about the report, and my fellow blogger, Joe Paduda, tried to set the record straight, but got nowhere.

I managed to write to Michael and corrected him on the issue of choice of treating physician, which I covered in these two articles: “Employee vs Employer Choice of Physician: How best to Incorporate Medical Tourism into Workers’ Compensation” and “Employee vs. Employer Choice of Physician Revisited: Additional Commentary on How Best to Incorporate Medical Tourism into Workers’ Compensation“.

I sent Michael all of my research and I think he was convinced that employees had more choice, it was just a matter of what options they had, given each state’s workers’ comp laws.

One of the sources I used back then, and today was a joint publication between the WCRI and the IAIABC,”Workers’ Compensation Laws As of January 1, 2016”, which can be purchased here.

Here is my version of their Table 3:

pic10

Notes: * Employee may seek reasonable care on his or her own at employer’s expense
** Can allow worker to select then other party may choose to direct it for next 60 days
*** Employee for non-network claims, any willing provider; network claims, from list by network
**** Employer may have on-site medical provider that employees must see first, then employee can select

But as you will notice, the far left column has the most number of states where the employees can choose their treating physicians, although some do have certain circumstances where the employer has the choice, or there are conditions that must be met.

Relying on the US Chamber of Commerce, as Michael told me he did, does not get you the right data. Using the statutes and laws themselves is the only way to know what is permitted and what is not permitted. And the employee for the most part, does have a say in his or her care.


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’ Blog is now viewed all over the world in 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.

“Florida, We Have a Problem”

Tuesday, Judge David Langham, Deputy Chief Judge of Compensation Claims for the Florida Office of Judges of Compensation Claims and Division of Administrative Hearings, wrote a rather lengthy post about the differences between cost-shifting and case-shifting in workers’ comp.

Much of what the Judge wrote were subjects that I already discussed in a number of previous posts about cost-shifting and case-shifting, so I won’t go into it here. I am only focusing on the parts that relate to Florida workers’ comp. You can read the entire article yourselves.

But what caught my attention was what he said about Florida and what the Workers’ Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) reported in some of their studies on these issues.

As Judge Langham wrote this week, he wrote a post two years ago that asked the question “Why Does Surgery Cost Double in Workers’ Compensation?”

Judge Langham noted in that post that Florida employers have been documented paying almost double for shoulder or knee surgery that is paid for under workers’ compensation, compared to group health costs.

The implication of case-shifting in Florida, he says, could arguably be a doubling of cost.

He cited a WCRI report released earlier this year that suggests however that case-shifting is perhaps not as likely in Florida.

According to the report, Judge Langham continues, “as of July 2011, six states had workers’ comp medical fee schedules with rates within 15% of Medicare rates. They were California, Massachusetts, Florida, North Carolina, New York and Hawaii.”

However, Judge Langham pointed out that the WCRI concluded that case-shifting is more likely in states where the workers’ compensation fee schedule is 20% or more above the group health rates, and not in Florida.

Judge Langham stated that this analysis of workers’ compensation fee schedules does not appear to include analysis of the reimbursement rates for hospitals, and that It also seems contradictory to the assertions that Florida workers’ compensation costs for various surgeries have been documented as roughly double the group health rates (100% higher, not 15% higher).

Injured workers who missed work in the Florida workers’ compensation system could be compensated in 2016 at a rate as high as $862.51 per week, the “maximum compensation rate.”

So, if recovery from such a “soft-tissue” injury required ten weeks off-work, he wrote, the case-shifting to workers’ compensation might add another four to nine thousand dollars to the already doubled cost of surgical repair under workers’ compensation.

This could be directly borne by the employer if the employer is self-insured for workers’ compensation; or, if the employer has purchased workers’ compensation insurance, the effect on the employer would be indirect in the form of potentially increased premium costs for workers’ compensation following such events and payments, Judge Langham states.

According to WCRI, the Judge quotes, “policymakers have always focused on the impact (workers’ compensation) fee schedules have on access to care as well as utilization of services.

This has been a two-part analysis, he says:

First, fee schedules have to be sufficient such that physicians are willing to provide care in the workers’ compensation system; and second, the reimbursement cannot be too high, or perhaps overutilization is encouraged.

Lastly, Judge Langham points out that the disparity between costs has also been noted in discussions of “medical tourism.”

The last question he posits is this, “might medical decision makers direct care to more efficient providers, across town, across state lines?”

What about national borders?


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’ Blog is now viewed all over the world in 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.

Satori Files For Bankruptcy: What that Means for Medical Travel

As reported last month by US Domestic Medical Travel.com, Satori World Medical, Inc., a company based in San Diego, filed for bankruptcy.

When news of this story broke, I inquired with my contact at US Domestic Medical Travel.com to learn what this meant for the patent Satori had taken out that had a chokehold on the growth and development of the medical travel sector, both domestic and international.

Her reply was that she was not sure, so I looked up what happens when a company goes bankrupt. Most of the information concerned companies who manufactured products and what happens to the patents to those products after a bankruptcy. The gist of what I found was that they transfer to the receivers/liquidators.

But since Satori’s patent is for an idea, and not a tangible asset like manufactured goods or inventory, I doubt the receivers/liquidators for this action would be willing to take this asset. What would they do with it?

So, instead of wondering, because that may be a fruitless exercise, let’s look at what the patent was all about, what it allowed and did not allow, and then you can decide how best to model your business plan going forward.

The Satori patent, trademarked as the “Health & Shared Wealth Program”, is actually two patents; the first, U.S. Patent 8160897, titled the “Satori Integrated Health & Financial Benefits System and Method” and U.S. Patent 8224668, a Continuation-in-Part to Patent No. 8162897.

They are part of a portfolio of other patents of intellectual property that regard the calculating and sharing of the dollar savings from a medical travel health benefit. The patents provided Satori with exclusive rights to the only permissible medical shared savings model in the medical travel industry.

I know what you all are thinking, how can anyone patent an idea such as this? Isn’t this restraint of trade, you may wonder?

Well, as I am not a patent attorney, nor an intellectual property expert either, I would think not, except that was the case before the bankruptcy.

As Satori’s own website states, the Health & Shared Wealth Program supports organizations by lowering their cost structure for health benefits by providing plan members with a highly-valued benefit option at no cost to the plan sponsor or members.

The parent patent, they continue, is a system and method that calculates the savings generated when a patient selects medical care outside the US.

It waves all co-pays, deductibles, and/or co-insurance, making the selection of outbound medical care a 100% medical benefit for the patient. In addition, it shares the savings between the patient and the insurer/employer.

I want to stop here in the explanation of the patent to tell you my idea, and why this patent seems to me to be a restraint of trade issue and a virtual monopoly.

My idea was to implement medical travel into workers’ compensation in the US, and along the way, after writing my paper on the subject, and this blog, I learned from other individuals that the best way to do so was to offer an financial incentive from the savings to the claimant/patient from either his employer or insurance carrier.

At the same time, I learned from one individual, that in order for this to be advantageous, the savings had to be greater than $5,000 for medical care received outside the US. So for example, if a knee surgery in the US cost $30,000, in order to convince an employer or insurance company of the efficacy of outbound medical travel, the cost of that knee surgery would have to be $25,000 or less.

How much the claimant/patient would receive and when and how they would receive it is a matter of discussion. It could be a percentage of the savings, a flat-rate of say, $2,000 or $2,500, or come from the overall settlement of the claim, but that could take years to realize.

Returning to the patent, the Health & Shared Wealth Program, Satori states, precludes certain entities such as medical travel/medical tourism facilitators (I bet you are hoping mad at this point; I sympathize), health plans, self-funded and fully insured employers, Taft-Hartley trusts (labor unions), unions, workers’ compensation carriers (this got me mad), municipalities, pension plans, etc., from offering any shared savings model similar to the one described above to their clients and/or plan members without written permission from Satori (now you must be steaming!!!!).

So, what does this mean? If Satori is out of business, we can all take a sigh of relief that now the wicked witch of the west (Satori) is dead. What comes next is up to you. Prior to the announcement, there were ways to get around the patent’s restriction. Now, that may not be necessary.

My suggestion is get yourselves some good IP attorneys to see if you are good to go, and if you are given the green light, adjust your business model and plan accordingly. You will only benefit from the fall of the house of Satori.

 

Medical Tourism and Workers’ Comp: What’s Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander

Happy New Year everyone!

For my first post of the year, I want to re-post an article published yesterday by my fellow medical tourism blogger, Maria Maldonado of Trip4Care.

Maria has written an excellent article outlining the benefits of medical tourism for an employer’s health plan, so naturally the same can be said for workers’ comp, especially with regard to self-insured or even opt-out employers.

Here is Maria’s article in its entirety:

Medical Tourism: A Component of Your Health Insurance Plan?

Given that medical tourism is an option chosen by many to get procedures not typically covered by insurance, it may come as a surprise that medical tourism is also something that is growing in popularity as an additional health insurance benefit—especially for self-insured companies. Let’s take a look at the reasons behind this trend.

Why Employers and Health Insurers Are Opting to Add Medical Tourism to their Health Plans

There are actually quite a lot of reasons why employers and health insurers alike are opting to add medical tourism benefits to their health plans. Let’s take a look at some of these:

  • The employer saves money. This is especially true for employers who opt to “self-insure” (i.e. the employer acts as an insurer, and pays the employee medical expenses rather than providing a separate insurance plan).
    • Since many procedures can be completed internationally for a fraction of the cost of the same procedure at home (even including the cost of travel), this is one of the biggest drivers behind the trend, for both self-insured organizations and other insurers.
  • The employees get more options. Giving employees additional benefits like this can be used as a recruiting tool, helping organizations to secure talent.
  • The employees have the choice to travel– possibly at no personal cost – for some treatments, and may be able to take a vacation at the same time. The option for coupling international travel with a medical treatment can be a major benefit for some employees.
  • Technology makes this process easier than in the past. With the wealth of information available at the click of a button today, it’s easier than ever to research the procedures that are available internationally and gain trust. Additionally, there are companies like Trip4Care that can facilitate all aspects of a medical tourism trip, making administration simple for the organization.
  • Employees do not sacrifice health outcomes. Naturally, companies who opt to take this route should take care to ensure to partner with companies offering the highest standard of care. In this way, everyone benefits and costs are kept low.
  • Keeping employer costs low also benefits the employee in the form of low premiums. It stands to reason that if costs are kept low throughout the group, there will be less rationale for premium price hikes. Another win-win.
  • Keeping costs low benefits, the employee through lower shared expenses too. Whether the healthcare plan’s coinsurance is 20%, 30%, or more, it all adds up. Keeping total expenses down for the patient is beneficial for everyone. Besides the obvious cost savings, this can reduce the stress involved for employees who have to seek medical care—reducing the financial burden can relieve some of the anxiety.
  • From an employer cost-savings standpoint, another option is to pass along the travel portion of the cost to the employee. This saves the company money while still keeping costs down overall. (Obviously this is lesser of a benefit for the employee, but the employee will often still come out ahead in terms of total expenditures as compared to having the procedure at home.)
  • Adding medical tourism coverage could make providing dental care more affordable. Dental procedures are a perfect example of a procedure that can often be sought internationally for less money than at home; employers offering dental coverage can take advantage of that.
  • Treatment wait times may be shorter. In cases where an employee may be subject to a lengthy wait list for a treatment at home, medical tourism options may give the flexibility to avoid that wait list and get treatment faster. This is yet another benefit for employees and employers alike.

Self-insured companies have the flexibility to do this right away. While this trend may take some time to take hold, it’s always great news to hear that more options will be available to more patients—allowing individuals to have more choices in their healthcare.

It has been pointed out in the past that doing this for either health care or workers’ comp is too complex and too costly; but as I have said many times before, we went to the moon more than once, and that was infinitely more complex and more dangerous than sending employees to another country for medical care.

I have defended my idea in the following posts:

The Faith of My Conviction: Integrating Medical Tourism into Workers’ Compensation is Possible and is not a Pipe Dream

Clearing the Air: My Defense of Implementing Medical Tourism into Workers’ Compensation

“We’re No. 1!”, NOT! — Why the US Health Care System is Not the Best in the World and Why Implementing Medical Tourism into Workers’ Comp Could Improve Outcomes

Why Medical Tourism for Workers’ Comp is an idea whose time has come

Tell Me Again Why Medical Tourism in Workers’ Comp is a Bad Idea?

Nothing is Impossible

Paralysis by Analysis: Or the Only Thing We Have to Fear Is, Fear Itself

So when people tell me this idea is ridiculous and a non-starter, or that I have no credibility, or some other lame excuse why it won’t be considered, I go back to the points made in these seven articles above, and many others I have written that says it is possible. It’s just our lack of vision that makes it so.

The only things preventing it are the complexities of the health care or workers’ comp systems that are harming the systems, making them more expensive than they should be, people defending the status quo so that entrenched interests continue to game their respective systems to the detriment of the patient bases they service, and to those who would like to change them for the better.

We have seen this in our tax code, our politics, and many other facets of life. But it does not have to be that way. We can make things much simpler, but it requires employers, carriers and others to do so. Saying it can’t be done or it is too expensive only makes things worse.

We went to the moon; no one ever said it was too expensive to go, too complex to go, too dangerous to go. We went, and we went many times, but in the end, the naysayers and right-wing penny-pinchers who were really diverting that money into the pockets of the wealthy, shut down our space program, so that now we have to hitch rides on Russian rockets.

That’s what we get for saying it is too complex. That’s why the supercollider is in Europe and not in Texas. We have given up and given in. The world is changing, globalizing. Let’s not blow that too.

In other words, what’s good for the health care goose, should be good for the workers’ comp gander.

Here’s is the link to Maria’s article:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/medical-tourism-component-your-health-insurance-plan-maria-maldonado