MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W235142587

Medical Tourism: A Look at How Medical Outsourcing Can Reshape Health Care

2014· article· en· W235142587 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rebecca Bennie

Notice bibliographique

RevueTexas international law journal · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueGlobal Healthcare and Medical Tourism
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedical tourismTourismOutsourcingHealth careBusinessPublic relationsEconomic growthMarketingMedicinePolitical scienceLawEconomics
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

SUMMARYINTRODUCTION 583I. AN OVERVIEW OF MEDICAL TOURISM 584II. THE BENEFITS OF MEDICAL TOURISM 587III. THE RISKS OF MEDICAL TOURISM 591IV. THE UNKNOWN FUTURE OF MEDICAL TOURISM 594V. AUTHOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS 597A. Recommendations for the U.S. Federal and State Governments 597B. Recommendations for Employers and Insurance Providers 598C. Recommendations for Patients 598D. Recommendations for Destination Countries 599CONCLUSION 600INTRODUCTIONIn a world where millions of people face healthcare costs beyond their means or years-long waits for procedures, an increasing number of patients are traveling internationally to receive treatment. This phenomenon has been coined medical tourism.1 Medical tourism offers many benefits to the internationally traveling patient, but the inherent risks may not be fully realized. This Note will give an overview of tourism then enumerate its benefits and risks. Next, the Note will discuss some factors that may shape the future of tourism. Finally, the author will recommend actions to be taken by both home and destination countries to regulate tourism and to capitalize on the opportunities it presents.I. AN OVERVIEW OF MEDICAL TOURISMTraveling abroad to receive care is a concept that has been around since the Roman Empire.2 In recent years, however, the demographics of tourism have been changing. Until recently, tourists were mostly residents of developed countries traveling to receive inexpensive cosmetic surgery.' As the cost of healthcare began to rise in industrialized countries, particularly in the United States, the face of tourism began to change to include individuals seeking affordable and timely alternatives to surgery or treatment in their home countries.4 Today, tourism is estimated to be a USD 100 billion industry, and hundreds of thousands of patients are traveling abroad for treatment as the globalization of healthcare continues.5Howard Bye lists six reasons people seek care abroad: (1) to receive specific treatments not found in their own countries; (2) to obtain more immediate surgery or other care; (3) to receive lower-cost dental and services; (4) to get treatment not covered by their health insurance; (5) to purchase cheaper prescription drugs; and (6) to shop for procedures not approved by regulatory bodies in their home countries, such as the Food and Drug Administration.6 Medical tourists commonly seek nonemergency surgical care,7 elective cosmetic surgeries,8 fertility treatments,9 and alternative, or holistic, medicine.10While the motivations of tourists are varied, most tourists today fall within one of a few general categories. Some are from countries that ration healthcare, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, and are looking to avoid long waiting lists for treatment in their home countries. Others are uninsured or underinsured Americans, including U.S. retirees who do not yet qualify for Medicare.12 A third group is composed of middle-class Americans seeking cosmetic surgery that is not covered by their insurance or that is cheaper than their insurance deductibles.11 The final group is the affluent upper-class of developing countries, which seeks care in the United States or other developed countries in order to receive a higher quality of care than the patient-tourist would receive at home.Other ways of categorizing tourists include differentiating them based on how they pay for their care abroad and based on destination. Tourists pay one of three ways: (1) out of pocket, (2) through private insurance that has innetwork foreign providers, and (3) through government insurance that has partnered with foreign providers. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,841
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0130,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,033
Tête enseignante GPT0,408
Écart entre enseignants0,375 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations7
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueTexas international law journalMême sujetGlobal Healthcare and Medical TourismTravaux en français237 207