Medical Tourism: A Look at How Medical Outsourcing Can Reshape Health Care
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».