PRACTITIONER APPLICATION: Can Inbound and Domestic Medical Tourism Improve Your Bottom Line? Identifying the Potential of a U.S. Tourism Market
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
There is little argument that the healthcare industry continues to change at a fast rate. In fact, many healthcare organizations have had to evolve—if not reinvent themselves—to keep up with industry changes or risk being left in the wake of their competitors. At present, I see no sign of slowed momentum with healthcare reform. This means that today's healthcare administrator must become comfortable navigating unfamiliar waters and be willing to look at new sources of revenue to overcome a landscape characterized by reduced reimbursement. Fottler et al. present a market perspective that has received limited research attention. Yet, I suspect that many domestic hospitals realize the potential of attracting the medical tourist segment and have, at one point or another, created strategic initiatives to support both inbound and domestic medical tourism. As a practitioner, I have had the privilege of experiencing all forms of medical tourism described in this article, including helping to grow a successful international center for inbound medical patients in a world-class academic medical center, managing hospitals in foreign countries that provide less costly care for American patients unable or unwilling to pay for their domestic insurance copays, and overseeing a hospital in the southern United States that serves the snowbird population from Canada and the northern U.S. states. On the basis of my experience, I concur with Fottler et al.'s conclusion that these markets represent potentially significant revenue streams. In this study, the authors looked at a comprehensive data set to determine the utilization of healthcare services for a large urban healthcare system. While it is true that geographical, environmental, and individual facility (e.g., brand, reputation) factors attract medical tourists to healthcare organizations, all administrators should study their hospital admissions to determine origination patterns. Understanding current patient demographics and reviewing information from local convention and visitors bureaus may help organizations discover an untapped market for their hospital. In addition to the external marketing plan the authors describe, organizations should review internal programs to determine if changes are warranted in areas such as translation services that cover patient education. Nutritional needs and diets may also require review to ensure alignment with the patient's country of origin. Finally, hospital staff may require culture-specific training to understand patients' traditions and customs. In summary, healthcare administrators should recognize the potential that inbound and domestic medical tourism offers. While understanding why medical tourists visit certain hospitals is important, knowing the key satisfiers that grow future volume is essential. Experience suggests that facilities that formalize strategies with specific goals and established resources for inbound and domestic medical tourism outperform those facilities with unorganized approaches for this market.
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 | 0,006 | 0,001 |
| 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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 ».