Thursday, August 28, 2008

medicaltourism.com ......going, going gone?


What's a domain name worth? Especially in the growth business of medical tourism.

The Medical Tourism Association (of which my Company is a member) has recently announced that it is handling the sale of the domain name medicaltourism.com, on a commission basis. A reserve price of around $100,000 has been put on the sale.

Which raises the question of how you value a domain name and what is one actually worth?

The domain medicaltourism.com was originally owned by Sparrow Mahoney, who ventured into medical tourism after experiencing low cost surgery in Croatia after a car accident. Sparrow has now flown the medical tourism roost.The domain has been bought by a third party looking to make a fast buck.

Here’s a few recent domain sale prices in the health sector:
  • healthstore.com $27,500
  • healthcaresolutions.com $10,700
  • healthinsurer.com $4,595
  • healthglobal.com $2,700

So, would you pay $100,000 for medicaltourism.com?

There is certainly some value in the domain name.The words within a domain name can influence Google rankings, but it's certainly not a major factor. There's value in a domain name if it's associated with a strong brand or an existing web presence.

With regard to medicaltourism.com:

Bidding will take place at the World Medical Tourism and Global Health Congress in San Francisco in September.

Any offers?

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

EU Directive on cross border healthcare boosts health tourism

After a six month delay, the EU Proposal for a Directive on patient’s rights in cross border healthcare has finally been released. It provides an added stimulus to the already growing number of medical tourists who seek hospital treatment elsewhere in the European Union. Its aim is to create a formal framework for cross border healthcare and remove the obstacles that patients face if they wish to travel for treatment in other EU countries.


I'll attempt to answer some of the questions that people are asking about this new Directive and its impact.

Why do we need a Directive on cross border healthcare?
The Directive has come about from a desire to create a European market in healthcare, and to some extent as a result of European Court judgements which have upheld the rights of patients to gain reimbursement for treatment in other countries where they have been subject to "undue delay" in their own country.

What does it cover?
The Directive proposes a number of developments in cross border healthcare, including reimbursement of medical tourists, patient safety and quality issues, European cooperation on healthcare, assessment of new medical technology and standards for e-health and transfer of patient information between member states.

How will it affect UK NHS patients?
In April this year, NHS patient choice in the UK was extended, giving patients the right to opt for treatment anywhere in the UK. The Directive, in effect, extends this patient choice to anywhere in the EU, provided that the treatment is available at a cost which is the same or lower than the NHS cost.

Under the Directive, the NHS will be requested to establish a direct payment or reimbursement system. This means that patients will not have to fund the treatment and then claim the cost back from the NHS. They will have to fund their travel and accommodation costs. No prior approval is required from the NHS or the patient's primary care trust.

It doesn't mean that patients in the UK or elsewhere in the EU can opt for treatments overseas that are not covered by the NHS. So, if a new drug or a new procedure is available in another country, the patient cannot obtain payment for this.

How many patients will opt for treatment abroad?
Who knows? Patients may decide to travel abroad because:

  • Surgeons and hospitals with better results for their treatment may be available elsewhere in Europe.
  • Hospital infection rates may be lower in other European countries.
  • Faster treatment may be available elsewhere.

It is worth noting that:

  • There is no requirement for the patient to be suffering "undue delay" in treatment.
  • The patient will need a referal from a GP.
  • Patients cannot jump the waiting list in other countries..... which is one reason why why we will not see large numbers of patients travelling to the UK for treatment. They will join the end of the queue of existing UK patients.
  • And since the UK is one of the most expensive healthcare providers in Europe, this will also discourage an inflow of patients from lower cost countries.

How will it affect the NHS?
It depends on how many UK patients opt for treatment abroad. If the NHS can prove that the number could be so large that it would affect the planning and funding of healthcare facilities in the UK, then it can make an application to set up a "Prior Approval" system which means that a patient would have to apply for treatment abroad. This is unlikely, I believe. It would be an admission of failure by the Government that the NHS cannot compete in a competitive European marketplace.

Overall the Directive has to be a good thing for both the NHS and UK patients. It could reduce the burden on NHS waiting lists, and offer cost savings where cheaper treatment is available elsewhere in the EU. It would also mean that NHS hospitals would face increased competition and would have to improve their performance relative to other European healthcare providers.

What else is covered by the Directive?
In addition to clarifying the position regarding medical tourism within the EU, the Directive also embraces:

  • The establishment of common principles in terms of guaranteeing patient safety and ensuring quality and continuity of care.
  • Stimulating greater European cooperation on healthcare including the establishment of “European Reference Networks” which would create a concentration of expertise, training and resources for specific diseases and health issues.
  • Establishment of a European network for the assessment of new medical technology.
  • Establishment of standards for e-health, in particular the transfer of patient information and treatment records between member states.

When will it take effect?
It's a draft directive, so it has to go through the EU mechanisms to be officially adopted as policy. But it's a part of a consultation process that's been going on for three years, so it's likely to become reality.

Good news or bad news for the medical tourism industry?
Undoubtedly, good news! It will add to the credibility of medical tourism, and will mean that people become more familiar with and confident about travelling for treatment. It will also reinforce the need for an improvement in standards and business practices in the industry. (See the Treatment Abroad Code of Practice for Medical Tourism).

Ultimately, it will result in greater patient choice and more people will choose to travel for treatment abroad.

For patients seeking treatment now who can't wait until the Directive comes into force, they can download Treatment Abroad's Guide to Medical Tourism or visit Treatment Abroad.

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Helping patients make the right choice of medical tourism service

More and more people are using online reviews to make decisions about the products and service that they buy. Consumers worldwide want to hear from “people like me” before they make a decision about which product or service to buy. TripAdvisor has become the first place that many people visit when they are planning a holiday or booking a hotel.

So, would medical tourists benefit from hearing about the experiences of other people who have travelled abroad for treatment? Undoubtedly, Yes!.

The web is now the first place that people look to research hospitals and clinics online before they decide where to go. Choosing a doctor, operation, or hospital, is a big decision, and the more opinions a patient can gather, the more secure they feel with their ultimate choice.

The philosophy of our online business is "helping patients to make the right choice". That's why we've just launched Treatment Abroad Ratings and Reviews to provide patients with the “word of mouth” that will help them to make the right choice of medical tourism service, hospital or clinic. We know from other areas of industry that:
  • 63% of consumers are more likely to purchase from a supplier, if it has ratings and reviews.
  • 77% of online shoppers use reviews and ratings when purchasing.
  • 82% of those who read reviews say that their purchasing decisions are directly influenced by those reviews.

But how much trust can people put in reviews of such services? A medical tourism agency, hospital or clinic, doctor or dentist may be tempted to either:

  • Create a fake review to promote their own service.
  • Create a fake review to damage a competitor’s reputation.

We have chosen BazaarVoice as the partner for our Ratings and Reviews system because of their ability to identify fake reviews through the algorithms they run on review submissions, the tracking of IP addresses of reviewers, the validation of email addresses, and BazaarVoice’s experience of moderating thousands of reviews for major clients every month.

We have also warned clients and healthcare providers that any attempt to bias our reviews service will result in immediate removal of all review content.

We'll see how Treatment Abroad Ratings and Reviews develops over the coming months. But we're sure it will help potential medical tourists to differentiate between the good and bad in terms of medical tourism service providers.

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

McKinsey and the medical tourism numbers game...

According to a new report on medical tourism from McKinsey (login required):
  • "Between 60,000 and 85,000 people annually travel abroad for inpatient hospital care, a number.....far lower than commonly assumed".

According to the Wall Street Journal:

  • ... the McKinsey report "contrasts sharply" with common assumptions and with figures often used by those who market medical tourism. "There's been an enormous amount of hype" regarding people traveling abroad to receive necessary procedures at a lower cost, Mango (from McKinsey) said.

So what are we to make of this "authoritative" report.....?

One industry insider who has compiled a comprehensive review of medical tourism suggests:

  • "The McKinsey figures are nonsensical......looking just at figures from Asia for travellers from Asia and the Gulf, they are way way out."

One problem with the McKinsey data is that it relies heavily on government statistics, and few governments record medical travel. Even where figures are collected then they do not include home nationals who work overseas going back for treatment, or US and other residents returning to a country of origin for treatment.

It's also a strange method of counting medical tourists, if you decide to leave out:

  • people travelling across borders for treatment, which would include UK to France or Belgium, Canada to the US, the US to Mexico, Mexico to the US , China to Taiwan or Hong Kong, central Africa to South Africa , Ireland to the UK, etc etc.
  • people travelling back to their homeland for treatment.
  • people travelling to the homeland of their parents/grandparents
  • expatriates working overseas
  • people who decide to mix travel and treatment eg UK travellers to Spain, South Africa
  • people who mix business travel and treatment
  • people who live in two countries eg UK and Spain
  • And..all outpatients

Other oddities...

If they reckon the number of medical tourists are 60,000 to 85,000 worldwide, how does this stack up against other reported data:

  • 70,000 - 100,000 UK medical tourists (from our own Treatment Abroad medical tourism research and the UK International Passenger Survey data)
  • Last year, 92,000 patients from the UAE visited the Philippines.
  • One dental clinic alone in Budapest that is treating over 4,000 patients from abroad each year.
  • 10,000 visitors to Korea last year for medical treatment, according to the Korean Tourism Organisation.
  • Singapore Tourism Board says 555,000 tourists received medical treatment in 2006.

And overall... it is a little strange to say that someone travelling overseas for a hip operation is a medical tourist, but someone travelling for a dental extraction or cosmetic surgery is not.

Whatever the real numbers are, McKinsey did conclude:

  • "Medical travel is a highly relevant market ........ The acceleration of unsustainable health care costs in many developed economies, the advent of advanced technologies in just a few locations, and the increasing concentration of wealth in developing economies are only a few of the factors fueling it. Over the next couple of decades, these trends may largely dispel the idea that health care is a purely local service"

So... good news for the medical travel industry!

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

A code of practice for medical tourism

At Treatment Abroad, we have introduced the first medical tourism code of practice for healthcare providers. The "Code of Practice for Medical Tourism" aims to encourage best practice in medical tourism through a commitment by healthcare providers overseas to a voluntary code of practice.

The standards of business practice and customer service in the medical tourism indutry are variable. But having said that ...they are probably much higher than many critics of the industry suggest. (In our recent survey of 650 medical tourists, 97 per cent of patients said they would be willing to travel abroad for treatment again).

The Code is an opportunity for agencies and healthcare providers to reassure patients considering overseas treatment that they are adopting best practice.

If the medical tourism industry continues to grow, it needs to adopt some common standards and best practices. Hence the Code of Practice for Medical Tourism. Healthcare providers and agencies who sign up to the Code will be identified as adopting a “best practice for medical tourism” and will be recognised on http://www.treatmentabroad.com/.

In addition providers who are approved will be able to display the Treatment Abroad accreditation mark on their website and patients will be able to access accreditation details online.
In order to receive accreditation, organisations are asked to demonstrate best practice in a number of areas covering provision of information, the patient experience and contractual terms, conditions and guarantees. The application will be reviewed by an independent consultant.
We believe that this is a positive step for the industry and offers a chance for providers to demonstrate their commitment to best practice in dealing with patients from overseas.

Further information about the Code of Practice for Medical Tourism is available at:www.treatmentabroad.com/medical-tourism/code-of-practice

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Do concerns about MRSA and hospital infection drive patients abroad?

Medical tourists who travel abroad for treatment, don't just do it to save money. In our soon to be published "Medical Tourism Survey", 56% of the respondents who went for elective surgery abroad said that worries about the risk of MRSA/hospital infection in NHS hospitals were a "Very Important" or "Quite Important" factor.

According to the Health Protection Agency's latest data, there was an 18 per cent drop in cases of MRSA in England from July to September compared to the previous quarter (April to June). This is a drop of about 230 cases per quarter. however, there were still 1,072 cases reported in England during July to September 2007 .

The latest C. difficile figures show that there were 10,734 cases in patients aged 65 years and over in England, reported in the third quarter of 2007. This is a 21% decrease on the previous quarter. In patients between 2 and 64 years of age, 2,496 C. difficile cases were reported in the third quarter of 2007.

So.... there is some indication that the NHS is having some success in improving its poor reputation for hospital infection. But there's an awfully long way to go. The UK is way behind countries such as Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Czech Republic and Spain in controlling MRSA and hospital infection rates. (See MRSA statistics in UK and Europe).

Until the NHS can reduce hospital infection rates to a minimal level, patient concerns will continue to be a factor in why people choose treatment in private hospitals in the UK or treatment abroad.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

EU Cross-border Healthcare Directive delayed

According to EurActiv, an independent media portal dedicated to EU affairs, the EU Cross-border Healthcare Directive which intends to lift restrictions on patients travelling for treatment in other EU countries could be either redrafted, withdrawn or downgraded.

The EU Cross-border Healthcare Directive has taken a couple of years to develop and was scheduled to go public on December 17th 2007. It became the main UK news story of the day (the EU had leaked early copies of the Directive to the media). But by midday, the EU had decided not to publish the Directive and announced a delay of 4 weeks or so in publication due to "agenda issues".

Methinks...that some governments including the UK were not too happy about the implications of the Directive and how it might place their own health system in a bad light as they became "exporters" of patients.

EurActiv believes that the Commission has been asked to redraft the Directive.

A representative of a medical stakeholders' organisation told EurActiv:

"This is an issue between the rich and poor EU member state. Health care costs vary widely across the EU, so it would be easier for rich countries to reimburse cheaper care abroad than for poor countries to reimburse their nationals seeking expensive care in wealthier countries."
According to a Commission spokeswoman, the proposal is still scheduled for publication at the "beginning of 2008".