Six common assumptions robbing HR benefit managers of big medical travel savings.

When I first began talking with HR professionals about medical travel options, the major reason given for not implementing a medical travel program was that "there isn't enough patient experience yet."  

That was ten years ago.  Now, with several hundred corporate surgeries facilitated by our program, our patient experience data proves that the IndUShealth global health option outperforms the local hospital and surgeon.  The employers save tens of thousands per surgery, and the employee not only has greater satisfaction with the entire travel experience, but they get back to work faster and put a windfall of incentive cash into their pockets.  

So why has adoption of these travel programs been so slow?  Here are some of the top reasons ...

6.  "I have too much on my plate during open enrollment, and don't have time to consider a new program this year"

There is a certain ebb and flow with launching new benefit programs.  Our medical travel benefit does not need to be launched within the ridged HR benefit calendar.  Because our program requires no up front costs, it can be easily launched as trial benefit, to confirm there is employee interest.

5.  "I don't have time to manage a medical travel program"

This is a very real concern for an HR department considering a medical travel program.  Health benefits are challenging enough, without the added burden of air travel and logistics.  Considering the myriad of tasks and continuous monitoring it requires for a successful program, a medical travel facilitator must have the capability to take care of everything.  The HR exec should have a real-time portal to the program, that shows the health and travel details of every patient in the system, and not have to worry that the all the details are not being attended to.

4.  "My TPA can't/won't provide historical costs per employee, so I can't figure out how much we will save"

It's a reasonable question to ask what sort of financial return a medical travel program will have.  Many employers are surprised to find out how difficult it is to get their own TPAs to answer some very simple questions like, "how much did we spend on hip replacements last year?"  We have become very adept at helping our customers sift thru their own data to estimate the savings, so an ROI calculation is not dependent on the enthusiasm of the TPA. 

3.  "There is not much difference between global medical travel administrators/facilitators"

As with many nascent industries, it is much easier to copy content and launch web sites than to innovate and solve real business challenges.  How many surgeries have been completed, and with what results?  How much have the customers saved?  How many years has the company been in business?  Is there a real-time patient management system supporting the process?  

2.  "Our company will assume greater risk with a medical travel program than with surgery at the local hospital"

We have been ingrained by the $1.3 trillion US healthcare industry for decades to believe that our healthcare system is the best in the world.  And while we do have the best doctors and best hospitals...they are certainly not evenly distributed, and your employees may not have access to them.  Unfortunately, there are many employers who are geographically located near underperforming and expensive health care systems. 

Isn't it about time the local hospital experience a slice of the same global competition that your company deals with every day?

Consider the differences between a local surgery and medical travel:

• The employee has self selected themselves as someone who wants to travel
• The prospective medical travel patient's surgery has been evaluated not only by his local surgeon, but also the IndUShealth patient services nurse, the IndUShealth physician MD, and the surgeon contemplating the surgery.  Far more resources are expended in making sure this patient is an ideal candidate for medical travel, and receives a far higher level of scrutiny than a local surgery.
• The patient is received by professionals skilled at meeting the needs of the medical traveller, with specialized nursing, rehab and concierge services.
• The patient remains in the care setting for far longer than their US counterparts.  This leads to a focus on complete healing, not fragmented care.

Based on our experience, I believe the claim can be made that in many situations, there is a higher risk for surgery at a local hospital, than the distant, high value, lower cost option.

1.  "I doubt our employees will want to travel for surgery"

Not asking employees is perhaps the most expensive assumption I have seen.  Ask them...

"Would you like to take a companion, travel for surgery to a destination with fantastic patient outcomes and put $5,000 in your pocket...or pay $3,000 for the local hospital?"

Written by

Tom Keesling