Check out the table below:
International Price Differentials in Medical Tourism
| Procedure | U.S. Retail Price | Insurer’s Cost | India | Thailand | Singapore |
| Angioplasty | $98, 618 | $44,268 | $11,000 | $13,000 | $13,000 |
| Heart Bypass | $210,842 | $94,277 | $10,000 | $12,000 | $20,000 |
| Heart-valve replacement | $274,395 | $122,969 | $9,500 | $10,500 | $13,000 |
| Hip replacement | $75,399 | $31,485 | $9,000 | $12,000 | $12,000 |
| Knee replacement | $69,991 | $30,358 | $8,500 | $10,000 | $13,000 |
| Gastric bypass | $82,646 | $47,735 | $11,000 | $15,000 | $15,000 |
| Spinal fusion | $108,127 | $43,576 | $5,500 | $7,000 | $9,000 |
| Mastectomy | $40,832 | $16,833 | $7,500 | $9,000 | $12,400 |
Frightening, isn’t it? Just imagine how many people have died, unable to afford the cost of a $98,000 angioplasty; alternatively, imagine the lives of the middle class citizens, fortunate enough to somehow scrounge up the extra $54,350 to save the family breadwinner’s life. Such is the tale of American healthcare.
More often than not, the blame for these costs are attributed to greedy firms, doctors, and insurance companies who care about nothing except profit, taking advantage of ill individuals for every last dime they have; however, the graph above points to an entirely different driver: regulation. After all, if it is not regulation, then we must believe that American individuals and companies are more greedy and ruthless than those in India, Thailand, and Singapore. This cannot be valid. A better argument might be that the United States healthcare industry is so highly regulated.
Of course, given its addiction to regulation, the idea of cutting back is hardly realistic. But, fortunately, Benjamin Barr and Stephen Klein do offer a somewhat hopeful solution: medical freedom zones in the United States, particularly Wyoming. Essentially defined by its terms, a medical freedom zone is an area where there is significantly less regulation on healthcare. This would have the effect of lowering the costs significantly, thereby, creating a site of medical tourism and innovation.
With little to no regulation, costs are reduced significantly. This is positive for consumers because it makes healthcare more affordable, thereby increasing a person’s chance of survival. Additionally, with lower costs come more consumers, making the area a site of medical tourism, causing increased employment and revenue for state. Prime examples of these benefits can be found in Dubai and Delaware. Having created tax-free trade zones for internet companies, Dubai “witnessed economic growth 36 times larger than its 1971 economy (Benjamin and Klein, 5).” A second example is Delaware, whose favorable legal structure has incentivized 63% of the Fortune 500 companies to house their bases within the states borders.
Additionally, by erasing most of the state and federal regulation surrounding the healthcare market, doctors, researchers and healthcare professionals would be free to innovate, creating new drugs and treatments that are often prevented by the FDA. While these protections from the FDA seek to protect consumers, they often increase deaths where the drugs would have saved the individual. In a medical freedom zone, this would be less of an issue. The authors are also quick to point out, that the major benefit of having a medical freedom zone in the United States is that the legal system is prime for protection of consumers, keeping the healthcare industry very accountable for its actions.
Overall, creating a medical freedom zone within the United States would increase the amount of available, affordable, and high quality healthcare, thus improving the situation of consumers. In posts to follow, I will explore more deeply the possible routes to medical freedom zones as proposed by Barr and Klein.
