A European cross-border health directive may seem good news for UK patients. But do overseas care packages inadvertently overlook 'hidden' expenses? Jack Briggs argues treatment in the UK through a PMI policy would be better value
Last month, the European Commission announced details of a new health directive that could see the NHS paying for UK patients to be treated abroad. Under the proposal, patients would have to pay medical costs upfront but would be assured of repayment up to the level of cost of the same, or similar, treatment under their own health system. This means that patients will, in theory, be able to bypass NHS queues and alleviate any fears they may have over levels of superbug rates in UK hospitals by shopping around all 27 EU member states for treatment packages and sending the bill to the NHS.
The perceived quality and speed of treatment for elective procedures in countries such as France, Germany and Spain has made travelling abroad an increasingly attractive proposition for British people. And despite NHS waiting times having fallen, the attraction of overseas treatment now appears to rest on the perception that rates of MRSA and C. difficile in other European countries are considerably lower.
Given that patients will be able to recoup the cost of being treated overseas, many could be forgiven for never looking back. But is travelling overseas for treatment as favourable as it appears or does it warrant closer inspection?
Travel insurance, air fares, accommodation and paying for food and drink can quickly and subtly transform the overseas experience into an expensive one. These so-called 'sundry' expenses - all of which can easily multiply if people want to be supported throughout the treatment process by a loved one - cost money. Furthermore, patients may end up having to pay a premium if the overseas treatment is more expensive.
People are inadvertently being drawn in by these headline costs and may end up disappointed by the experience and out of pocket. This presents an opportunity for health insurance intermediaries as receiving treatment under a private medical insurance (PMI) policy would not only remove the need for travelling abroad for treatment, but would also allow people to manage their finances as they will know exactly what they have to pay every year rather than being hit by a significant one-off payment.
Where overseas treatment is concerned, prospective patients will be naturally keen to know whether the standard of care offered by foreign hospitals and clinics is better or worse than that in the UK. But unless people have researched the overseas hospital responsible for performing the treatment, they will have little idea about the quality of care they are likely to experience. Medical procedures bring with them their fair share of anxiety, and the last thing people want to be thinking about is finances. With PMI, that concern is almost totally removed.
Cost and convenience
In addition to cost, there is the issue of being treated where and when people need it. Anything that reduces the amount of uncertainty and apprehension experienced by someone in need of medical assistance can only be a good thing, and it is clear that people want to receive treatment quickly and are able to see a doctor or specialist in a convenient location.
But even before we extol its virtues, there is clearly still a job to be done on educating the British public about PMI. Many people perceive PMI policies to be prohibitively expensive, and a degree of ignorance still appears to exist. For example, BCWA research carried out in December 2005 has shown that three-quarters (74%) of the nation's self-employed population are unable to accurately estimate the cost of a PMI policy. In fact, more than one in 10 believe the cost exceeds £1,500, when it reality, according to Laings Healthcare Market Review 2006-2007, the actual average cost of a policy is £906. With a typical European medical procedure such as knee replacement costing in excess of £6,000, it is perhaps surprising to hear that two-thirds of Brits (65%) say they would still be prepared to pay to have this type of treatment in France, Germany and Spain.
A demand for overseas treatment clearly exists. Although the NHS works hard to ensure as many people as possible receive the treatment they need, people appear to be growing increasingly frustrated by the wait for UK NHS appointments, are fearful of hospital infections such as MRSA and C. difficile and are, as a result, considering travelling abroad for often routine operations.
According to the Financial Times, the EU spends approximately £800bn on healthcare every year. On average, Britons spend £136m a year on medical services overseas, and by the end of the decade, 200,000 'health tourists' are expected to travel abroad to see foreign medics. Research conducted by BCWA has revealed that more than half of Britons (53%) would be prepared to travel to other EU countries for medical treatment, with nearly three quarters of those (70%) saying they would do so because they are not prepared to wait for treatment in the UK. In addition, as many as 44% believe they would receive a higher standard of care and more than two thirds (38%) think there would be less likelihood of being exposed to hospital infections such as MRSA and C. difficile.
BCWA's study also looked into how far people would go to in order to fund an overseas treatment package. One in 10 said they would borrow money to do so while 7% said they would dip into their savings to cover the cost of being treated at a European hospital. A further 5% said they would borrow money from a financial institution with the same number indicating they would have no qualms about approaching friends or family for the necessary funds.
Desirable destinations
The subject of where people would like to be treated also makes interesting reading. BCWA research has shown Germany to be the EU country in which people would most prefer to be treated (60%) with France and Sweden ranked second and third (53% and 44% respectively). Only around a quarter, however, would be prepared to go to Spain and Italy (26% and 25%), while just three per cent said they would trust Romanian medics to provide them with the appropriate level of care.
Specialist PMI intermediaries understand the individual needs of a customer and can advise them on the most suitable healthcare arrangements and products to meet these requirements. British people need to be made aware that travelling overseas for medical attention is unnecessary because the treatment can be carried out at a lower cost in the UK, enabling people to save money, receive treatment quickly and see a doctor or specialist in a convenient location. More people opting for treatment via a PMI policy also provides brokers with an additional and potentially significant income stream.
More customers on PMI schemes is good news, not just for the industry, but for the nation as a whole. A greater insured population has a positive impact on bed occupancy rates, sharing the fixed costs of hospital treatment among a greater number of patients. Many people perceive PMI to be expensive, but travelling abroad for treatment is likely to make a far more significant dent in people's savings. It is in the industry's best interests to make people aware of this.
Jack Briggs, sales and marketing director at BCWA.
