BackgroundThe study examined the implications of inward and outward flows of private patients for the NHS across a range of specialties and services.ObjectivesTo generate a comprehensive documentary review; to better understand information, marketing and advertising practices; examine the magnitude and economic and health-related consequences of travel; understand decision-making frames and assessments of risk; understand treatment experience; elicit the perspectives of key stakeholder groups; and map out medical tourism development within the UK.Design and participantsThe study integrated policy analysis, desk-based work, economic analysis to estimate preliminary costs, savings and NHS revenue, and treatment case studies. The case studies involved synthesising data sources around bariatric, fertility, cosmetic, dental and diaspora examples. Overall, we drew on a mixed-methods approach of qualitative and quantitative data collection. The study was underpinned by a systematic overview and a legal and policy review. In-depth interviews were carried out with those representing professional associations, those with clinical interests and representative bodies (n = 16); businesses and employees within medical tourism (n = 18); NHS managers (n = 23); and overseas providers. We spoke to outward medical travellers (46 people across four treatment case studies: bariatric, fertility, dental and cosmetic) and also 31 individuals from UK-resident Somali and Gujarati populations.ResultsThe study found that the past decade has seen an increase in both inward and outward medical travel. Europe is both a key source of travellers to the UK and a destination for UK residents who travel for medical treatment. Inward travel often involves either expatriates or people from nations with historic ties to the UK. The economic implications of medical tourism for the NHS are not uniform. The medical tourism industry is almost entirely unregulated and this has potential risks for those travelling out of the UK. Existing information regarding medical tourism is variable and there is no authoritative and trustworthy single source of information. Those who travel for treatment are a heterogeneous group, with people of all ages spread across a range of sociodemographic groups. Medical tourists do not appear to inform their decision-making with hard information and consequently often do not consider all risks. They make use of extensive informal networks such as treatment-based or cultural groups. Motivations to travel are in line with the findings of other studies. Notably, cost is never a sole motivator and often not the primary motivation for seeking treatment abroad.LimitationsOne major limitation of the study was the abandonment of a survey of medical tourists. We sought to avoid an extremely small survey, which offers no real insight. Instead we redirected our resources to a deeper analysis of qualitative interviews, which proved remarkably fruitful. In a similar vein, the economic analysis proved more difficult and time consuming than anticipated. Data were incomplete and this inhibited the modelling of some important elements.ConclusionsIn 2010 at least 63,000 residents of the UK travelled abroad for medical treatment and at least 52,000 residents of foreign countries travelled to the UK for treatment. Inward referral and flows of international patients are shaped by clinical networks and longstanding relationships that are fostered between clinicians within sender countries and their NHS counterparts. Our research demonstrated a range of different models that providers market and by which patients travel to receive treatment. There are clearly legal uncertainties at the interface of these and clinical provision. Patients are now travelling to further or ‘new’ markets in medical tourism. Future research should: seek to better understand the medium- and long-term health and social outcomes of treatment for those who travel from the UK for medical treatment; generate more robust data that better capture the size and flows of medical travel; seek to better understand inward flows of medical travellers; gather a greater level of information on patients, including their origins, procedures and outcomes, to allow for the development of better economic costing; explore further the issues of clinical relationships and networks; and consider the importance of the NHS brand.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

No abstract

It demonstrates the importance of quality standards and holds lessons as the UK and other EU countries implement the EU Directive on cross-border care. Lifting the private-patient-cap for NHS hospitals increases potential for growth in inbound medical tourism; yet no research exists on this. Research is required on volume, cost, patient motivation, industry, and on long-term health outcomes in medical tourists.

‘Medical Tourism’ – the phenomenon of people travelling abroad to access medical treatment - has received increasing attention in academic and popular media. This paper reports findings from a study examining effect of inbound and outbound medical tourism on the UK NHS, by estimating volume of medical tourism and associated costs and benefits. A mixed methods study it includes analysis of the UK International Passenger Survey (IPS); interviews with 77 returning UK medical tourists, 63 policymakers, NHS managers and medical tourism industry actors policymakers, and a review of published literature. These informed costing of three types of treatments for which patients commonly travel abroad: fertility treatment, cosmetic and bariatric surgery. Costing of inbound tourism relied on data obtained through 28 Freedom-of-Information requests to NHS Foundation Trusts. Findings demonstrate that contrary to some popular media reports, far from being a net importer of patients, the UK is now a clear net exporter of medical travellers. In 2010, an estimated 63,000 UK residents travelled for treatment, while around 52,000 patients sought treatment in the UK. Inbound medical tourists treated as private patients within NHS facilities may be especially profitable when compared to UK private patients, yielding close to a quarter of revenue from only 7% of volume in the data examined. Costs arise where patients travel abroad and return with complications. Analysis also indicates possible savings especially in future health care and social costs averted. These are likely to be specific to procedures and conditions treated. UK medical tourism is a growing phenomenon that presents risks and opportunities to the NHS. To fully understand its implications and guide policy on issues such as NHS global activities and patient safety will require investment in further research and monitoring. Results point to likely impact of medical tourism in other universal public health systems.

The scoping review focuses on medical tourism, whereby consumers elect to travel across borders or to overseas destinations to receive their treatment. Such treatments include: cosmetic and dental surgery; cardio, orthopaedic and bariatric surgery; IVF; and organ and tissue transplantation. The review assesses the emerging focus of research evidence post-2010. The narrative review traverses discussion on medical tourism definitions and flows, consumer choice, clinical quality and outcomes, and health systems implications. Attention is drawn to gaps in the research evidence.