Syndicated columnist Froma Harrop of The Providence Journal in Rhode Island writes about the “good and bad” of medical tourism in a piece that has appeared in newspapers from coast to coast over the past few days (including in The Seattle Times: Medicine through the back door.) Harrop fancies herself something of a pioneer as a medical tourist, having had Lasik ™ eye surgery in Toronto in 2000, paying about a quarter of what she would have in the United States, saving $3,000. She says that, at the time, “Canadian doctors had more experience with Lasik surgery than most of their American colleagues.”

I took 10 minutes to surf about the web and see what I could find out about traveling to Canada for eeye surgery now, in 2008. Disconcertingly, even in that small amount of time I could tell that it is very difficult to cut through the data smog I wrote about the other day. There is not a lot of concrete, objective information about getting Lasik in Canada that is immediately visible. Almost certainly, the cost difference between the U.S. and Canada has narrowed. A Canadian dollar was wotth only about 70 cents in U.S. money in 2000; today the currencies exchange at approximately 1:1.

We would love to hear from patients and Canadian ophthalmologists and eye surgeons and their patients regarding their experiences. We have heard far more in the media about Canadians traveling elsewhere for medical care, in part to avoid long wait times, than we have about Canada as a medical tourism destination. Harrop certainly had an excellent experience, eight years ago. Comments?

Harrop weighs the good and bad of medical tourism and comes convincingly and comfortably to the position that medical tourism is a net good for U.S. consumers … and a big challenge to American providers of medical care.

What does this all mean for American medical providers? It means they had better get cracking on supporting a national health-care system that insures everyone and controls costs. Clearly, they no longer have a monopoly hold on the U.S. consumer.

The medical interests are already lobbying their elected officials to make it harder for Americans to seek medical care in other lands — “for the good of patient safety,” of course. We’ve already seen the drugmakers try to stop Americans from getting cheaper prescriptions in Canada and Mexico. This doesn’t work when the price differentials are enormous.

The wiser path is to offer American consumers a better deal and let the cost of travel give domestic providers a competitive advantage. Most patients would rather have medical treatment close to home, anyway. I know I would have.