One of the world’s most respected journals, The Economist, suggests this week that Medical Tourism is the proverbial tide that lifts all boats. In an article headlined “Importing Competition,” the magazine says the “coming boom in medical travel could help both rich and poor.”

By “rich,” they mean the United States and the developed economies of the west — not wealthy individuals. By “poor,” they mean the Latin American, Asian, Eastern European and African countries that are becoming medical tourism destinations.

The argument in “poor” countries against medical tourism is that providing private medical infrastructure for foreign patients will divert resources from improving health care locally. But The Economist asserts:

But the private sector cannot be blamed for the failings of state-run health bureaucracies in developing countries, which neglected the poor long before medical tourists arrived. And the foreigners’ arrival could improve things in developing countries, for the poor as well as the rich. Although the hospitals that cater to medical tourists will of course employ local staff, they will also create jobs, tempt home émigré doctors and nurses, encourage locals to train as medics, spread know-how and treat local people.

An argument against medical tourism from the point of view of the “rich” is that the United States (for example) needs to focus on cutting costs and improving efficiency of its own healthcare system rather than having patients go overseas. The Economist suggests that medical tourism is part of the solution, not part of the problem:

The flight of America’s “medical refugees” is indeed a symptom of a troubled health system back home. Yet medical tourism need not be a distraction from necessary reforms, but could be a catalyst to them. The prospect of losing revenues to India or Thailand is already shocking hospital administrators and insurers into raising standards, increasing price transparency and lowering costs. It may even bring the growing political pressure for reform to a head.

The editorial comment from the magazine went hand-in-hand with a another article about medical travel headlined:Operating Profit. I’ll address the implications of that piece in a separate post.