Are surgery fees really competitive?
Yes, but the gap with foreign clinics is narrowing, according to a comparison of fees for common operations. Most minor operations in Malta cost around two-thirds of the British equivalent, while most major ones cost around 80 per cent. A gastroscopy...
Yes, but the gap with foreign clinics is narrowing, according to a comparison of fees for common operations. Most minor operations in Malta cost around two-thirds of the British equivalent, while most major ones cost around 80 per cent. A gastroscopy and surgical removal of impacted teeth cost around 60 per cent as much in Malta as in the UK but cruciate ligament reconstruction costs 37 per cent more.
However, the fees are slightly misleading as a British consultant will charge £120 for an outpatient appointment but the cost of the operation includes pre- and post- operative care, even the removal of stitches, whereas in Malta the practice is increasingly to charge extra for this care.
The competitive advantage is reinforced by the cost of the hospital stay, which is as little as 60 per cent of the British equivalent.
Of course, the fees - which were agreed with the Medical Association of Malta - also affect private health insurance in Malta. The fees have now been increased to reflect inflation, which is raising the eyebrows of the Office of Fair Trading. With insurance companies seeing their profit margins squeezed, the cost of care is under the spotlight. "The cardiac unit at St James - which does very expensive procedures that were previously only available at St Luke's - already accounts for seven per cent of all our claims, and those are not even the figures for the full year," health insurance sources said.
Sources said that most companies are trying to ensure that patients get what they are entitled to by cutting down on abuse.
"For example, a growing number of people want to have a colonoscopy as a preventive measure so they try to persuade their doctors to pretend that they have symptoms that justify the surgery," the sources said.
Another way to cut down on the waste of insurance funds is to ensure that patients go to the level of professional that is merited by the symptoms. British consultants see patients only in very serious cases and primary care doctors deal with most care. Unlike Malta, specialists would not accept a patient to self-refer to them but would insist on the primary care doctor screening them first and only referring them if necessary.
"In Malta, unfortunately, a lot of patients go to a specialist when they could be treated by a general practitioner or by a nurse. This is especially the case for gynaecology and paediatrics," the sources said. "We do sometimes query claims if we feel that the specialist was not required. "Even though people may opt for full cover they have to realise that claims are limited to fair and reasonable charges."
It will come as no surprise that the cost of drugs is forcing companies overseas to make choices they would prefer to avoid.
"How do you support the provision of the breast cancer drug Herceptin to one patient at a cost of £60,000 a year without compromising the rest of the clients? It is terrible to be put into that position. You might say that this is what insurance is all about: One person claims while the majority do not - but it has to even out over the whole client list over time. The numbers no longer add up. What will happen? Either the premiums will have to rise for everyone or insurance companies will pull out of private health insurance. Neither of those options are really what anyone would want. How do you decide?"
However, the fees are slightly misleading as a British consultant will charge £120 for an outpatient appointment but the cost of the operation includes pre- and post- operative care, even the removal of stitches, whereas in Malta the practice is increasingly to charge extra for this care.
The competitive advantage is reinforced by the cost of the hospital stay, which is as little as 60 per cent of the British equivalent.
Of course, the fees - which were agreed with the Medical Association of Malta - also affect private health insurance in Malta. The fees have now been increased to reflect inflation, which is raising the eyebrows of the Office of Fair Trading. With insurance companies seeing their profit margins squeezed, the cost of care is under the spotlight. "The cardiac unit at St James - which does very expensive procedures that were previously only available at St Luke's - already accounts for seven per cent of all our claims, and those are not even the figures for the full year," health insurance sources said.
Sources said that most companies are trying to ensure that patients get what they are entitled to by cutting down on abuse.
"For example, a growing number of people want to have a colonoscopy as a preventive measure so they try to persuade their doctors to pretend that they have symptoms that justify the surgery," the sources said.
Another way to cut down on the waste of insurance funds is to ensure that patients go to the level of professional that is merited by the symptoms. British consultants see patients only in very serious cases and primary care doctors deal with most care. Unlike Malta, specialists would not accept a patient to self-refer to them but would insist on the primary care doctor screening them first and only referring them if necessary.
"In Malta, unfortunately, a lot of patients go to a specialist when they could be treated by a general practitioner or by a nurse. This is especially the case for gynaecology and paediatrics," the sources said. "We do sometimes query claims if we feel that the specialist was not required. "Even though people may opt for full cover they have to realise that claims are limited to fair and reasonable charges."
It will come as no surprise that the cost of drugs is forcing companies overseas to make choices they would prefer to avoid.
"How do you support the provision of the breast cancer drug Herceptin to one patient at a cost of £60,000 a year without compromising the rest of the clients? It is terrible to be put into that position. You might say that this is what insurance is all about: One person claims while the majority do not - but it has to even out over the whole client list over time. The numbers no longer add up. What will happen? Either the premiums will have to rise for everyone or insurance companies will pull out of private health insurance. Neither of those options are really what anyone would want. How do you decide?"