GP is probably referencing a meme in UK politics — there is a widespread beleif that health tourism is responsible for everything wrong with the NHS. (It isn’t yet responsible: was recently estimated to cost 0.3% of the NHS budget [1], and before anyone points out that future costs of this to the taxpayers don’t depend on current costs to the taxpayers, the NHS bills tourists [2] — however, it may still be good to be a health tourist from the USA, as even at the 150% rate for visitors without insurance I would expect it to be cheaper than the USA for many things).
US patients might in fact still find it cheaper to even fly out to use private UK hospitals in some instances, and many of those private hospitals in turn rent operating theatre capacity etc. from NHS as needed, even thought both the private hospital and the NHS is profiting on it.
Health tourism, or retired pensioners who moved there permanently?
(I’ll grant that some of the “some” who say this sort of thing seem to have difficulty drawing the right distinctions between such groups. At least two have angrily denied my examples of my brother and my girlfriend going from the UK to the Philippines and Hungary respectively for cheaper dental work).
Many countries have arranged to do just that because they make a profit from it. The popular medical tourism desitinations provide world class care at a fraction of the cost of the same or inferior care in the US. The medical tourists pay cash on delivery. The providers make handsome profits, despite charging substantially less. Lots of factors behind why it works. Mostly rooted in market forces.
Not for free, but the UK's NHS for example are allowed to operate private clinics and some NHS trusts derive substantial extra income from that as a means to alleviate funding shortfalls while making better use of spare capacity.
