Medical Tourism in Georgia: Current Barriers and Recommendations

Last reviewed: March 2026

Summary

This study examined the factors influencing the development of medical tourism in Georgia, a country situated at the crossroads of Western Asia and Eastern Europe. Using both qualitative and quantitative research methods, the investigators sought to identify the primary barriers impeding growth of the medical tourism sector and to propose actionable strategies for overcoming these obstacles. The study is among the first to systematically analyse medical tourism in the Georgian context, providing a foundation for evidence-based policy development in this emerging sector.

Background

Medical tourism — the practice of travelling across international borders to receive healthcare — has grown into a multi-billion-dollar global industry. Driven by factors including cost differentials between countries, long waiting times in home healthcare systems, availability of procedures not offered domestically, and the desire for privacy, medical tourism flows have traditionally moved from developed to developing nations. However, more recent patterns show increased regionalisation, with patients seeking care in neighbouring countries that offer cost advantages or specialised services.

Georgia presents a particularly interesting case study in medical tourism development. Following independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, the country underwent substantial healthcare system reform, transitioning from a centrally planned Semashko model to a more market-oriented system. This transformation created opportunities for private sector growth in healthcare, including the emergence of internationally competitive medical facilities. Georgia’s tourism sector more broadly has experienced rapid growth, with international visitor numbers reaching 7.5 million in 2017, growing at a compound annual rate of approximately 21.7% over the preceding decade.

The country’s competitive advantages for medical tourism include relatively low treatment costs compared to Western European or North American destinations, a favourable regulatory environment for certain services (particularly assisted reproductive technologies including commercial surrogacy), geographic accessibility for patients from neighbouring countries, and developing capacity in specialities such as cardiac surgery, dentistry, and cosmetic procedures. Despite these advantages, Georgia has not yet established itself as a prominent medical tourism destination on the global stage.

Methods

The research employed a mixed-methods approach. The qualitative component consisted of expert interviews with medical tourism stakeholders including hospital administrators, medical tourism facilitators, government officials, and healthcare providers. These interviews explored perceptions of barriers, opportunities, and strategic priorities for sector development.

The quantitative component involved a survey of medical tourists who had received treatment at a major medical centre in Tbilisi. The survey instrument was based on the Medical Outcomes Study Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (MOS PSQ-III), adapted to the Georgian context. This tool measured patient expectations and perceptions of service quality across multiple dimensions, enabling calculation of SERVQUAL gaps (the difference between perceived and expected service quality). Response data were analysed using descriptive statistics and gap analysis.

Key Results

The qualitative analysis identified five principal categories of barriers to medical tourism development in Georgia. First, policy and regulatory gaps were cited as a fundamental impediment: Georgia lacks a national strategy for medical tourism development, and there is no coordinated inter-agency approach to promoting the country as a medical tourism destination. Second, insufficient government support was highlighted, with respondents noting that medical tourism does not feature prominently in any government agenda. Third, cost-related challenges exist despite Georgia’s overall price competitiveness — specifically, the absence of standardised or transparent pricing policies across the sector creates uncertainty for prospective medical tourists. Fourth, capacity constraints include a shortage of internationally accredited facilities (only one Georgian clinic had received Joint Commission International accreditation at the time of the study) and communication difficulties arising from language barriers, particularly among nursing and support staff. Fifth, the healthcare needs of the local population create tension with medical tourism development, as resources directed toward international patients may be perceived as competing with domestic healthcare provision.

The patient satisfaction survey yielded more encouraging results. Analysis of SERVQUAL gaps revealed that, across most service quality dimensions, patients’ perceptions of actual service quality exceeded their prior expectations. The majority of respondents reported high overall satisfaction, with mean scores above 4 on a 5-point Likert scale. This finding suggests that while structural and systemic barriers exist, the quality of clinical care delivered to medical tourists who do reach Georgian facilities is competitive.

The study also mapped the geographic origins of medical tourists to Georgia, finding that the majority came from neighbouring post-Soviet nations including Azerbaijan, Chechnya, North Ossetia, and Ingushetia, with growing numbers from Central Asian countries such as Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. For assisted reproductive services, the geographic profile was markedly different and more international, with patients arriving from China (23%), the United States (15%), Israel (14%), Sweden (7%), Australia (4%), and India (4%).

Discussion and Recommendations

The authors proposed a multi-pronged strategy for developing Georgia’s medical tourism sector. At the governmental level, the creation of a dedicated national strategy and the establishment of an inter-agency coordination mechanism were recommended. Investment incentives to encourage international accreditation of medical facilities would address the trust deficit that limits Georgia’s appeal to medical tourists from more distant markets. At the sector level, the development of standardised pricing policies, investment in language training for healthcare personnel, and collaborative marketing between medical providers and the hospitality industry were proposed.

The relatively narrow geographic origin profile of current medical tourists — predominantly from neighbouring countries — suggests both a limitation and an opportunity. While Georgia’s brand recognition is highest in its immediate region, the success of assisted reproductive services in attracting patients from distant and diverse markets demonstrates that Georgia can compete globally when it offers distinctive service advantages supported by a favourable regulatory framework.

Limitations

The study was limited by its focus on a single medical centre for the quantitative survey component, which may not capture the full range of medical tourist experiences across Georgian healthcare facilities. The qualitative findings, while rich, reflect the perspectives of a limited number of stakeholders and may not represent the views of all relevant actors. The study did not include follow-up data on patient outcomes after return to home countries, which would strengthen the assessment of service quality.

Significance

As the first comprehensive study of medical tourism barriers and patient satisfaction in Georgia, this research provides a valuable evidence base for policymakers, hospital administrators, and medical tourism facilitators. The findings demonstrate that Georgia possesses competitive clinical capabilities but requires systemic improvements in governance, regulation, marketing, and infrastructure to realise its potential as a medical tourism hub in the Transcaucasia region and beyond.