One international patient may visit Seoul for a 30-minute skin treatment. Another may travel from Dhaka to Chennai and remain there for several weeks during cancer treatment. A third may fly from London to Istanbul for a hair transplant sold with hotel nights and airport transfers.
All three can be recorded as medical tourists.
They don’t represent the same type of patient, treatment or spending. That explains why estimates of the global medical tourism market differ by tens of billions of dollars.
Patient numbers and treatment revenue are rising in several major destinations. But there is no agreed global system for counting medical travellers or measuring what they spend.
How large is the medical tourism market?
Four widely cited research companies place the market’s 2025 value between $34 billion and almost $94 billion.
Their forecasts are even further apart.
| Research company | Estimated 2025 market | Latest forecast |
|---|---|---|
| Grand View Research | $34.0 billion | $126.2 billion by 2035 |
| Fortune Business Insights | $38.2 billion | $250.0 billion by 2034 |
| Global Market Insights | $76.1 billion | $174.1 billion by 2035 |
| Mordor Intelligence | $93.7 billion | $258.3 billion by 2031 |
The highest estimate is nearly three times the lowest. Forecast annual growth rates range from 8.4% to more than 23%.
These gaps are too large to dismiss as ordinary statistical variation.
Some researchers measure payments to hospitals and clinics. Others include dental care, cosmetic procedures, fertility services, rehabilitation, traditional medicine or wellness programs. Flights, hotels and facilitator commissions may be counted in one report but left out of another.
There is also no consistent treatment of expatriates, border residents or travellers who need unexpected medical care during an ordinary holiday. One patient returning to the same clinic four times might appear as one person, four visits or four patients.
The OECD has tried to improve the measurement of international trade in healthcare. Its assessment remains direct: “The current availability of data in this arena remains patchy.”
The organisation also identifies cosmetic surgery and patient transport as services that sit close to the boundary of standard healthcare accounting.
The evidence supports one firm statement: direct international patient spending runs into tens of billions of dollars each year. Claims beyond that depend heavily on what the researcher chose to count.
National figures confirm demand—but can’t be compared directly
Country data gives a clearer view of patient activity. It also exposes the differences in national reporting.
Malaysia recorded 1.6 million healthcare travellers in 2024, up 14% from the previous year. They generated RM2.72 billion in medical revenue, according to the Malaysia Healthcare Travel Council.
That works out to about RM1,700 in reported healthcare revenue per traveller. The relatively low average suggests that Malaysia’s figures include large numbers of outpatient and repeat visitors, not only patients undergoing major hospital treatment.
South Korea reported 1.17 million international patients from 202 countries in 2024. About 85% received treatment in Seoul. Medical payments made with foreign-issued credit cards reached approximately 1.4 trillion won nationwide, according to the Seoul Metropolitan Government.
Korea’s total passed 2 million foreign patients in 2025, according to Ministry of Health and Welfare data reported by Reuters. Much of that increase came from dermatology, cosmetic medicine and other outpatient services.
India recorded 644,387 foreign tourist arrivals for medical purposes in 2024. Bangladesh accounted for 482,336 of them—almost 75% of the total. India also offers electronic medical and medical-attendant visas to nationals of 171 countries.
These figures describe three different markets. Malaysia counts healthcare travellers. Korea counts foreign patients treated by registered providers. India uses immigration records showing medical purpose of travel.
Putting the numbers in a single ranking would create a false comparison.
Medical tourism is a series of regional corridors
The India data reveals one of the industry’s least understood features.
Medical tourism is often described as a global competition among countries. Most patient movement is more regional and specific.
People travel from Bangladesh to India, Indonesia to Malaysia, Britain to Turkey and the United States to Mexico. Gulf patients use hospitals in Turkey, Thailand, Germany and other nearby or well-connected destinations.
A hospital’s real market is shaped by flight schedules, visa rules, language, family connections and referral relationships. Price matters, but it doesn’t act alone.
A hospital in Penang may be highly competitive for a patient from Sumatra. Familiar food, short flights and Indonesian-speaking staff reduce the strain of treatment abroad. The same hospital may find it far harder to attract a patient from Chicago.
An Istanbul clinic can reach British patients through frequent direct flights and a small time difference. A Bangkok hospital may have an established Gulf business because it employs Arabic-speaking coordinators and has relationships with insurers or government sponsors.
Global “best destination” rankings rarely capture these advantages.
The treatment mix ranges from dental work to complex surgery
Cosmetic surgery, hair transplantation and dentistry generate high volumes because patients often pay out of pocket and can plan treatment in advance.
Fertility travel is shaped by cost, donor availability, waiting times and national restrictions. Spain, Greece, the Czech Republic, Turkey, Northern Cyprus and several Asian destinations compete for different groups of fertility patients.
Orthopedic, cardiac and cancer care usually involves higher spending and longer stays. Patients may need a companion, repeated consultations and months of follow-up after returning home.
South Korea demonstrates how outpatient medicine can produce rapid growth in patient numbers. In 2024, five Seoul districts handled about 92% of the city’s international patients. Gangnam alone recorded more than 377,000.
India shows a different pattern. Its international hospital business includes cardiac surgery, oncology, transplantation and other complex care, with Bangladesh providing most of the recorded patients.
Preventive health assessments, longevity programs and recovery retreats are also being sold to international visitors. A single package may combine blood tests, imaging, sleep monitoring, specialist consultations, physiotherapy, nutrition advice and spa services.
These programs should be reported separately from conventional medical treatment. A screening visit or wellness retreat doesn’t carry the same cost, clinical risk or staffing needs as major surgery.
Asia has built the most visible national programs
Several Asian governments treat medical travel as a formal service export.
Thailand combines large private hospitals with a mature tourism industry. Its government has adopted a medical hub strategy covering 2025 to 2034, with medical care, wellness and traditional Thai medicine included in the plan. Government figures put health-tourism revenue above 40 billion baht in 2023. Royal Thai Government
Malaysia uses a more centralised approach. The Malaysia Healthcare Travel Council coordinates promotion with hospitals, government bodies and tourism companies. The country designated 2026 as its first national medical tourism year and set a target of RM12 billion in industry revenue by 2030.
India combines specialist private hospitals, medical visas and its “Heal in India” promotion. Most recorded patients come from nearby countries rather than North America or Western Europe.
South Korea has tied medical travel to dermatology, cosmetic medicine, health screening and Korean popular culture. Seoul had 1,994 registered international medical centres at the end of 2024, compared with 920 in 2020.
Singapore serves a smaller, higher-priced segment. Its hospitals attract patients seeking specialist care, complex treatment and access to institutions with international reputations.
The five countries compete for overlapping patients, but they aren’t selling the same product.
A medical package is not the same as a hospital bill
International treatment creates revenue for more than the clinical provider.
Hospitals and clinics receive payment for consultations, tests, procedures, medicines and inpatient care. Facilitators may charge the patient, collect a provider commission or use both methods.
Hotels, airlines, translators, drivers and recovery residences earn money from the same journey. Payment companies, medical lenders and insurers may also take part.
A treatment advertised at $12,000 may include accommodation, transfers and facilitator fees. It may exclude medicines, intensive care, revision surgery or extra hotel nights if recovery takes longer than expected.
This distinction matters when researchers estimate market value. Adding the full travel package produces a larger figure than counting clinical revenue alone.
For the patient, the advertised procedure price is less useful than the expected cost of the complete episode of care.
For providers, the transaction shouldn’t end at hospital discharge. Medical records, complication management and follow-up determine whether the patient can continue treatment safely after returning home.
Patient safety is part of the business model
Every medical procedure carries risk. International travel creates additional points where care can break down.
The patient may fly too soon after surgery. A complication may appear after the patient has left the country. Medical records may be incomplete or written in another language. A doctor at home may not know which implant, medicine or surgical method was used.
Hospital accreditation can show that a facility has formal quality systems. It doesn’t confirm the experience of an individual surgeon or guarantee a good result.
Patients still need to verify who will perform the procedure, where it will take place and what support is available if something goes wrong.
The CDC’s 2026 Yellow Book advises patients and clinicians to assess the destination, medical facility and treating professional—not only the proposed treatment.
A separate CDC analysis reviewed reports involving approximately 145 US residents who experienced adverse outcomes after travelling for cosmetic procedures between 2014 and 2024. Investigators found postsurgical infections in 20 reports. Four reports involved patient deaths. CDC study
“It is essential for patients to be informed and prepared,” said Kiara McNamara, the CDC nurse epidemiologist who led the study.
The cases don’t show the overall complication rate for cosmetic surgery abroad. They were incidents referred to the CDC, not a representative sample of all patients. They do show why international outbreaks are hard to detect: affected patients may return to different cities, hospitals and public-health systems.
A 2026 BMJ Open review examined 655 patients treated by the UK National Health Service for complications linked to elective procedures abroad. Individual hospital costs reached as high as £19,549 per patient in the studies reviewed.
That research also can’t calculate the risk faced by every medical traveller. It examines patients who had already developed complications. Its value lies in showing what happens when treatment and aftercare fall under different healthcare systems.
Governments face an economic and ethical test
International patients bring foreign currency and support jobs in private hospitals, hotels, transport and translation. Their spending can help hospitals invest in equipment and international patient departments.
The gains may come with domestic costs.
Private hospitals can draw doctors and nurses away from public services. International wards may receive investment while local patients face long waiting times. Governments may also spend public money promoting providers without publishing evidence of wider economic benefit.
A World Bank analysis warned that separate pricing for foreign and domestic patients could encourage “cream skimming” and crowd out local patients. World Bank report
Governments usually answer these concerns with arrival totals, revenue targets and promotional campaigns. Those figures don’t show whether residents gained or lost access to care.
A serious national reporting system would publish unique patient numbers, treatment categories, source countries, direct clinical revenue, emergency transfers, complications and completed follow-up.
Few destinations provide that level of detail.
The market’s next test is measurement
Cross-border care will continue as long as patients face large differences in price, waiting time, treatment access and specialist availability.
The mix of treatments may change. New medicines can reduce demand for some operations. A therapy approved in a patient’s home country may remove the need to travel. Visa restrictions, wars, currency movements and airline routes can redirect patient flows quickly.
Digital consultations will make it easier to assess patients before departure and conduct follow-up after they return. They won’t remove the need for physical examinations, emergency plans or local medical support.
The line between medicine and wellness will also require closer scrutiny. Longevity clinics, preventive programs and recovery retreats increasingly use medical tests and clinical language. Their claims should be judged by the same standard applied to other health services.
Market reports will keep producing large global forecasts. Better national data would be more useful.
The next credible medical tourism dashboard should publish four figures: unique patients, direct clinical revenue, complication or transfer rates, and completed follow-up.
Until then, every global market-size estimate needs an asterisk.
