[Skip to content]

GoSomething to say?
Join the forum, ask us a question, or comment
on the blog
Search our Site
Email Newsletter
Sign up for our free weekly

Is medical tourism...on its own...enough?

Medical tourism destination

In his Second Opinion column, Dr Constantine Constantinides from healthCare cybernetics suggests that destinations need to broaden their vision of health tourism if they want to create a sustainable business.


In my view, medical tourism is about health services provided by a medical doctor, or under the supervision of a medical doctor (also known as a physician in the United States) and involves some travel.

And medical tourism can involve going abroad for treatment or travelling within your own country (internal medical tourism). Medical tourism is also about “destinations”.

The question I pose in this Second Opinion article is: are destinations that focus exclusively on medical tourism, sustainable?

For me, the clear and simple answer is “No, they are not sustainable.” If destinations wish to develop a sustainable model, they need to consider the development of services within other health tourism segments.

A lot has to do with the advantages of the “Long Tail” over the “Short Tail”. And the recession and “the West’s Revenge” also come into play, in support of my thesis.

The medical tourism “Purists” are now encroaching on the other health tourism segments

Even publications embracing “Medical Travel” or “Medical Tourism” are now, more and more, including articles on the other health tourism segments such as spa, wellness, and dental tourism.

Likewise, associations, claiming to steadfastly represent the interests of the medical tourism industry, are showing a creeping – but distinct – interest in addressing the other health tourism segments, as well.

I feel that in both cases, those responsible for publications and industry representative bodies are seeing the writing on the wall, and are hastening to broaden their appeal, and maintain their relevance.

The slowing of growth

…of “Medical Tourism Abroad”

We are seeing the slowing of growth of medical tourism abroad and the growing appeal of internal medical tourism. As an example, let’s examine what is happening in the United States.

Even the USA-based Medical Tourism Association has changed its tune and is now making a lot of noise about internal medical tourism and the USA as a medical tourism destination (see the West’s Revenge, below).

The West’s Revenge

…current prominence is in no guarantee of future eminence

The West’s Revenge (a phrase I / healthCare cybernetics coined in 2008) is all about countries previously regarded as “Sources of Medical Tourists” becoming Medical Tourism Destinations themselves – a recent example being Canada.

The “West’s Revenge” also refers to countries which were once prominent destinations for medical care regaining their prominence (through concerted initiatives). The two countries which come to mind are the USA and the UK.

In the case of the USA, systematic and concerted marketing efforts (partly funded by the US Government) have been deployed to once again showcase and promote the country as a destination for medical care.

The same, more or less can be said of the United Kingdom. Even the British NHS is jumping in on the act.

In recent years, both countries were regarded as sources of medical tourists or travelers.

But in the more distant past, both were known as destinations for medical care, and for their centers of excellence.

I feel we will soon see history repeating itself – “after the short break”.

The Effect of Recession

…on Medical Tourism Abroad

Much of medical tourism abroad was fueled by the slogan “Top Quality – Bottom Prices”. This appealed to cash-strapped or cost-sensitive consumers.

Many providers, basing their reasoning on simplistic thinking, felt that the recession would further boost medical tourism abroad.

Of course, this just did not happen!

During a recession, people put off having medical treatment involving an out of pocket expense – whether it is abroad or at home.

The Short Tail vs the Long Tail

…narrow vs broad focus development

Developing an exclusively medical tourism destination (as some still seem intent on doing) represents the narrow focus (or “short tail” – and even “short-sighted”) approach. I wish them good luck. I have concluded that the broad focus (Long Tail) approach is the way to go – for reasons which are explained.

The broad focus approach (as exemplified by ht8) creates a larger and more diverse industry to address a much broader market. Industry size and choice is very important in influencing perceptions and inspiring confidence amongst consumers.

The broad focus approach also acts as an insurance policy for a destination. Should the demand for one segment diminish (even temporarily), you still have seven others to keep you going.

Furthermore, the comprehensive approach allows destinations to exploit the “Long Tail” phenomenon (increased choice creates increased demand).

Finally, a broader industry encourages “cross referrals” between Segments (the providers of one service category can refer to and receive referrals from providers of the other segments – increasing business for all).

From “have to” to “want to”

…how to save Medical Tourism Abroad

So how do we save the “abroad” version of medical tourism?

The simple answer is to offer more than just “Top Quality – Bottom Prices” as an incentive.

Basically, we need to make medical tourism into a “want to” activity – as opposed to a “have to” activity, which it has been in recent times.


Profile of the Dr Constantine Constantinides

Constantine Constantinides

Dr Constantine Constantinides runs healthCare cybernetics, a “think and do tank” with a recognized competency in Health Tourism Integration and Development. His home base is on the island of Samos in Greece.

Related links

Add your comments below

Comments provided below do not represent the views of IMTJ. Comments will be published "as is" and will not be edited by IMTJ staff. IMTJ is hosting these comments, and is not  undertaking an editorial role in the content of these comments. However, it is editorial policy not to publish comments which have been submitted anonymously.