Treating NHS patients abroad

There’s a compelling case for why the NHS should make deals with other countries to treat NHS patients abroad to reduce waiting times

The current problem is that the NHS faces record-high waiting lists for elective treatments, diagnostics, and surgeries. As of 2025, millions of patients are on waitlists, with many waiting months or even years for treatment. Partnering with high-quality overseas hospitals could offer quicker access to essential procedures, reducing suffering and improving health outcomes.

This would be cost-effective because many countries, including India, Turkey, Portugal and Poland, offer high-standard medical care at a fraction of the cost of UK-based treatments.

It could be more economical to fund treatment abroad, including travel and accommodation, than to expand NHS capacity domestically in the short term.

There are underused facilities abroad, and many international hospitals have excess capacity and are willing to take international patients. Such agreements as these could support the economies and health sectors of partner nations while relieving NHS burdens. 

Patient outcomes would be improved because it would allow more timely intervention. Delayed care often leads to complications, longer recovery, and higher eventual treatment costs. Faster treatment improves prognosis and quality of life.

With shorter waits and less strain on NHS staff, patients treated abroad might receive more attentive care and have a more satisfactory experience. Past pilot initiatives under which UK patients went to France or Spain for surgery under the EU cross-border directive demonstrated high patient satisfaction and shorter waits. With proper regulation, such initiatives can be expanded beyond the EU.

This could be a long-term substitute for NHS capacity building, or it could be a temporary, strategic measure while domestic reforms catch up.

It could focus on elective procedures with long queues, such as hip replacements and cataracts, and on patients who are medically fit to travel.

In order to ensure safety and quality, contracts would only be with internationally accredited hospitals with robust regulatory oversight. The NHS would retain clinical oversight and continuity of care protocols. Costs, including travel and aftercare, would be fully covered. And patients would be offered the choice; no one would be forced to go abroad. A central NHS coordination body could manage arrangements, standardize processes, and ensure seamless care transitions.

International treatment partnerships can be a pragmatic, humane, and economically viable way to ease pressure on the NHS and offer timely care to patients in need. With smart policy design and clear safeguards, this model could help restore public confidence in a struggling system while freeing up domestic resources for the most complex and urgent cases.

Madsen Pirie