Can Visa Curbs Push Bangladesh to Fix Health Sector?

The recent Indian visa restrictions on Bangladeshi tourists have opened a new debate: can Bangladesh use this moment to reform and strengthen its local health system? Health specialists argue that while the immediate impact is inconvenient for thousands of patients who depend on India for treatment, this challenge could be turned into an opportunity if policymakers act with vision and urgency.

For decades, India has been the primary destination for Bangladeshi patients seeking advanced treatment, particularly in cardiology, neurology, oncology, and ophthalmology. Official data underscores the depth of this dependence. In 2020, nearly 100,000 Bangladeshi patients sought treatment in India. By 2023, the number had surged to almost half a million, making up around 75 per cent of India’s inbound medical tourism.

In comparison, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, and China together attract less than a quarter of Bangladeshi outbound patients, largely due to higher costs. An open-heart surgery, for example, may cost Tk 2–3 lakh in Bangladesh, Tk 10–15 lakh in India, and upwards of Tk 20 lakh in Singapore. For middle-class families, India remains the most viable option for quality yet affordable tertiary care.

Bangladeshi patients cite three main reasons for going abroad: lack of specialised doctors, inadequate tertiary hospitals, and absence of trust in local medical services. Although private investment has led to the growth of hospitals such as Square, United, Evercare, Labaid, and Popular, these facilities are still limited in capacity and public perception. A bed crisis remains acute, and patients often struggle to secure timely treatment.

Moreover, gaps in medical education, insufficient nurse training, and politicisation of health institutions have eroded public trust. In critical conditions, families often prefer the long journey to Chennai or Kolkata rather than risk uncertainty at home.

The current situation has been compared to Bangladesh’s livestock sector. Until 2014, the country depended heavily on Indian cattle imports for Eid-ul-Adha. When India restricted exports, Bangladesh was forced to strengthen its own livestock production. Within a decade, local farmers transformed the sector to become largely self-reliant. Health experts suggest that the Indian visa restrictions may create a similar pressure on Bangladesh’s health system, compelling reform.

Already, high-end hospitals in Dhaka are reporting an influx of patients who would otherwise have travelled to India. Facilities such as Labaid, Evercare, Square, and the National Heart Foundation are struggling to manage the increased load. Doctors warn that without expanding infrastructure, training, and patient management systems, this pressure will lead to service deterioration.

Dr Bazlul Ghani Bhuiyan of the Bangladesh Vascular Society noted that increasing hospital beds nationwide is critical. Bangladesh’s doctor-patient ratio remains low, and the nurse-patient ratio is among the worst in Asia. Without addressing these systemic issues, simply redirecting patients from India to Dhaka will not solve the crisis.

Experts outline several mid- and long-term measures:

Investment in Tertiary Care: Bangladesh must rapidly expand specialised hospitals for cardiology, oncology, and neurology. Japan and South Korea, with proven track records in medical infrastructure, could be strategic partners.

Medical Education Reform: Politicisation in medical colleges undermines quality. Rigorous grooming of students and nurses, with international-standard training, is essential to rebuild trust.

Medical Tourism Model: Like India, Thailand, and Malaysia, Bangladesh could target patients from Northeast India and Nepal by building world-class hospitals in Cox’s Bazar and Chattogram. The combination of affordable treatment and natural beauty could attract foreign patients, boosting the economy.

Technology and Research: Telemedicine, AI-driven diagnostics, and partnerships with international research institutes could bridge gaps in access and expertise.

Health Financing: Outbound medical spending is estimated at $3–5 billion annually, though official data grossly underestimates the figure. Reforming banking and taxation systems to capture this flow would help in planning and investment.

Countries like Thailand and Singapore built their healthcare reputation by combining strong private sector investment with government oversight. Singapore’s IHH Healthcare, partly backed by Japanese investors, has become a global brand. Bangladesh too can encourage foreign investment in its health sector under proper regulation.

Nepal offers another lesson. In recent years, it has developed a modest but growing medical tourism sector targeting Indian patients. With its geographic advantage and growing economy, Bangladesh has far greater potential if it commits to reforms.

Despite opportunities, obstacles remain. Political interference in medical education and hospital management weakens professionalism. Doctors often face pressure to align with political parties, diverting focus from service delivery. Moreover, unequal distribution of healthcare resources—concentrated in Dhaka and a few cities—leaves rural patients dependent on informal or unqualified providers.

There is also a cultural challenge: trust. Many affluent Bangladeshis continue to believe that treatment abroad is inherently better, even when local options exist. Changing this perception requires consistent delivery of quality care at home.

Former WHO adviser Muzaherul Huq argues that the visa restriction should serve as a wake-up call. “Bangladesh must build international-standard hospitals and ensure service quality if it wants to keep patients home and attract foreign patients,” he said. He added that Cox’s Bazar, with its global appeal, could be a natural hub for medical tourism if supported by proper infrastructure.

Meanwhile, private investment has already reshaped parts of the health sector. According to Dr Abu M Shamim of Labaid, entrepreneurs have invested Tk 200,000 crore over the past two decades, creating around 200 hospitals of various sizes and employing over 11 lakh health workers. This momentum, if complemented by government reform, could pave the way for a resilient health system.

India’s visa restrictions may be politically motivated, but their unintended consequence could be transformative for Bangladesh. Just as the livestock sector thrived under pressure, the health sector now has an opportunity to grow. But the transformation will not be automatic. It requires investment, reform, and above all, political will.

The question is not whether Bangladesh can reduce its dependence on India, but whether it can seize this moment to ensure that its citizens no longer feel compelled to cross the border for life-saving care. If the government, private sector, and international partners act decisively, the current crisis could become a turning point—transforming Bangladesh from a medical tourism exporter to a healthcare destination in its own right.