Designing Cross-Border Healthcare When Liability Stays National
Cross-border health solutions scale only when institutions are designed to absorb risk, not merely enable movement
A background note can be accessed here: APEC: Cross-Border Solutions for Health Systems
Dr. Pallabi Gogoi: Research Fellow, LEAD at Krea University
SDG 3: Good Health and Well-Being | SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare | Ministry of External Affairs | Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology
The report highlights Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRAs) as critical to enabling cross-border provision of health services and technologies. What institutional or political-economy constraints most limit the adoption of MRAs in healthcare across APEC economies, and how should policy design navigate trade-offs between regulatory convergence and domestic quality, safety, and liability regimes?
The constrained performance of MRAs in healthcare reflects how the sector is governed rather than technical incompatibility alone. Professional licensing systems are primarily designed to manage asymmetric information, liability, and patient safety, not to facilitate labour mobility. Regulators therefore hesitate to recognise foreign credentials when assurances on training quality, language proficiency, malpractice liability, and disciplinary enforcement are incomplete. As the APEC report notes, MRAs tend to underperform when recognition proceeds without alignment of these underlying institutional safeguards.
A deeper political-economy constraint reinforces this hesitation. Responsibility for adverse clinical outcomes remains nationally anchored, while the benefits of professional mobility accrue across borders. This mismatch creates strong regulatory risk aversion, even where standards appear comparable on paper.
Policy design should therefore emphasise functional equivalence over formal convergence. Modular or scoped recognition β linked to defined competencies, limited scopes of practice, supervised or time-bound licensing β allows mobility while preserving domestic accountability. Such approaches are increasingly relevant as healthcare becomes more specialised and digitally mediated, making blanket equivalence unnecessary. Linking MRAs to reforms in medical education, accreditation, and continuous professional development is essential, particularly as AI-assisted diagnostics and remote care reshape practice. Regulatory sandboxes and competency-based assessments offer practical tools to test equivalence dynamically, shifting MRAs toward adaptive, outcomes-based regulatory cooperation grounded in trust rather than uniformity.
Cross-border data flows are central to telemedicine, AI-enabled diagnostics, and remote care delivery, yet regulatory divergence on privacy and data protection remains acute. How should policymakers approach the design of trust-based data governance frameworks that enable cross-border health data use while managing privacy, cybersecurity, and sovereign risk concerns?
Cross-border health data flows underpin telemedicine, AI-enabled diagnostics, and scalable digital care models, yet divergent privacy, data localisation, and cybersecurity regimes continue to fragment service delivery. As the report highlights, this fragmentation does more than slow innovation: it can weaken patient safety by preventing interoperable systems from functioning across borders.
Rather than pursuing uniform regulation, policymakers should focus on trust-based data governance that enables cross-border use while retaining national control. Federated data models, where data remain within domestic jurisdictions but are accessed through shared technical standards and secure interfaces, offer a pragmatic route to cross-border care without direct transfers. Adequacy-style arrangements, supported by common benchmarks, certification frameworks, and audit mechanisms, can further reduce compliance uncertainty.
A critical design distinction lies between data mobility and algorithm mobility. In many cases, value can be created by deploying certified algorithms across jurisdictions while keeping sensitive health data local, reducing exposure while enabling learning at scale. Japanβs digital health governance approach illustrates this logic in practice, combining strong public stewardship of health data, nationally coordinated interoperability standards, and ex post audit mechanisms that permit cross-institutional use without diluting privacy protections. Here, trust functions as enabling institutional infrastructure rather than a binding constraint.
The report positions mobility of health professionals as a mechanism to address uneven capacity across economies. What governance mechanisms are necessary to ensure that cross-border mobility strengthens regional health-system resilience without entrenching brain drain or destabilising domestic workforce planning?
Health-worker mobility is often presented as a response to demographic pressures and uneven capacity, but unmanaged flows risk reinforcing structural imbalances. The APEC report appropriately frames mobility as a system-level issue rather than a standalone labour market fix. Without coordination, destination economies gain short-term relief while source economies face erosion of training capacity and service delivery gaps.
From a governance perspective, mobility generates significant externalities. Education and training costs are largely borne by source countries, while productivity and service gains accrue elsewhere. Treating mobility purely as market matching obscures its long-term implications for health-system sustainability.
Effective policy requires structured, time-bound mobility pathways embedded within broader workforce strategies. Circular migration schemes, skill partnerships, and joint training programmes can align incentives by linking overseas employment to knowledge transfer and return options. Compensation mechanisms, such as co-investment in medical education and training infrastructure, are necessary to internalise cross-border costs. Mutual recognition arrangements should function as enabling instruments within integrated workforce planning that connects education reform, digital health delivery, and domestic capacity management. When governed as part of system design rather than ad hoc flows, mobility can enhance regional health-system resilience instead of redistributing scarcity.
Authors:
Views are personal.