Georgia health technology: a mixed-provider system creates defined product and purchaser routes

Verified facts

• Geostat’s current health series records 15.2 thousand hospital beds and 16.76 million outpatient visits for 2025. Aggregate capacity and use data describe the system; they do not identify a facility need, capital budget, buyer, clinical pathway, product acceptance or contract route for a defined offer.
• WHO’s 2025 analysis reports that 85% of hospital beds and most primary-care clinics, outpatient facilities and pharmacies are privately owned, while also identifying purchasing, governance and investment-planning gaps. A mixed-provider context does not establish that a private group is a buyer, that a public benefit package will pay for an offer, or that any facility has authority to procure it.
• Georgia’s Law on Health Care assigns the Ministry a role in quality and safety standards for medical technical devices and medical technologies; the Product Safety and Free Movement Code provides the broader product-safety and technical-regulation framework. These legal sources are not a product-specific registration, import, conformity, language, service or advertising determination.
• The State Procurement Agency published a 2026 consolidated-tender record for non-sterile medical gauze and shoe covers, and announced aggregation of 2027 needs for medical consumables under CPV 33100000. These are specific procurement mechanisms and planning examples, not a live tender for any other device, a supplier qualification, a forecast of demand or an invitation to sell.
• WHO’s telemedicine material describes Georgia’s EU-backed initiative and continuing digital-health recommendations around governance, data quality and primary-care/rural-service capacity. A telehealth programme or system recommendation does not create data access, integration approval, hospital contract or payment for a commercial digital product.
• Georgia’s 2023 clinical-investigation technical regulation defines medical devices and creates an evidence boundary for clinical investigation. It does not decide whether a commercial product requires a particular procedure, whether a study is authorised, or whether a device may be marketed, procured or clinically used in a named setting.
• Georgia’s Revenue Service provides HS-code search tools for VAT, excise/import-duty treatment and customs documents. That makes commodity classification and documentary review product-specific; the tool does not decide a device’s medical, clinical, product-safety or procurement status.