Legal Framework for Telemedicine in Georgia: Doctrinal and Comparative Legal Analysis of International Standards and National Practices

  • Nato Tchitanava Invited Lecturer, Assistant, Doctoral student at Grigol Robakidze University, Georgia
Keywords: Medical institutions, medical services, patient rights, regional healthcare, telemedicine

Abstract

Based on national and international practice, this article discusses telemedicine as a set of legal, technological, and ethical decisions that are an inevitable result of the modern healthcare system. This article aims to assess the adequacy of Georgia’s regulatory framework for telemedicine through a comparative analysis of international standards and national legislation, and to identify existing legal gaps.

From the perspective of international law, the right to health is recognized as a fundamental human right, obligating states to ensure the accessibility, quality, and continuity of medical services for all citizens. Accordingly, the study focuses on the possibilities of telemedicine, which is an effective mechanism for providing continuous and high-quality medical services, especially in geographically remote, rural, and politically/strategically challenging regions.

The research is based on doctrinal legal analysis, comparative examination of international and Georgian normative acts, and analysis of relevant case law. International instruments and standards examined include World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations, ISO 13131:2021, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and the U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and relevant jurisprudence of European and U.S. courts. Georgian healthcare, medical practice, and data protection legislation were analyzed to assess regulatory compatibility and implementation practice. Taking into account the realities of Georgia, the article analyzes national legislation and the existing practice of developing telemedicine. Special attention is paid to the possibilities of implementing telemedicine in politically and strategically difficult regions as one of the effective mechanisms for ensuring continuous and high-quality medical services for the population.

Based on the results of the study, which is based on the analysis of international practice and regulatory standards, the article presents recommendations for strengthening the legal framework of telemedicine in Georgia, which takes into account the protection of patient rights, strengthening professional responsibility standards, and improving access to medical services in politically and strategically difficult regions.

The study reveals that although Georgian legislation allows telemedicine within the framework of general medical regulation, it lacks: a unified legal definition of telemedicine; specific binding standards for remote informed consent procedures; detailed regulation of cross-border and regional licensing issues; explicit clinical quality assurance mechanisms tailored to remote healthcare services; and specialized liability rules adapted to digital medical practice. International standards demonstrate a trend toward harmonization based on patient rights protection, data security, professional accountability, and technological interoperability, while Georgia’s framework remains fragmented and indirectly regulated.

To strengthen the legal framework for telemedicine in Georgia, the study recommends: adopting a comprehensive legal definition and regulatory act dedicated to telemedicine; establishing mandatory digital informed consent standards; introducing telemedicine-specific certification and liability provisions; strengthening state supervision and quality control mechanisms; and improving legal guarantees for safe telemedicine practice in politically and geographically complex regions. The development of a coherent telemedicine regulatory model would contribute to the effective realization of the right to health, enhance access to quality medical services, and align Georgian practice with evolving international standards.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

PlumX Statistics

References

1. American Medical Association. (n.d.). Telehealth resource center: AMA policy resources. Retrieved October 12, 2025, from https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/digital-health/telehealth-resource-center-ama-policy-resources
2. American Telemedicine Association. (2022). Core Operational Guidelines for Telehealth Services Involving Provider-Patient Interactions. Retrieved October 12, 2025, from https://www.americantelemed.org
3. Bashshur, R.L., Shannon, G.W., & Krupinski, E.A. (2014). The Empirical Foundations of Telemedicine Interventions for Chronic Disease Management. Telemedicine and e-Health. 20(9):769–800. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2014.9981, Retrieved October 10, 2025, from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4148063/
4. Bashshur, RL., Shannon, GW., & Smith, BR. (2014). The empirical foundations of telemedicine interventions for chronic disease management. Telemed J E Health, 20(9), 769–800, DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2014.9981
5. Biriuk v. Lithuania, Application no. 23373/03, Judgment of 25 January 2018 https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-89827%22]}
6. Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (Oviedo Convention), April 4, 1997, https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-and-biomedicine/oviedo-convention
7. Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare, March 9, 2011, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/24/oj/eng
8. European Commission. (2012). eHealth Action Plan 2012–2020: Innovative healthcare for the 21st century. Brussels. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Retrieved October 12, 2025, from https://health.ec.europa.eu/document/download/39c9a1ee-6afa-4ab9-a472-ddeac925d14f_en?filename=com_2012_736_en.pdf
9. European Commission. (n.d.). Digital health and care. Retrieved October 12, 2025, from https://health.ec.europa.eu/ehealth-digital-health-and-care/digital-health-and-care_en
10. European Convention on Human Rights, November 4, 1950, https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG
11. Grau. U., Pinnow, Ch., & Meyberg, A. (2025). Telemedicine in Germany: legal framework, challenges and perspectives. Retrieved October 12, 2025, from https://www.ibanet.org/telemedicine-germany-frameworks
12. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, August 21, 1996, https://www.cms.gov/about-cms/information-systems/privacy/health-insurance-portability-and-accountability-act-1996
13. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, December 16, 1966, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights
14. International Organization for Standardization. (2021). Health informatics — Telehealth services — Quality planning guidelines. iTeh STANDARD PREVIEW, ISO 13131:2021, Retrieved October 12, 2025, from https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/75962/2a46cde6b0a1410785f5ee594a42db5b/ISO-13131-2021.pdf?utm_source
15. Kruse. CS., Krowski, N., Rodriguez, B., Tran, L., Vela, J., & Brooks, M. (2017). Telehealth and patient satisfaction: a systematic review. BMJ Open, 7(8):e016242. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016242. PMID: 28775188; PMCID: PMC5629741.
16. Law of Georgia On Health Protection, 10/12/1997, https://www.matsne.gov.ge/document/view/29980?publication=59
17. Law of Georgia On Medical Practice, 28/06/2001, https://www.matsne.gov.ge/document/view/15334?publication=32
18. Law of Georgia on Personal Data Protection, 03/07/2023, https://www.matsne.gov.ge/document/view/5827307?publication=5
19. MacDonald v. Sabando, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, No. 1:2023cv23044 - Document 34 (D.N.J. 2025), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/1:2023cv23044/545416/34/
20. Order No. 01-1/N of the Minister of IDPs from the Occupied Territories of Georgia, Labor, Health and Social Protection on Determining the Procedure for the Functioning and Production of the Electronic Health Records System (EHR), January 3, 2019, https://www.matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/4390457?publication=11
21. Order No. 01-29/N of the Minister of Labor, Health and Social Protection of Georgia on Approval of the Rules for Circulation of Form No. 3 Electronic Prescription for Pharmaceutical Products (Medicinal Products) Belonging to the Second Group, July 26, 2016 https://www.matsne.gov.ge/document/view/3329318
22. Order No. 7/N of the Minister of IDPs from the Occupied Territories of Georgia, Labor, Health and Social Protection on Approval of the Rules for the Operation and Maintenance of the Electronic System of the Register of Persons with Disabilities, January 31, 2024 https://www.matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/6090865?publication=0
23. Professional Code for Physicians in Germany, 1997, https://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/fileadmin/user_upload/_old-files/downloads/pdf-Ordner/MBO/MBO-AE_EN_2018.pdf
24. Professional Code for Physicians in Germany, 1997, https://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/fileadmin/user_upload/_old-files/downloads/pdf-Ordner/MBO/MBO-AE_EN_2018.pdf
25. Regulation (2016/679) on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), April 27, 2016, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj
26. UJ v Österreichische Zahnärztekammer, Case C-115/24, Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 September 2025, ECLI:EU:C:2025:694. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62024CJ0115&utm_source
27. UNICEF for every child. (2023). Remote Care: How Telemedicine is Transforming Rural Health Care in Georgia https://www.unicef.org/georgia/stories/remote-care-how-telemedicine-transforming-rural-health-care-georgia?utm_source=chatgpt.com
28. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, December 10, 1948, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
29. Wootton, R. (1998). Telemedicine in the National Health Service. J Telemed Telecare, 12, 614–621. doi: 10.1177/014107689809101202
30. World Health Organization & International Telecommunication Union. (2022). Global Standard for Accessibility of Telehealth Services. Geneva, ISBN (WHO) 978–92–4-005046–4, Retrieved October 12, 2025, from https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240050464
31. World Health Organization. (2010). Telemedicine: Opportunities and Developments in Member States. Report on the Second Global Survey on eHealth 2009 ,Volume 2, ISBN: 978-92-4-156414-4.
32. World Health Organization. (2016). Telemedicine: opportunities and developments in Member States. Report on the second global survey on eHealth,Volume 2, 1-96. Retrieved October 10, 2025, from https://www.afro.who.int/publications/telemedicine-opportunities-and-developments-member-state
33. World Health Organization. (2022). Telemedicine has clear benefits for patients in European countries, new study shows. Retrieved October 12, 2025, from https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/31-10-2022-telemedicine-has-clear-benefits-for-patients-in-european-countries--new-study-shows
34. World Health Organization. (2025). Turning telemedicine into a core health-care service in Georgia. Retrieved October 12, 2025, from https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/01-10-2025-turning-telemedicine-into-a-core-health-care-service-in-georgia
Published
2026-03-23
How to Cite
Tchitanava, N. (2026). Legal Framework for Telemedicine in Georgia: Doctrinal and Comparative Legal Analysis of International Standards and National Practices. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 22(38), 312. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2026.v22n38p312