Healthcare metaverse forecast tops $80 billion, but adoption remains the hard part
Business Research Company forecasts that the healthcare metaverse market will exceed $80 billion by 2030. That points to commercial opportunity, but it does not show that immersive technology will improve care or that the market’s broad definitions and assumptions will hold up.
- Market forecast: More than $80 billion by 2030, with software expected to lead.
- U.K. oversight: The government accepted 44 recommendations on AI in healthcare, centered on monitoring systems throughout their lifecycle.
- Gulf prospects: Saudi Arabia and the UAE are highlighted, but the regional claims need stronger supporting evidence.
A big forecast for a broadly defined market
Business Research Company’s Metaverse in Healthcare Global Market Report 2026 forecasts that the market will surpass $80 billion by 2030, growing at about 35% a year on a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) basis. CAGR describes average annual growth over a period. It does not mean the market will expand by the same amount each year.
The category includes a wide range of technologies and services, from immersive healthcare applications, virtual and augmented reality, and AI-driven simulations to cloud collaboration tools and spatial computing. The report also names interoperable virtual ecosystems, data management and blockchain-based digital identity as potential software growth drivers. It does not say how much any of these contributes to the forecast.
Software is projected to account for 71% of the market by 2030, with hardware making up the rest. Business Research Company’s figures are reported through CoinGeek; the full report methodology and market definitions are not available in the material reviewed here. That matters. A broad category can produce an impressive forecast without showing which products will generate the revenue, or whether they will become routine in clinical care.
The report’s mention of blockchain-based identity deserves a measured response. Cryptographic systems could, in principle, help verify credentials or support controlled data access and audit trails. But naming blockchain as a possible growth driver does not show that healthcare metaverse products need a blockchain, or that it will generate significant revenue. The report provides no such breakdown.
A fragmented field, by the report’s definition
Business Research Company reports that the ten largest companies held a combined 19% of healthcare metaverse revenue in 2025. Their listed shares add up to 19.1%, which is consistent with a rounded total. Microsoft had 4%, Nvidia and Siemens Healthineers 3% each, and GE Healthcare, Meta Platforms and Philips 2% each. Medtronic, Brainlab and Magic Leap each had 1%, while Augmedics had 0.1%.
Those figures suggest that no single company dominated the category as the report defines it. They do not, on their own, show how competitive the market is. The available figures do not explain the report’s market boundaries or how it calculated market share.
North America is projected to reach $34 billion in 2030, at a stated 34% CAGR, from $8 billion “last year.” The starting year is not specified. The United States is forecast to grow from $7 billion in 2025 to $31 billion in 2030. Those endpoints imply an annual growth rate of roughly 35%, not exactly 34%. Rounding or a different underlying calculation may explain the gap.
These are commercial forecasts, not confirmed outcomes. Immersive training or remote collaboration may prove useful in specific settings, but a market estimate cannot establish clinical adoption, better patient outcomes or a durable business model. In healthcare, a convincing spreadsheet is no substitute for a convincing result at the bedside. The healthcare metaverse market estimates should be judged by the same standard.
U.K. AI policy puts more weight on oversight after launch
The U.K. government said on 6 October 2026 that it had accepted all 44 recommendations from the National Commission into the regulation of AI in healthcare. According to the government announcement, the recommendations were published on 10 September after evidence gathering involving more than 12, 000 patients, clinicians and members of the public.
The central principle is that AI-enabled medical devices should be assessed and monitored throughout their working life, rather than judged mainly through a one-time assessment before use. Performance can vary in real clinical settings, and AI systems may change over time. Oversight that ends at launch can miss both problems.
“One of the Commission’s central conclusions was that AI-enabled medical devices should be assessed and monitored throughout their working life to better understand true performance, instead of over-relying on one-time assessments, ” the government said.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has opened applications for Phase 3 of AI Airlock, its regulatory sandbox for AI-enabled medical devices. The phase will bring developers, regulators and healthcare partners together to examine post-market surveillance, or monitoring a device after it enters use, and lifecycle regulation. Taking part does not, by itself, mean a product has regulatory approval.
The MHRA says Phase 3 will use real products and technologies to generate evidence for future guidance and policy. The government announcement scheduled a webinar for 22 October 2026 at 10:00 and said the first group of innovators would be selected in November 2026. It also said AI Airlock had secured three years of additional government funding.
More commitments are still ahead. The MHRA is due to issue draft guidance by December 2026 on managing changes to AI-enabled devices, begin consultations in 2027 on how to qualify and classify them, and publish a full implementation roadmap by spring 2027. The government says the work will cover ten priority areas, with regular progress updates.
Health Innovation Minister James Frith said the government wants patients to benefit from AI while ensuring it is safe and properly overseen. He added: “innovation must never come at the expense of patient safety.” The government has also pledged to strengthen patient involvement, improve access to redress when care standards fall short, and ensure benefits reach underserved groups.
Accepting recommendations does not mean they have been implemented. The government says it will explore phased authorization, which could allow promising tools to be used in the NHS under close monitoring while further real-world evidence is gathered. That is a policy direction under consideration, not an established approval route. The reforms’ impact will depend on the rules that follow and how their effects are measured.
These measures apply to AI in healthcare broadly, not specifically to the metaverse market. They matter to the wider technology picture because immersive healthcare products may also rely on AI. Any system used in care must show its value without making patients bear the risks of incomplete oversight.
Gulf digital health: opportunity, with evidence gaps
CoinGeek’s account of a BMI assessment identifies Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as especially promising digital-health markets in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). It also reports commercial prospects in Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain, including telemedicine, electronic health records (EHRs), connected care, big data and AI.
The same account describes Qatar as having advanced AI adoption, Kuwait as performing well in telemedicine and EHRs, and Oman as facing barriers in digital-health governance and data exchange. It calls smart-hospital adoption across the Gulf moderate. The underlying BMI report, its date and supporting figures are not available here, so these country comparisons should be treated as attributed assessments, not independently verified rankings.
CoinGeek also attributes a geopolitical warning to BMI: the growing U.S.-Iran conflict is raising risks to investment confidence, and governments may prioritize essential services and workforce costs over longer-term digital transformation. This is BMI’s risk assessment, not evidence that Gulf governments have already changed their spending plans. The available account does not provide enough detail to judge how the risk varies by country or project.
For technology companies, the practical test is whether a market that looks promising on paper can support real adoption. Governance, data exchange, investment confidence and public-sector priorities can determine whether a pilot becomes routine care. Public-private partnerships may help sustain investment, but they cannot replace clear rules, local capacity or evidence that a product helps patients.
Key questions and answers
-
How large could the healthcare metaverse market become?
Business Research Company forecasts more than $80 billion by 2030, at about 35% CAGR. That figure is a projection based on a broadly defined market, not a confirmed outcome.
-
What is AI Airlock?
It is the MHRA’s regulatory sandbox for AI-enabled medical devices. Phase 3 is designed to examine lifecycle oversight and post-market monitoring. Participation does not itself grant regulatory approval.
-
What remains uncertain?
The market report’s definitions and methodology are not available, the Gulf assessments lack supporting detail, and the U.K.’s accepted recommendations still need to be implemented. Forecasts and policy commitments need to be judged against later evidence.
