The interaction between mobility and HIV risk is well recognized, but what happens to those same individuals, once infected, as they transition to living with HIV? Does mobility affect their transition into HIV care? If so, do mobile and non-mobile populations achieve similar success with HIV treatment?The definition of mobility has changed over the centuries to encompass a complex phenotype including permanent migration, frequent travel, circular migration, and distance from HIV treatment centers. The heterogeneity of these definitions leads to discordant findings. Investigations show that mobility has an impact on HIV risk, but fewer data exist on the impact of geographic mobility on HIV care and treatment.This review will examine existing data on the impact of geographic mobility on access to and maintenance in HIV care and on adherence to antiretroviral therapy. It will also expand the concept of mobility to include data on the impact of the distance from residence to clinic on HIV care and treatment adherence.Our conclusions are that the existing literature is limited by varying definitions of mobility and the inherent oversimplification necessary to apply a "mobility measure" in a statistical analysis. The impact of mobility on HIV treatment outcomes deserves further exploration to both define the phenomenon and target interventions to these at-risk populations.