EMAPS- A BENCHMARKING STUDY OF 9 DIGITAL HEALTH MARKETS ACROSS EUROPE

Author(s)

Rose J1, Heeneman E2, Costa C3, Spano R4, Gallo De Puelles P5, Sampietro-Colom L6, Petitjean A7, Lindo da Cunha A3, Marriott T1
1Oxford Academic Health Science Network, Oxford, UK, 2Achmea B.V., NH Zeist, Netherlands, 3Instituto Pedro Nunes, Coimbra, Portugal, 4University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy, 5University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, 6Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, 7Independent, Paris, France

Presentation Documents

OBJECTIVES

Digital health (DH) products are accepted as necessary to improve healthcare service delivery. Despite this, pathways to market access are not well-established and are complex and costly to navigate. The aim of this study was to benchmark and compare market access processes in 9 healthcare markets across Europe, highlighting barriers to adoption and reimbursement.

METHODS

Seven study partners across Europe were recruited. A mixed methods methodology benchmarked DH market access pathways in UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, and Portugal. Primary research (semi-structured interviews) was carried out with regulatory and reimbursement experts and DH innovators (n=10). In addition, Secondary research (a structured desk-based review) of market structure, regulations and reimbursement processes was carried out to contextualise the outputs. Findings were developed into a single framework (www.e-maps.net).

RESULTS

Analysis highlighted differences in regulation, policy and the maturity of reimbursement processes in different markets. Robust frameworks for evaluation and certification were reported from organisations in the UK, Spain, Netherlands and Denmark. These have been focused on usability, security, technical and clinical issues but not health economics. Value assessments of DH products were in most markets taken care of by Med-Tech appraisal processes, with few markets having developed specific DH pathways. Significant changes to policy environments were also reported, with numerous changes and plans identified as part of this work that might address barriers to market access.

CONCLUSIONS

This study offers a comparison of 9 EU digital health markets. A key finding was that reimbursement processes across these markets were often unable to deal with the specific needs of DH solutions. Whilst policies and initiatives in some markets had made progress in supporting the path to market, there were still few examples of widespread adoption and reimbursement of DH products. Further development is required if we are to realise the full potential of DH.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2019-11, ISPOR Europe 2019, Copenhagen, Denmark

Code

PMU115

Disease

Multiple Diseases

Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×