archive

Conceptual considerations: an overview

Our vision of a national health platform foresees a trustworthy information architecture within the healthcare sector that aims to streamline the management of health-related information and render top-tier information and data more readily available.  This contribution offers a bird’s eye view of the digital ecosystem we’ve envisioned and outlines the key stakeholders, roles and processes involved.

The core service provided by this ecosystem is a customized compilation of quality-assured information and services that are tailored to individual information needs over time (see Discover more, search less). This service helps ensure that patients receive information that is pertinent to their needs when they need it. By consolidating a variety of content from accredited providers, the platform curates trustworthy information and services. Tailored to users’ individual contextual factors, the curated information and services are further refined to cater to specific situational support requirements (see Without context, everything is nothing).

This process-driven guidance, coupled with tailored-to-the user information and service offerings, not only fosters well-informed decision-making but also advances health literacy, thereby making a substantial contribution to personal health management (see Health literacy and infodemics). However, making this product vision a reality requires more than simply providing a technical platform equipped with algorithmic systems. Above all, it requires the constructive, collaborative engagement of the full array of relevant actors and players. Collectively, they constitute the digital ecosystem in which the national health platform operates. They target shared objectives and benefit from the rewards of their collective engagement (refer to Benefit model for a national health platform).

 

Brokering trustworthy health information and services

A key element of the platform centers on the curation of information and service providers, as well as the brokering of trustworthy health-related information and service offerings. The platform is not designed for the creation of original content. The platform does not engage in generating original content; rather, it excels at cultivating an ecosystem wherein the platform’s initiator and operator do not shoulder the sole responsibility for developing all functions and services. Instead, their focus lies in establishing the framework that empowers partners to seamlessly integrate their services and applications into this ecosystem. Thus, the platform does not autonomously produce content and offerings; rather, it functions as a broker for context-specific health information and services.

This “brokering principle” revolves around the role of an intermediary that bridges supply and demand. The “broker” provides the infrastructure and delivers a user-friendly interface, thus facilitating interaction between the two sides. Such platforms often include rating systems, offer recommendations, or contribute to personalized offerings. We’ve applied this approach in our blueprint for a national health platform. The platform thus acts as a broker, connecting providers of health information and digital services on one end with patients on the other. By tailoring the presentation of available options to align with a patient’s specific requirements, the platform enhances its brokering service.

Platform operator

As a central figure within the digital ecosystem, the platform operator shoulders a range of responsibilities to ensure the seamless operation of the platform. This encompasses the provision of essential technological infrastructure, including software, servers, databases, networks, interfaces, and an array of technical resources. The tasks of a platform operator further encompass delineating platform regulations, fostering connections among participating entities, promoting interactive engagement, establishing a trustworthy space of interactions, and ultimately, expanding and scaling both the platform and the encompassing ecosystem.

Given this diversity of tasks and the anticipated scope of the digital ecosystem, the platform operator faces substantial demands. It is imperative that the governing body maintains independence and secures the acceptance of all participating entities. Moreover, it’s crucial to recognize that governmental institutions have limitations, as information activities administered by the state are bound by specific legal prerequisites (see ). Thus, to ensure legal clarity, it is advisable to establish a platform that is rooted in civil society and which is not administered by the state.

In the case of the national health platform, it seems advisable to delegate specific tasks within the ecosystem to distinct entities or bodies, conceptualizing the ecosystem as an overarching organization. Effectively managing the governance and operations of this digital ecosystem could involve distributing responsibilities across various organizational units to accommodate the complexity and diversity of roles, functions and tasks. All participating organizations could then be brought together under a non-profit and independently funded holding structure (see Ownership: Public or private?).

 

 

Information and service providers

To consolidate a diverse array of offerings on the platform and harness the innovative capabilities of various stakeholders, the ecosystem should remain open to state-run, civil society and commercial information and service providers, whose role involves contributing their offerings and thus breathing life into the platform. Relevant offerings include not only conventional information portals but also digital services, such as those that allow patients to schedule doctor appointments or locate specialists.

A prerequisite for participation in the ecosystem is meeting clearly defined quality requirements that must be demonstrated at the provider level. Our concept thus envisions a certification procedure that focuses on both structural and process quality (see InfoCure: Making quality visible).  All providers with a valid certificate can add their information and services to the ecosystem. The result is a trustworthy pool of information and services that have been sourced exclusively from verified providers.

Pathway Model Creators

Searching for trustworthy health information is often no less difficult than looking for a needle in a haystack. The challenge for patients lies in filtering out the information that is truly relevant to their specific situation. The national health platform can provide assistance in this regard by providing personalized information with exceptional precision that is embedded within a structured learning and interaction framework known as a Patient Information Pathway (see ).

Within these information pathways, platform users receive customized information and service offerings that are tailored to their specific phase of illness, coping and care. These pathways follow condition-specific patterns or pathway models.  While basic condition-related information is provided with the initial diagnosis, subsequent stages frequently entail assessing specific treatment options. Particularly in the case of chronic conditions, managing the illness often becomes the focal point of attention.

By following such patterns, the anticipated trajectories of information needs can be modelled for a variety of conditions. These models can be used to automatically structure information in chronological order, which allows patients access to information they might not have actively sought. This could include pointing them toward legal and social matters relevant to their specific treatment phase.

In addition to providers, the ecosystem also needs pathway model creators to design pathway models. This role requires having the expertise to define templates for information and support needs and could be taken up by various decentralized actors, such as professional societies or patient advocacy groups.  These actors can help create a large number of pathway models in a very short period of time.

Providers of contextual information

While templates structure information, they do not account for where patients stand along their timelines, potential supplementary information needs, or decisions to be made during a course of treatment. Information needs can vary substantially and depend on factors like whether a patient has opted for surgery or a more conservative treatment.

In order to provide a truly tailored-to-needs set of offerings and create customized information pathways, pathway models must be adaptable to changing contexts. This could involve using periodic self-reported input from users. However, extensive data collection of such inputs is inconvenient for users, often impractical, and raises the spectre of the search engine problematic. But how can the platform “know” what information its users need in a given moment?

The key to delivering a personalized offering lies in factoring in a wide spectrum of contextual information that can be easily and automatically obtained with the individuals’ consent (see ).  Providers of contextual information thus form the third relevant group of actors within the digital ecosystem.

Potential sources of pertinent contextual information include electronic health records, which, within an advanced Telematics Infrastructure 2.0, could provide vital insights into the situational information needs of patients. Similarly, the management systems used by hospitals and physicians’ offices, as well as digital health applications or fitness trackers, could serve as sources in this regard.

Contextual information is already present in digital systems and would no longer need to be captured through a separate process. Leveraging these resources within the digital ecosystem to personalize health information and services creates a clear benefit for patients by mitigating information overload while improving the quality of information provided.  Contextual information can also be used to proactively inform patients, remind them of tasks, or tailor how information is presented to align with individual preferences.

High-quality collaboration

A truly user-centered offering can only come to fruition through the collaborative interaction of different types of participants. Providers of information and services, creators of pathway models, and providers of contextual information each bring a crucial element to the functionality of the ecosystem. Just like the pieces of a puzzle, their contributions fit together, creating added value as a whole.

In order to instill user trust, the platform must adhere to stringent quality standards. However, given the platform’s openness to a vast number of participating entities, meeting these standards is far from straightforward. A key aspect of quality management is rooted in the aforementioned certification of information and service providers. Yet, this alone falls short, as ensuring quality must extend across all processes within the ecosystem. Pathway model creators and contextual information providers must also meet clear quality or qualification standards that align with their respective roles.

LIV – An easy to use, personalized and trustworthy user interface

The synergies created by the variety of actors participating in the national health platform are expected to create significant and tangible added value for patients. Regarding products, there are likely numerous pathways through which these synergies can materialize. To facilitate a shared understanding of what our product vision entails, we have articulated in detail one such pathway and developed a prototypical design that showcases what the national health platform might look like from the patient viewpoint (see Discover more, search less – prototype of a national health platform).

Our concept envisions a platform with a user interface that is tailored specifically to the patient’s needs and is available as an app as well as a website. We’ve named the interface “LIV,” which stands for the German concepts of “leicht” (easy), “individuell” (individual), and “vertrauenswürdig” (trustworthy). LIV is designed to provide optimal support to patients, both proactively and during targeted searches. It’s primary design principle is to mitigate information overload while offering only high-quality information and services. The content provided through LIV is thus highly personalized, and the timing of its delivery is driven by contextual information.

If implemented, LIV would be available to millions of people and thus the national health platform’s most visible component. However, the platform would require additional components in order to facilitate seamless interaction among the various groups of actors. For example, the platform would need more user interfaces for ecosystem participants that would allow them to register new health information and services or to create templates for patient information pathways. Integration interfaces would also be needed to connect other IT systems, such as those used by context providers (cf. Initial thoughts on the technical structure of the national health platform).

Find, understand, appraise and apply

The twin goals of our product concept for the national health platform are to streamline health information management and promote health literacy. Health literacy involves having the skills to find, understand, evaluate and apply health-related information. Research suggests that digital information overload poses a challenge to nearly half of the European population. The core service of the national heath platform we’ve conceived addresses this concern and operates across all four levels of health literacy.

Find: Users no longer have to actively seek out pertinent information. Instead, relevant content and services are proactively presented to them. This shift from a “push” to a “pull” communication model offering personalized information streamlines search efforts, preventing users from becoming lost in the sea of information.

Understand: The ecosystem defines minimum standards for content clarity and digital application usability. In addition, the complexity of texts can be determined automatically. Users can then select information that is suited to their (self-reported) level of health literacy.

Appraise: A cornerstone of the ecosystem is the quality-centric selection of providers of information and digital services. As part of the proposed national-level certification process, providers would be audited at regular intervals. This helps create a trusted space for patients in which the risk of misinformation and data misuse is mitigated.

Apply: Information gains practical relevance when it leads to actionable decisions. The personalized compilation of information and digital services makes it easier for users to modify their behavior, make informed choices, and translate knowledge into practice.

Additional benefits of the national health platform

In addition to its core service, the concept of a national health platform harbors several opportunities to create additional benefits and engage more actors in the digital ecosystem:

  • Distribution partners: The quality-assured health information and services available on the national health platform could be distributed through alternative channels. These distribution partners might encompass other platforms that specialize in delivering health-related content and services. Other candidates include digital health applications that require curated information and directly integrate it into their solutions.
  • White-label solutions: In principle, LIV could potentially be provided as a white-label patient interface. Interested partners could incorporate this application into their own offerings and infuse it with their branding. Such a move would further amplify the reach of LIV.
  • Anonymized data for research: The national health platform processes data that not only benefits patients directly but could generate additional value. By means of aggregated analysis, the provision of fully anonymized data or creation of synthetic data sets, the platform could make a valuable contribution to health services research.
  • Internationalization: Although conceived for a national setting, the envisaged health platform has the potential for international scalability. Despite differences in healthcare systems, the platform’s principles, roles, and even software could be adapted to suit other national contexts. Over time, an international network of nationally anchored platforms might materialize in which each network adheres to shared standards, exchanges insights and data, and thereby contributes to establishing a global infrastructure of trust.

Your feedback is important to us

To contact our project team, please use our form. We look forward to your message and will get back to you as soon as possible.


    Design of user friendly health systems

    Transcript

    Intro:

    A digital health platform has so many opportunities to actually bring health to people.

     

    Why is digital health literacy becoming increasingly important?

    Health literacy is two-sided. On one hand we talk about the health literacy of the public, of people. The other side is about the health literacy responsiveness of systems. So how do we design systems to be health literacy friendly? And when we talk about digital health literacy, we are challenged. Because we see that there are so many barriers for people to find information on social media, on websites and so forth. Many public websites are not designed very user friendly. And it means that people can get lost. It’s important that we recognize that healthcare systems have a say in how we design systems and the way we can help people to gain digital health literacy.

     

    How can health literacy be promoted?

    Healthcare systems play an important role in increasing health literacy of people. It’s important to create a leadership, ownership, management buy-in to implement health literacy as a strategic approach in organisations. Healthcare systems are also important in terms of setting guidelines and standards for use of data, for example. So it’s important to create a good framework for privacy and data security.

     

    How can we create a health literate future?

    I believe the future is health literate. I believe we all have a responsibility to design healthcare systems that are conducive and empower people to take care of their health and well-being. It’s a responsibility of all of us, whether you work in the healthcare sector or beyond the healthcare sector. So it means for the healthcare staff, but also those outside, so meaning teachers, coaches, decision makers, policy makers, journalists: We all have a responsibility and we can all make that difference of making the future health literate.

    Content

    Dr. Kristine Sørensen, President of the International Health Literacy Association, advocates for more people to gain better digital health literacy. To achieve this, she believes that health systems have a responsibility to become more user-friendly. In this video, the health literacy expert outlines the framework for health systems that aim to empower people to take responsibility for their health and well-being.

    Recommended Articles

    Your feedback is important to us

    To contact our project team, please use our form. We look forward to your message and will get back to you as soon as possible.


      Creating resilience against desinformation

      Transcript

      Intro:

      We need to be much more critical about what we read and hear in the news and on social media.

       

      What is health literacy?

      Health literacy is a rather new term in the health field. It entails the knowledge and motivation and competencies to find and understand and judge and use information to take decisions in everyday life. So when we are ill, when we are talking about risk factors like tobacco or smoking, when we are trying to stay healthy. But it’s also about how to navigate the healthcare system.

       

      Why is health literacy so important?

      Health literacy is important because those that have the knowledge and motivation and competencies to take care of themselves, they also do well, live better lives, use healthcare systems less. And when we have the skills with regard to health literacy, we are also empowered and we are able to trust ourselves when we deal with information and distinguishing whether this is now true or whether it’s fake news. So in the opposite, if you’re less skilled, it might be difficult and too complex to manage your health and navigate and find your way in the healthcare system. And that can have a detrimental impact. You go often to the hospital, you’re not joining screening systems, you may not know how to eat well.

       

      What does research say about health literacy?

      We know from European health literacy surveys that on average one in two face difficulties in terms of finding and understanding and using information to take action. It means that it’s not only a small proportion of people that are having difficulties, it’s actually a public health challenge that we need to tackle.

       

      Why do so many people struggle with health information?

      During the pandemic we saw how difficult it was for people to deal with health information. We need to be much more critical about what we read and hear in the news and on social media. We know that we are also faced with myths, conspiracies and people need to be able to understand what is fake news. However, we are also very challenged because sometimes fake news comes also from people we actually trust. And this is a challenging time when health is dealt with all over in the news and in social media.

       

      How can we tackle this problem?

      We can teach health literacy and digital health literacy in schools. We can ask journalists to have a more prominent role in how health is being presented in news. We can ask leadership in companies, in public and private sectors to deal with health literacy at work, because health literacy is relevant for all of us. And we need to make sure that we have access to credible information and timely information and relevant information. And a way to do that can be to establish a health data platform. So a digital health platform has so many opportunities to actually bring health to people.

      Content

      Those who want to inform themselves about health topics often feel lost in the jungle of information. According to surveys, many people do not have the necessary health literacy to distinguish fake news from trustworthy information. In this video, Dr. Kristine Sørensen, President of the International Health Literacy Association, explains why health literacy is important and how a national health platform can contribute to improving health literacy.

      Recommended Articles

      Ecosystem design: Benefits for all

      To thrive in today’s market, digital platform operators need to consider the interests of all ecosystem participants. By delivering benefits and creating advantages for everyone involved, they can unlock the potential of network effects and scalability. This principle holds true even for a non-profit national health platform.

      Find out more

      Health literacy and infodemics

      Making healthy decisions requires access to accurate information. Health literacy involves a range of skills that enable us to effectively navigate this information in our daily lives. In an era where information is abundant, and digital platforms offer seemingly unlimited access to knowledge, many people find it challenging to sift through the overwhelming volume of information they are confronted with.

      Find out more

      Your feedback is important to us

      To contact our project team, please use our form. We look forward to your message and will get back to you as soon as possible.


        Invest in benefits: Financing models for health ecosystems

        Dr. Sebastian Krolop
        Dr. Marko Queitsch

        Realizing the vision of a national health platform as outlined in the Trusted Health Ecosystems project could generate financial benefits at many different points and help improve the overall economics of the healthcare system. However, this will require a sustainable and independent financing model that can provide the necessary flexibility for the initial development process, ongoing operations, and future updates and expansions. The solution most likely lies in a combination of different financing approaches.

        Digital ecosystems can provide benefits in the healthcare sector in a variety of ways. For example, networking all relevant actors and using digital data creates transparency and facilitates personalized care offerings. Fully integrated healthcare offerings improve the user experience. Moreover, simplified procedures and digital support make the work of healthcare staff easier.

        A recent McKinsey analysis shows just how great the financial benefits of a digitized healthcare system are likely to be, estimating the economic potential in Germany at around €42 billion per year (McKinsey & Company 2022). Digital ecosystems are not the only means by which to tap this enormous potential, but they could make an important contribution. For example, they could accelerate the digitalization process, while also linking disparate offerings and digital services together in a time- and cost-efficient way.

        The OECD has also stated that facilitating access to high-quality health information, as an ecosystem modeled on the product vision outlined here would do, can have cost-saving effects. It estimates that between 3% and 5% of healthcare spending could be saved or used elsewhere through improved health literacy. For Germany alone, this would correspond to a sum of €9 billion to €15 billion per year.

        However, depending on the project size, the investment needed to support the initial development, deployment and operation of such health ecosystems can in some cases be quite substantial. Ongoing operations also generate costs. This raises the question of what financing models are suitable for creating such an ecosystem and supporting ongoing platform operations, including future updates and expansions.

        Requirements for national health platform financing models

        A variety of financing models are conceivable for health ecosystems, each in turn entailing a number of advantages and disadvantages. In considering these options, it is important to keep in mind the core principles intended to guide the national health platform’s operations (see Objectives and conceptual premises):

        • Nonprofit model. The platform’s operation should not produce profits; any revenue generated will instead fund the platform’s further development. This has an effect on the potential legal form taken by the ecosystem (see Ownership: Public or private?). Of course, this stipulation applies only to the platform operator. Health information or service providers participating in the ecosystem can certainly function on a for-profit basis.
        • The ecosystem should act neutrally and independently of the particular interests of individual actors. This applies not only to healthcare providers and insurers, but also to private-sector companies with commercial interests. In practice, this rules out a number of funding options, such as advertising-supported operations.
        • The process of building and scaling an ecosystem requires time, and necessarily takes place in an environment of fast-moving technological change. Financing models should accordingly be designed for the long term.
        • Since the digital ecosystem will involve participation by private-sector and public-sector actors, and the ecosystem operator will presumably be acting on the basis of a statutory mandate, financing sources should be transparent and comprehensible to all. This will also increase users’ trust in the platform.
        • Open system. The national health platform should be developed as an open ecosystem that allows for links between disparate health providers. A number of features must be created to enable such functions, which in turn will generate ongoing costs – for example, for the development, deployment and maintenance of APIs and other core components.

        Different financing models conceivable

        In selecting suitable financing models, it is advisable to take a differentiated view of the platform’s initial development, ongoing operations, and future updates and expansions. Over this time, these separate phases will be associated with different financial requirements, for which different forms of financing are in turn available:

        Initial development costs. Initial costs are incurred in setting up the basic infrastructure, for example for the IT platform’s technical development, for drafting legal and regulatory concepts, and for integrating the first healthcare providers into the ecosystem. Therefore, one-time basic funding is well-suited for this start-up phase – for instance in the form of grants or other funding from foundations, the government or the ecosystem’s stakeholders. One example of government support for digitalization can be seen in Israel’s National Digital Health Plan. There, the government has allocated a budget of around $300 million for this initiative, in part to build a big data platform containing anonymized health information relating to nearly all Israeli citizens.

        Ongoing operating costs. Once the ecosystem has been established, its ongoing costs must also be covered. This relates to functions such as basic operations as well as maintenance, software licenses, marketing and personnel. These expenses can also be financed through public subsidies derived from taxes or social contributions. However, alternative funding models could also be considered as a means of complementing the independent basic financing. For example, in addition to traditional subscription models, co-op approaches or innovative models such as corporate profit sharing could prove useful.

        • Subscription models: Subscription models have been offered in the media and online retailing sectors for some time. For a regular fee, subscribers get access to news, streamed TV series or music, or other benefits. Membership fees could make a significant contribution to ongoing service improvements, but at the same time could constitute a financial barrier for users, thus increasing social inequality in access to health information. The consequent downward pressure on user numbers would also undermine the platform’s appeal to providers of health-related information and services.
        • Co-op model: Traditional cooperative financing, which is familiar from the banking, housing and agricultural sectors, is increasingly making its way into the healthcare sector in a modern form. The example of the French Welcoop Cooperative shows how a traditional pharmacists’ cooperative has developed into a digital ecosystem for patients, care facilities, hospitals and the pharmaceutical industry. A model of this kind could also create a sustainable and independent funding source for the national health platform outlined here.
        • Innovative financing models: In models such as brand licensing or corporate profit sharing, a portion of company profits are used to support healthcare initiatives. Options range from investing in research and development to funding programs that increase access to healthcare. In the context of the national health platform, participating companies could reinvest a portion of their profits into the ecosystem. No matter what legal form the platform ultimately takes, the operator and the company would determine together how these funds would be used, in order to avoid undue influence.

        Update and expansion costs. Upgrading and expanding an ecosystem includes tasks such as the provision of additional services and interfaces in order to keep the platform appealing to existing users and attract new ones. Financing can be structured in a way similar to that of the initial development and ongoing operation phases (foundations, co-op models), but can also be supplemented by alternative models. The following variants have already been tested in the field:

        • Nonprofit business activities: The platform could pursue supplemental business models that are not primarily connected to its core business. For example, the platform could use its access to data to provide services to healthcare providers, and then use this revenue to fund its own further development.
        • Development on demand: Private healthcare providers that have been able to scale up their services through the ecosystem could also participate in funding platform updates. For example, on the Swiss healthcare platform, called Well, several physician networks are working with the operator to develop an appointment booking and check-in system through the Well app. In order to avoid competing with private-sector providers, the ecosystem operator’s development services could be limited to the platform infrastructure (e.g., interfaces).
        • Transaction fees: Alternatively, private healthcare providers could contribute to the funding stream via the use of their services. For example, they could pay a percentage-based fee to the ecosystem operator – as is done on travel and hotel booking portals – as soon as a service is used.

        Another financing approach familiar from the e-commerce sector is the use of premium models, in which users pay for services that go beyond the basic offerings. However, these are less appropriate in the health setting, because (as noted above) they can limit general access to health information, and thus reinforce social inequality.

        Creative solutions for sustainable financing

        The vision of a national health platform, as is being developed in the Trusted Health Ecosystems project, promises many benefits. It has the potential to promote health literacy, create personalized care options and ultimately reduce healthcare costs. This great economic potential is offset by considerable financial challenges, because financing an ecosystem of this nature will require substantial investment not only to pay for its initial development, but also to cover the costs of ongoing operations and future updates.

        The overall scope of these costs will depend on a variety of different factors. A more precise estimation will be possible only after a detailed planning process (see Initial thoughts on the technical structure of the national health platform). However, the financing of a national health platform with a strong civil society component will in any case require creative solutions that are shaped by the financial needs arising from the individual development phases, and which will provide the platform with sufficient financial flexibility.

        Ultimately, the choice of funding model will depend on the national health platform’s specific requirements and goals. These include a focus on the common good, independence from special interests, sustainability, transparency and system openness. An integrative approach that combines different funding sources is likely to achieve the best results, while also supporting the ecosystem’s long-term development and ensuring its sustainability.

        Bibliography

        Eichler K, et al. (2009). The costs of limited health literacy: a systematic review. International Journal of Public Health 54. 313–324.

        McKinsey & Company (2022). Digitalisierung im Gesundheitswesen. Die 42-Milliarden-Euro-Chance für Deutschland. URL: https://www.mckinsey.de/news/presse/2022-05-24-42-mrd-euro-chance

        Ministry of Health, State of Israel (2018). The Government has approved a National Program for Promoting the Digital Health Field. URL: https://www.health.gov.il/English/News_and_Events/Spokespersons_Messages/Pages/25032018_2.aspx

        World Health Organization (‎2019)‎. Interview with Jens Spahn, Federal Minister of Health, Germany. Public health panorama 5 (‎2)‎. 163–165. WHO. Regional Office for Europe. URL: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/327036

        Authors

        Sebastian Krolop, MD, PhD, MSc, is an expert with 25 years of professional experience as an emergency physician, and is additionally an economist, strategist and innovator. His areas of expertise include the transformation and financing of digital technologies in international health systems. He served as a board member of the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) in Chicago, IL, United States, where he oversaw areas including strategy, operations, startups and the company’s own digital ecosystem platform, called Accelerate. Previously, he was partner and industry lead for life sciences and healthcare at Deloitte. Krolop is the author of the annual Krankenhaus Rating Report, and has contributed as author and co-author to more than 40 books with a focus on the financing and digitalization of health ecosystems.

        Dr. Marko Queitsch studied industrial engineering, and earned his doctorate in business management. He has conducted research as an economist on digital communication issues in healthcare, and has developed digital health solutions in the private sector. As head of business development for Weisse Liste gGmbH, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bertelsmann Stiftung, he designs nonprofit business and financing models. In addition, he supports the Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Trusted Health Ecosystems project in the key areas of operating and financing models, as well in data and software architecture issues.

        Recommendations

        Your feedback is important to us

        To contact our project team, please use our form. We look forward to your message and will get back to you as soon as possible.


          Managing the risks of platform economy

          Transcript

          Intro

          If you think of that, the risks in healthcare get much more magnified and amplified compared to the risks that we’ve seen in less sensitive industries like social media and health and e-commerce.

          Could public platforms be part of the solution?

          I absolutely believe that in healthcare in particular, public platforms are very important. In healthcare, today data is fragmented across many different legacy institutions, much like in banking. If you look at what happened in India with the rise of the India stack, a common public infrastructure was created for different stakeholders across the financial services sector to work together.

          A similar approach would work in healthcare, where legacy institutions need to work in coordination with new startups coming up, and large public digital infrastructures provide the common mechanism for enabling and achieving that coordination. So I believe that even if it hasn’t happened in certain other sectors, in healthcare I would absolutely advocate the creation of public digital infrastructures.

          What can be achieved through statutory regulation?

          The potential disadvantages of the platform economy can be to some extent averted through statutory regulation. Because today the platform economy is operating in the wild west. There are no regulations in terms of what can be done with the data that’s being harvested. So regulation does have an important role when we start seeing too much concentration happening in a certain industry or too much power being taken away from individuals.

          But at the same time, it’s important to ensure that regulation does not stifle innovation, that we create counterbalancing value for innovation in the form of public infrastructures, in the form of standards through which companies can better coordinate with each other. So it’s important that we don’t take a pro-regulation only hat approach to this. We counterbalance it with the right capabilities for innovation.

          Should national health systems compete with the private sector?

          National health systems competing with private sector players would prove counterproductive for the healthcare ecosystem. To solve problems in the healthcare ecosystem systemically, you need national health systems to create the right public goods around patient data, but also need to incentivize private players to create the right diagnostic capabilities while using that data.

          Content

          Expert

          Sangeet Paul Choudary is author, advisor, and Founder of Platformation Labs and he is a prominent advocate of individual rights in the platform economy. His best-seller “Platform Revolution” is a Forbes “must-read”, his work on platform economy is ranked among the top 10 strategy articles published in the Harvard Business Review. He is ranked a top business thinker by Thinkers50 Radar (2016) and Thinkers50 India (2015). For his contributions to the field of platform economics, Choudary was named a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum in 2017.

          Empfohlene Artikel

          Your feedback is important to us

          To contact our project team, please use our form. We look forward to your message and will get back to you as soon as possible.


            Trusted Health Ecosystems – TRAILER

            Your feedback is important to us

            To contact our project team, please use our form. We look forward to your message and will get back to you as soon as possible.


              Our vision of a national health platform

              Transcript

              Was wäre, wenn es einen Ort im Internet gäbe, an dem Patientinnen und Patienten die für die eigene Gesundheit relevanten Informationen erhalten, die sie wirklich brauchen? Zum richtigen Zeitpunkt, ohne überhaupt danach zu suchen. Einen Ort, an dem sie vor Desinformation sicher sind, an dem der Schutz persönlicher Gesundheitsdaten respektiert und Datensouveränität groß geschrieben wird.

              Einen solchen Ort haben wir im Projekt “Trusted Health Ecosystems” als Vision einer nationalen Gesundheitsplattform entwickelt. Unsere Vision bündelt Produkte qualitätsgeprüfter Anbieter. Dadurch entstehen passgenau zugeschnittene Informationen. Wir nennen das Patienteninformationspfade. Wir laden Sie nun auf eine Erkundungstour durch einen fiktiven Informationspfad ein.

              Der Login erfolgt mittels der geplanten digitalen Gesundheits-ID. Das vermeidet aufwendige Registrierungsprozesse und schafft maximale Sicherheit bei der Identifikation. Die Benutzeroberfläche eines Informationspfads erinnert an soziale Netzwerke. Man findet sich im Feed also schnell zurecht. Im Zeitverlauf füllt sich dieser Feed aus unterschiedlichen Quellen mit personalisierten Informationen.

              Auf unserer Tour erkunden wir nun den Informationspfad von unserer fiktiven Patientin Katharina Funke. Sie hat Knieschmerzen und erhält von ihrer Hausärztin die Verdachtsdiagnose Kniearthrose. Anders als bei der klassischen Recherche über eine Suchmaschine beginnen Patienteninformationspfade dort, wo Vertrauen entsteht, nämlich in den Behandlungszimmern von Ärztinnen und Ärzten oder anderen Gesundheitsberufen.

              In unserem Beispiel hat die Hausärztin Katharina Funke den Informationspfad Kniearthrose empfohlen und ihr einen Link dazu übermittelt. Katharina Funke erhält zunächst grundlegende Informationen zu ihrer Verdachtsdiagnose, die ihr einen allgemeinen Überblick über die Erkrankung verschaffen. In den folgenden Wochen und Monaten wird Katharina Funke unterschiedliche Instanzen des Gesundheitssystems durchlaufen. Von der Diagnostik beim Facharzt über die Entscheidung für eine Operation im Krankenhaus und die medizinische Rehabilitation bis hin zur beruflichen Wiedereingliederung.

              Ihr persönlicher Feed versorgt Katharina Funke immer mit den passenden Informationen zu ihrer Erkrankung, zum Versorgungssystem, zu Behandlungsalternativen und zu sozialrechtlichen Fragestellungen. Um den Feed individuell zuschneiden zu können, nutzt das System nach erfolgter Freigabe durch die Patientin oder den Patienten externe Datenquellen, wie die elektronische Patientenakte oder Gesundheits-Apps. Diese Daten liefern wichtige Hinweise zum aktuellen Bedarf. So werden relevante Informationen immer dann angeboten, wenn sie wirklich gebraucht werden. Information und Aufklärung sind dann kein punktuelles Ereignis mehr, sondern folgen einem Prozess.

              Daher gleicht kein Informationspfad dem anderen. Die Inhalte folgen dynamisch dem individuellen Bedarf. Und das System bietet auch Informationen an, nach denen Nutzerinnen und Nutzer vielleicht gar nicht gesucht hätten. Wer zum Beispiel Krankengeld bezieht, sollte die damit verbundenen Pflichten kennen, um diesen Anspruch nicht zu verlieren. Sofern die Plattform über Kontextinformationen zur Krankschreibung verfügt, können solche Hinweise rechtzeitig angeboten werden.

              Und das System kann noch mehr. Sobald ein neues Medikament verordnet wird, erscheint im Feed die passende Information zum Arzneimittel in Echtzeit. Vorausgesetzt Katharina Funke ist damit einverstanden. Außerdem bietet der Informationsfad immer auch passende digitale Services an. Wer den Hinweis zu einem neuen Arzneimittel erhält, kann im nächsten Schritt das digitale Rezept gleich einlösen. Des Weiteren informiert der Feed Katharina Funke über unterschiedliche Behandlungsoptionen und empfiehlt ihr parallel dazu digitale Zweitmeinungs-Services.

              So hilft ihr die Plattform, neu erworbenes Wissen umzusetzen oder in Entscheidungen einfließen zu lassen.

              Für die Komposition des individuellen Angebots greift das System auf die Informationen und Services von einer Vielzahl zertifizierter Anbieter zurück. Dazu zählen öffentliche Institutionen und gemeinnützige Organisationen ebenso wie kommerzielle Unternehmen. Das eröffnet den Nutzerinnen und Nutzern eine breite Auswahl passender Angebote und erschließt die Innovationskraft der gesamten Gesundheitsbranche. Falls mehrere Angebote infrage kommen, wird das Angebot angezeigt, das die beste Bewertung durch die Nutzer-Community erhalten hat. Über eine Schubladenfunktion lassen sich die übrigen Angebote jederzeit einsehen und auswählen.

              So oder so ähnlich könnte eine nationale Gesundheitsplattform aussehen, die wirklich einen Unterschied macht. Für Patientinnen und Patienten und für das gesamte Gesundheitswesen.

              Für die Realisierung einer solchen Plattform bedarf es natürlich einer rechtlichen Grundlage. Und es setzt die enge Zusammenarbeit aller relevanten Akteure voraus.

              Mit unserer Produktvision möchten wir all diejenigen inspirieren, die an der Entwicklung einer nationalen Plattformstrategie mitwirken möchten.

              Was wäre, wenn öffentliche Institutionen, Gesundheitsberufe, Wirtschaft und Zivilgesellschaft in einem digitalen Ökosystem zusammenarbeiten?

              Was wäre, wenn wir die Informationsarchitektur im Gesundheitswesen grundlegend verändern?

              Your feedback is important to us

              To contact our project team, please use our form. We look forward to your message and will get back to you as soon as possible.


                The power of platform economy in the healthcare system

                Transcript

                Intro

                In healthcare, that could take the role of capturing diagnostic power and essentially controlling the patient journey and controlling doctor access to the patient journey based on that data.

                What are the differences between platform economy and traditional business models?

                 The platform economy refers to the sum total of social and economic activity that is mediated by digital platforms. Digital platforms are different from traditional business models. Traditional business models are what I call pipelines, which create a product, ship it down, and provide it to the end user. Digital platforms create an infrastructure which allows external parties to come together and create and exchange value with each other.

                Now, the reason this is important is because in a traditional pipeline economy, your ability to create value was restricted to your access to  resources and to labor internal to the company. In the platform economy, your ability to create value is determined not by the sources internal to you, but by your ability to leverage resources external to you, which means that you now benefit from what is called demand side economies of scale.

                How can healthcare benefit from platform economy?

                Healthcare is uniquely positioned to benefit from the platform economy. And to understand that, we need to think about the healthcare value chain. There are three distinct positions where platforms can come in and add value. For the physicians and the doctors, platforms can create diagnosis augmentation. They can provide infrastructure that can help doctors make better diagnosis and perform surgery better. Closer to the patient, platforms can serve as a way to act as a custodian of patient data in an aggregated format. And in between the two ends of that spectrum, as healthcare APIs increase, platforms can create a strong integration role in resolving these healthcare APIs across the ecosystem.

                What are the risks of platforms entering the healthcare market?

                There is every likelihood that platforms entering healthcare could lead to the same data monopolies that we’ve seen in other sectors. And the reason for this is that platforms capture value by extracting and capturing data and creating monopolistic control over data at scale. This is even more important in healthcare because a significant amount of value created in healthcare is created through data-driven diagnosis and data-driven patient care. So platforms are in every way incentivized to capture data as they enter healthcare and to create large data monopolies.

                The counter to this is to ensure that on the one hand, we create the right regulatory forces to counterbalance these kinds of risks, but more importantly, ensure that alternatives like creating public infrastructures are set up in a way that innovation is not restricted because of this regulation. So in order to counter digital platforms, we need a combination of both of these aspects.

                In the future, who will control patient flows?

                I believe it is very conceivable that future patient flows will no longer be controlled by traditional healthcare institutions. As the world gets more connected, we need to realize that healthcare today is very fragmented. Patient data itself is fragmented across different institutions. Naturally, as the world gets more connected, we would see more of concentration of this patient data and more of interoperability. So at this point, we have two choices, whether it’s large multinational companies that will enable that interoperability, or whether it is public digital infrastructures that we create that will enable that interoperability across different systems.

                Content

                Expert

                Sangeet Paul Choudary is author, advisor, and Founder of Platformation Labs and he is a prominent advocate of individual rights in the platform economy. His best-seller “Platform Revolution” is a Forbes “must-read”, his work on platform economy is ranked among the top 10 strategy articles published in the Harvard Business Review. He is ranked a top business thinker by Thinkers50 Radar (2016) and Thinkers50 India (2015). For his contributions to the field of platform economics, Choudary was named a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum in 2017.

                Empfohlene Artikel

                Your feedback is important to us

                To contact our project team, please use our form. We look forward to your message and will get back to you as soon as possible.


                  National health platform: Governance and legal framework

                  Transcript

                  Intro

                  In principle, establishing and developing a national health platform on the basis of an existing legal framework is a feasible option. However, given the innovative nature of the platform and the diversity of its anticipated tasks, it seems advisable to create a new legal structure, or perhaps even multiple ones, for its operational framework.

                  What factors should be weighed when selecting the appropriate legal structure?

                  When determining the legal framework for the national health platform, it is important to consider what features the platform should have. This is because German corporate law specifically provides for a wide variety of legal forms, each carrying its own set of advantages and drawbacks. In any case, it’s important to ensure the platform’s operational capability. Whatever the chosen legal form, it should grant the platform a legal personality, thus enabling it to bear rights and responsibilities.

                  It should also be aligned with the platform’s mission statement, which targets the common good, as opposed to purely profit-driven objectives. Here, too, the German legal context provides for legal structures that are more or less committed to this ethos.

                  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the chosen legal form should provide flexibility. The platform is expected to take on evolving roles and tasks, some of which may not be clearly defined at its inception. Furthermore, the selected legal framework should facilitate collaboration between both private and government organizations within the platform.

                  Which organization could assume responsibility for the platform?

                  In principle, establishing and developing a national health platform on the basis of an existing legal framework is a feasible option. However, given the innovative nature of the platform and the diversity of its anticipated tasks, it seems advisable to create a new legal structure, or perhaps even multiple ones, for its operational framework.

                  What are the pros and cons of a private-law versus public-law form of governance?

                  Publicly governed legal structures are typically accessible only to governmental entities. In other words, not everyone can opt for such a legal framework but, rather, only entities at the federal, state or municipal levels of government. While public legal structures do come with certain privileges, including advantages in financing and decision-making processes, these privileges also entail certain drawbacks. Most notably, these kinds of legal structures tend to be less adaptable and flexible. This means that when such projects take on new responsibilities, adjustments must be made to their legal basis. Furthermore, public and private actors cannot easily collaborate under the umbrella of a publicly governed legal structure.

                  What recommendations can be derived from this for the organizational framework of a national healthcare platform?

                  It’s important to choose a legal form for the national health platform that provides for operational viability, that is, a form that grants the platform a legal personality. Publicly governed legal forms seem to be less suitable for such a platform. Instead, privately held legal structures, which confer legal personality, seem preferable. Another option might be to allocate different platform responsibilities or business domains to distinct entities or businesses, each of which adopts the appropriate legal form. These companies can then, in turn, be brought together under the common umbrella of a holding company.

                  Disclaimer

                  The statements made in this interview are relevant exclusively to the German legal context. They offer a framework for guidance and should not be interpreted as providing legal counsel beyond the scope of the Trusted Health Ecosystems project.

                  Content

                  Expert

                  While completing her doctoral studies, Prof. Dr. Laura Schulte gained experience in the field of constitutional law as a research assistant. Her doctoral thesis focused on data protection law, and she conducted further research on this subject at various institutions, including the Queen Mary School of Law in London. From 2020 to 2023, she was employed as an attorney at BRANDI Rechtsanwälte in Bielefeld, specializing in IT and data protection law. Since August 2023, she has held the position of professor of business law at the Hochschule Bielefeld.

                  Recommended Articles

                  Ownership: Public or private?

                  When establishing a national healthcare platform, it is crucial to identify a suitable legal structure that fulfills all the necessary requirements and effectively supports the ecosystem in which it operates. In terms of ownership, a number of different options are available, each involving a variety of advantages and disadvantages. The first question to arise at this point is whether the platform should be operated by a public or a private-sector actor.

                  Find out more

                  Your feedback is important to us

                  To contact our project team, please use our form. We look forward to your message and will get back to you as soon as possible.


                    National health platform: The state as a provider of information

                    Transcript

                    Intro

                    If we view the national health platform as a central node of a network that involves government actors, it must adhere to the legal criteria governing state bodies.

                    What constitutes government public service messaging, and how does it relate to the concept of a national health platform?

                    Essentially any form of activity by which the state communicates information to the public can be regarded as a form of government public service messaging. This can include, for example, providing informing about specific topics such as certain medical conditions or endorsing behaviors like walking 10,000 steps a day. It also involves issuing warnings about certain products, like the use of specific medical devices. And it doesn’t necessarily matter which government agency is the source of this information. It could come from a federal ministry, a state or regional parliament, or a local government agency.

                    Why is government public service messaging subject to specific legal requirements?

                    The state’s activity in terms of providing information to the public is subject to distinct legal requirements because government entities typically have access to significantly different kinds of resources for their informational activities compared to privately owned businesses. Government agencies usually attract a great deal of public attention when issuing information and enjoy a certain degree of authority and trust, particularly among patients.

                    This means that when, for instance, a federal ministry issues a warning about the use of a specific medical device, this effectively functions as a ban on that product. Citizens are much less likely to purchase the device if the government has officially cautioned against it. In practical terms, government public service messaging can significantly influence market dynamics. It can, for example, impact other providers of digital healthcare services’ fundamental right to occupational freedom.

                    What guidance can be extrapolated from this for the governance of a national platform?

                    If government actors are to participate in the national health platform, the platform will need to comply with the typically stringent legal requirements that are applicable to state entities. As a rule, this will involve establishing a legal framework. Even if product warnings are not the main focus of the project, the fundamental rights of providers of digital healthcare services could plausibly be affected by such an undertaking.

                    This suggests that the national health platform should be run by a non-governmental organization such as a civil society organization that enjoys more flexibility. And this wouldn’t need to rule out public funds as a source of financing, as public financing doesn’t necessaeily dictate that the chosen governance or ownership model be based in public law.

                    Disclaimer

                    The statements made in this interview are relevant exclusively to the German legal context. They offer a framework for guidance and should not be interpreted as providing legal counsel beyond the scope of the Trusted Health Ecosystems project.

                    Content

                    Expert

                    While completing her doctoral studies, Prof. Dr. Laura Schulte gained experience in the field of constitutional law as a research assistant. Her doctoral thesis focused on data protection law, and she conducted further research on this subject at various institutions, including the Queen Mary School of Law in London. From 2020 to 2023, she was employed as an attorney at BRANDI Rechtsanwälte in Bielefeld, specializing in IT and data protection law. Since August 2023, she has held the position of professor of business law at the Hochschule Bielefeld.

                    Your feedback is important to us

                    To contact our project team, please use our form. We look forward to your message and will get back to you as soon as possible.