Vodaphone
Brussels, Belgium
Current funding schemes are the main barriers to the implementation of telehealth. An outcome-based reimbursement system is needed in order to convince policymakers to invest further public money. Scaling-up is also a major problem for telehealth businesses and Vodaphone tries to facilitate the debate between the stakeholders.
The Vodaphone Health Debate follows the launch of the second installment of a series of Insights Guides and is aimed at evaluating the mHealth adoption barriers presented by politics and economics, looking at the pillars of mHealth policy as well as reimbursement issues with case studies and best practices from health systems around the world. The Health Debate consists of a discussion led by an expert panel, whom both reflect on some of the discussions raised by the insights guide and equally challenge or build from those discussions. Delegates attending the Health Debate were able to actively contribute to those discussions.
The Health Debate was moderated by Vodafone's Global Head of mHealth Business Development, Tony Kane. Among the expert panelists were Mr. Wojciech Dziworski, Senior Economist (DG SANCO), Hans Martens Chief Executive of the European Policy Center and Petra Wilson from Continua/CISCO.
Vodafone presented the document: “Evaluating mHealth adoption barriers: politics and economics”. The report shows how existing models of healthcare provision are becoming insufficient in times of budget constraints, while mHealth solutions can help governments improve healthcare systems, delivering better performance at a lower cost.
The report gathers articles from academia as well as case studies from European countries and across the world (India, Australia, Italy, South Africa, UK, and the US). For example, it is estimated that in the UK only telehealth can deliver a 20% reduction in emergency admissions, 14% reduction in bed days, and 8% reduction in tariff costs. Another case study shows that in Italy the daily cost of home-based care, empowered by telemedicine, is €180 compared to €700-1000 in hospitals.
The Insights Guide also highlights that while “the potential reward for successful implementation of mHealth projects is high, the barriers to overcome are also significant”. Also for this reason, at the moment, “only a quarter of countries worldwide have drawn up a national telemedicine policy or strategy” (WHO Global Observatory for eHealth, 2010).
One of the main barriers is the current funding models, “strongly geared towards preventing new models of delivering healthcare”, like telemedicine. The report suggests that one solution to overcome this barrier might be the introduction of “outcome-based reimbursement” (e.g. payment for readmission rate). Another barrier is the scale of the projects: while coping with local needs, healthcare provision models need “to avoid costly duplications” and be interoperable. For this reason, the report indicates that there is a need for collaboration between all the stakeholders involved in healthcare provision.
The Insights Guide also proposes 6 key recommendations to Governments who want to take full benefit from mHealth applications. First, to strengthen their eHealth policies by including mHealth policy developments. Second, when planning broadband deployment, they should take into account the potential needs of mHealth technologies. Third, consider interoperability issues from the outset. Fourth, make electronic health records accessible from mobile. Fifth, strike the right balance between regionalization of healthcare and scale, avoiding duplicated efforts. Sixth, focus on patient empowerment through the use of mHealth.
Overall, it was an interesting debate, short but effective. It touched upon the most important factors for my research: innovation, reimbursement, and policy-mongering. The next report is due next year but this one will fuel many debates around the world. So far you can witness the previous Health Debates till the current one is being uploaded to the net.
Current funding schemes are the main barriers to the implementation of telehealth. An outcome-based reimbursement system is needed in order to convince policymakers to invest further public money. Scaling-up is also a major problem for telehealth businesses and Vodaphone tries to facilitate the debate between the stakeholders.
 |
| POLITICS AND ECONOMICS OF mHEALTH |
The Vodaphone Health Debate follows the launch of the second installment of a series of Insights Guides and is aimed at evaluating the mHealth adoption barriers presented by politics and economics, looking at the pillars of mHealth policy as well as reimbursement issues with case studies and best practices from health systems around the world. The Health Debate consists of a discussion led by an expert panel, whom both reflect on some of the discussions raised by the insights guide and equally challenge or build from those discussions. Delegates attending the Health Debate were able to actively contribute to those discussions.
The Health Debate was moderated by Vodafone's Global Head of mHealth Business Development, Tony Kane. Among the expert panelists were Mr. Wojciech Dziworski, Senior Economist (DG SANCO), Hans Martens Chief Executive of the European Policy Center and Petra Wilson from Continua/CISCO.
Vodafone presented the document: “Evaluating mHealth adoption barriers: politics and economics”. The report shows how existing models of healthcare provision are becoming insufficient in times of budget constraints, while mHealth solutions can help governments improve healthcare systems, delivering better performance at a lower cost.
The report gathers articles from academia as well as case studies from European countries and across the world (India, Australia, Italy, South Africa, UK, and the US). For example, it is estimated that in the UK only telehealth can deliver a 20% reduction in emergency admissions, 14% reduction in bed days, and 8% reduction in tariff costs. Another case study shows that in Italy the daily cost of home-based care, empowered by telemedicine, is €180 compared to €700-1000 in hospitals.
The Insights Guide also highlights that while “the potential reward for successful implementation of mHealth projects is high, the barriers to overcome are also significant”. Also for this reason, at the moment, “only a quarter of countries worldwide have drawn up a national telemedicine policy or strategy” (WHO Global Observatory for eHealth, 2010).
 |
| ON THE TOPIC OF TELEMEDICINE |
One of the main barriers is the current funding models, “strongly geared towards preventing new models of delivering healthcare”, like telemedicine. The report suggests that one solution to overcome this barrier might be the introduction of “outcome-based reimbursement” (e.g. payment for readmission rate). Another barrier is the scale of the projects: while coping with local needs, healthcare provision models need “to avoid costly duplications” and be interoperable. For this reason, the report indicates that there is a need for collaboration between all the stakeholders involved in healthcare provision.
The Insights Guide also proposes 6 key recommendations to Governments who want to take full benefit from mHealth applications. First, to strengthen their eHealth policies by including mHealth policy developments. Second, when planning broadband deployment, they should take into account the potential needs of mHealth technologies. Third, consider interoperability issues from the outset. Fourth, make electronic health records accessible from mobile. Fifth, strike the right balance between regionalization of healthcare and scale, avoiding duplicated efforts. Sixth, focus on patient empowerment through the use of mHealth.
Overall, it was an interesting debate, short but effective. It touched upon the most important factors for my research: innovation, reimbursement, and policy-mongering. The next report is due next year but this one will fuel many debates around the world. So far you can witness the previous Health Debates till the current one is being uploaded to the net.
Comments
Post a Comment