数字健康应用程序(DiHA):制定奥地利法定健康保险报销流程的方法。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Gregor Goetz , Reinhard Jeindl , Dimitra Panteli , Reinhard Busse , Claudia Wild
{"title":"数字健康应用程序(DiHA):制定奥地利法定健康保险报销流程的方法。","authors":"Gregor Goetz ,&nbsp;Reinhard Jeindl ,&nbsp;Dimitra Panteli ,&nbsp;Reinhard Busse ,&nbsp;Claudia Wild","doi":"10.1016/j.hlpt.2023.100780","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To elaborate a concept for implementing digital health applications (DiHA), including prioritisation criteria (PC) for the Austrian context and an overview of available prioritised DiHAs.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Based on European DiHA-listings and input by Austrian experts, a categorised meta-directory of DiHAs was created. PC were developed to reflect, inter alia, the provisions of the Austrian General Insurance Act, and were applied to the meta-directory to identify DiHAs potentially relevant for the Austrian statutory health insurance. An iterative process with expert involvement was used to tailor an existing reimbursement framework to the Austrian setting.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The meta-directory comprised 132 DiHAs. Developed PC focused on plausibility (German language) and legal aspects (treatment/monitoring of chronic conditions), while other criteria (e.g. interoperability standards) were considered optional. After applying the PC, 38 DiHAs were potentially relevant in the Austrian setting. Of these, only seven supported current health record integration. Most of the prioritised DiHAs reported on CE marking (29/38) and data protection (35/38), while reporting on risk class (10/38) and technical algorithms (0/38) was sparse. For DiHA reimbursement, a four-step process is proposed: identification (ideally based on needs assessment); filtering based on PC; review of technical, regulatory and evidentiary requirements; and health technology assessment.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The proposed concept can offer guidance for policy makers (e.g., on prioritising available DiHAs) and may further foster scientific debate with regard to DiHA implementation. Further discussion on how to fully incorporate regulatory, technical, and evidentiary criteria is needed. Attention should be given to national implementation requirements, re-assessment criteria, and appropriate remuneration schemes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48672,"journal":{"name":"Health Policy and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10507816/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Digital Health Applications (DiHA): Approaches to develop a reimbursement process for the statutory health insurance in Austria\",\"authors\":\"Gregor Goetz ,&nbsp;Reinhard Jeindl ,&nbsp;Dimitra Panteli ,&nbsp;Reinhard Busse ,&nbsp;Claudia Wild\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.hlpt.2023.100780\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To elaborate a concept for implementing digital health applications (DiHA), including prioritisation criteria (PC) for the Austrian context and an overview of available prioritised DiHAs.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Based on European DiHA-listings and input by Austrian experts, a categorised meta-directory of DiHAs was created. PC were developed to reflect, inter alia, the provisions of the Austrian General Insurance Act, and were applied to the meta-directory to identify DiHAs potentially relevant for the Austrian statutory health insurance. An iterative process with expert involvement was used to tailor an existing reimbursement framework to the Austrian setting.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The meta-directory comprised 132 DiHAs. Developed PC focused on plausibility (German language) and legal aspects (treatment/monitoring of chronic conditions), while other criteria (e.g. interoperability standards) were considered optional. After applying the PC, 38 DiHAs were potentially relevant in the Austrian setting. Of these, only seven supported current health record integration. Most of the prioritised DiHAs reported on CE marking (29/38) and data protection (35/38), while reporting on risk class (10/38) and technical algorithms (0/38) was sparse. For DiHA reimbursement, a four-step process is proposed: identification (ideally based on needs assessment); filtering based on PC; review of technical, regulatory and evidentiary requirements; and health technology assessment.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The proposed concept can offer guidance for policy makers (e.g., on prioritising available DiHAs) and may further foster scientific debate with regard to DiHA implementation. Further discussion on how to fully incorporate regulatory, technical, and evidentiary criteria is needed. Attention should be given to national implementation requirements, re-assessment criteria, and appropriate remuneration schemes.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48672,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Policy and Technology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10507816/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Policy and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211883723000564\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Policy and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211883723000564","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:阐述实施数字健康应用程序(DiHA)的概念,包括奥地利背景下的优先级标准(PC)和可用的优先级DiHA概述。方法:基于欧洲DiHA列表和奥地利专家的输入,创建了DiHA的分类元目录。PC的制定主要是为了反映《奥地利普通保险法》的规定,并适用于元目录,以确定可能与奥地利法定健康保险相关的DiHA。采用了一个有专家参与的迭代过程,以根据奥地利的情况调整现有的偿还框架。结果:元目录包括132个DiHA。开发的PC侧重于合理性(德语)和法律方面(慢性病的治疗/监测),而其他标准(如互操作性标准)被认为是可选的。在应用PC之后,38个DIHA在奥地利环境中具有潜在的相关性。其中,只有7个支持当前的健康记录集成。大多数优先DiHA报告了CE标记(29/38)和数据保护(35/38),而报告的风险等级(10/38)和技术算法(0/38)很少。对于DiHA报销,提出了一个四步流程:确定(理想情况下基于需求评估);基于PC机的过滤;审查技术、监管和证据要求;以及卫生技术评估。结论:所提出的概念可以为决策者提供指导(例如,优先考虑可用的DiHA),并可能进一步促进关于DiHA实施的科学辩论。需要进一步讨论如何充分纳入监管、技术和证据标准。应注意国家执行要求、重新评估标准和适当的薪酬计划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Digital Health Applications (DiHA): Approaches to develop a reimbursement process for the statutory health insurance in Austria

Digital Health Applications (DiHA): Approaches to develop a reimbursement process for the statutory health insurance in Austria

Digital Health Applications (DiHA): Approaches to develop a reimbursement process for the statutory health insurance in Austria

Digital Health Applications (DiHA): Approaches to develop a reimbursement process for the statutory health insurance in Austria

Purpose

To elaborate a concept for implementing digital health applications (DiHA), including prioritisation criteria (PC) for the Austrian context and an overview of available prioritised DiHAs.

Methods

Based on European DiHA-listings and input by Austrian experts, a categorised meta-directory of DiHAs was created. PC were developed to reflect, inter alia, the provisions of the Austrian General Insurance Act, and were applied to the meta-directory to identify DiHAs potentially relevant for the Austrian statutory health insurance. An iterative process with expert involvement was used to tailor an existing reimbursement framework to the Austrian setting.

Results

The meta-directory comprised 132 DiHAs. Developed PC focused on plausibility (German language) and legal aspects (treatment/monitoring of chronic conditions), while other criteria (e.g. interoperability standards) were considered optional. After applying the PC, 38 DiHAs were potentially relevant in the Austrian setting. Of these, only seven supported current health record integration. Most of the prioritised DiHAs reported on CE marking (29/38) and data protection (35/38), while reporting on risk class (10/38) and technical algorithms (0/38) was sparse. For DiHA reimbursement, a four-step process is proposed: identification (ideally based on needs assessment); filtering based on PC; review of technical, regulatory and evidentiary requirements; and health technology assessment.

Conclusion

The proposed concept can offer guidance for policy makers (e.g., on prioritising available DiHAs) and may further foster scientific debate with regard to DiHA implementation. Further discussion on how to fully incorporate regulatory, technical, and evidentiary criteria is needed. Attention should be given to national implementation requirements, re-assessment criteria, and appropriate remuneration schemes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Policy and Technology
Health Policy and Technology Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
3.30%
发文量
78
审稿时长
88 days
期刊介绍: Health Policy and Technology (HPT), is the official journal of the Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine (FPM), a cross-disciplinary journal, which focuses on past, present and future health policy and the role of technology in clinical and non-clinical national and international health environments. HPT provides a further excellent way for the FPM to continue to make important national and international contributions to development of policy and practice within medicine and related disciplines. The aim of HPT is to publish relevant, timely and accessible articles and commentaries to support policy-makers, health professionals, health technology providers, patient groups and academia interested in health policy and technology. Topics covered by HPT will include: - Health technology, including drug discovery, diagnostics, medicines, devices, therapeutic delivery and eHealth systems - Cross-national comparisons on health policy using evidence-based approaches - National studies on health policy to determine the outcomes of technology-driven initiatives - Cross-border eHealth including health tourism - The digital divide in mobility, access and affordability of healthcare - Health technology assessment (HTA) methods and tools for evaluating the effectiveness of clinical and non-clinical health technologies - Health and eHealth indicators and benchmarks (measure/metrics) for understanding the adoption and diffusion of health technologies - Health and eHealth models and frameworks to support policy-makers and other stakeholders in decision-making - Stakeholder engagement with health technologies (clinical and patient/citizen buy-in) - Regulation and health economics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信