Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

eHealth 2010 conference - Van Ooteghem

Abstract. Provisioning of good quality care to the elderly population and at the same time reducing the pressure on the health care expenditures is a challenging issue for governments today. Many ICT supported, distant care systems (eCare) have been proposed but few have found their way to the market. The problem is to provide a viable business case for each actor involved (including eCare platform, health care and finance providers) when offering eCare services. We have constructed a model for evaluating the (socio )economic viability of different business models when introducing eCare solutions. A multi-actor approach has been implemented, calculating and evaluating the business case for each actor involved. For a Belgian case we will show (socio)-economic advantages to participate in an eCare ecosystem.

Keywords: eCare, Business model, Multi-actor analysis, Economic viability

  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

eHealth 2010 conference - Van Ooteghem

  1. 1. Economic viability of eCare solutions J. Van Ooteghem , A. Ackaert, S. Verbrugge, D. Colle, M Pickavet, P. Demeester eHealth 2010 conference 14 December 2010 Casablanca, Morocco
  2. 2. IBBT TranseCare project Transparant ICT platforms for eCare Project duration 2007 - 2010 Project website http://projects.ibbt.be/TranseCare
  3. 3. Objective of the study <ul><li>To develop a tool for analyzing the economic viability of eCare services in different settings </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Value network analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Techno-economic evaluation incl. multi-actor analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Showing incentives and advantages for all actors involved in the eCare eco-systeem </li></ul>
  4. 4. Outline Services Conclusions Cost/benefit model Value network
  5. 5. Services data center call center home care professional care family friends Home care platform Communication eCare Telemetry Emergency calls
  6. 6. Outline Services Conclusions Cost/benefit model Value network
  7. 7. Value network
  8. 8. Actors participating in the model Insurance company Connectivity provider Government External developer Home care organizations Profit model Break-even model Low-profit model* * Belgian situation
  9. 9. Value network Insurance Connectivity Government End user External dev. Home care
  10. 10. Outline Services Conclusions Cost/benefit model Value network
  11. 11. Actors: expectations <ul><li>eCare platform </li></ul><ul><li>Hardware provider </li></ul><ul><li>Software provider </li></ul><ul><li>Call center </li></ul><ul><li>Data center </li></ul><ul><li>Connectivity provider </li></ul><ul><li>Professional care </li></ul><ul><li>Primary care </li></ul><ul><li>Home care </li></ul><ul><li>Rest home with nursing care </li></ul><ul><li>Financing </li></ul><ul><li>Government </li></ul><ul><li>Insurance companies </li></ul><ul><li>Pati e nt </li></ul>Purpose of the model Showing incentives and advantages for each actor
  12. 12. Total cost of ownership eCare platform eCP purchase eCP operational cost Call center Data center Connectivity Subsidy / reimbursement
  13. 13. Primary care (GP) Personal loss New gains = In practice consultations Home consultations eConsultations New consultations
  14. 14. Home care Savings home care Savings per year Decrease in visits Less waste of time Additional number of home visits thanks to extra time Additional number of visits Type of visits Time saved per year per patient Decrease of home care visits 198 min. More efficient home care visit 122 min
  15. 15. Rest home (with nursing care) -30% Unserved level of intramural care Offering of additional transmural care
  16. 16. Outline Services Conclusions Cost/benefit model Value network
  17. 17. Financial contribution patient <ul><li>Cost of primary care </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Decrease in consultations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>eConsultations </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Monthly cost </li></ul><ul><li>patient </li></ul>Break-even Subsidy / reimbursement
  18. 18. Conclusions Actor + - Patient Better care Social contacts Cost per month Willingness to pay? Primary care eConsultations Time gains  new patients Beter follow-up patients ICT threshold? Home care Time gains  new patients Beter follow-up patients Offering additional services  new customers Improvement of distribution system
  19. 19. Conclusions Actor + - External developer Selling eCarePlatform Large upfront investment Difficulties installation Call center New service Finding and instructing new personnel Connectivity provider New market segment Very small market segment of non reachable customers Government Innovation health care sector Subsidies eCare platform and/or development services Insurance company Offering new services  new customers Improvement distribution system
  20. 20.
  21. 21. Thank you for your attention www.smartcareplatform.eu Questions? Jan Van Ooteghem IBCN – UGent [email_address] Care becoming smart through ICT: innovations and initiatives in Flanders

×