Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35698135›Full record

ReviewCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2022

Market access and value-based pricing of digital health applications in Germany.

Daniel Gensorowsky, Julian Witte, Manuel Batram, Wolfgang Greiner

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Equity by design principles for digital health interventions.International journal for equity in health · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Daniel GensorowskySchool of Public Health, Department of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Bielefeld University, P.O. Box 10 01 31, D-33501, Bielefeld, Germany. daniel.gensorowsky@uni-bielefeld.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9326-2963
Julian WitteVandage GmbH, Detmolder Straße 30, D-33604, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2075-323X
Manuel BatramVandage GmbH, Detmolder Straße 30, D-33604, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4445-965X
Wolfgang GreinerSchool of Public Health, Department of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Bielefeld University, P.O. Box 10 01 31, D-33501, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9552-6969

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In December 2019, the Digital Health Care Act ("Digitale-Versorgung-Gesetz") introduced a general entitlement to the provision and reimbursement of digital health applications (DiGA) for insured persons in the German statutory health insurance. As establishing a new digital service area within the solidarity-based insurance system implies several administrative and regulatory challenges, this paper aims to describe the legal framework for DiGA market access and pricing as well as the status quo of the DiGA market. Furthermore, we provide a basic approach to deriving value-based DiGA prices.To become eligible for reimbursement, the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices evaluates the compliance of a DiGA with general requirements (e.g., safety and data protection) and its positive healthcare effects (i.e., medical benefit or improvements of care structure and processes) in a fast-track process. Manufacturers may provide evidence for the benefits of their DiGA either directly with the application for the fast-track process or generate it during a trial phase that includes temporary reimbursement. After one year of \]reimbursement, the freely-set manufacturer price is replaced by a price negotiated between the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds and the manufacturer. By February 2022, 30 DiGA had successfully completed the fast-track process. 73% make use of the trial phase and have not yet proven their benefit. Given this dynamic growth of the DiGA market and the low minimum evidence standards, fair pricing remains the central point of contention. The regulatory framework makes the patient-relevant benefits of a DiGA a pricing criterion to be considered in particular. Yet, it does not indicate how the benefits of a DiGA should be translated into a reasonable price. Our evidence-based approach to value-based DiGA pricing approximates the SHI's willingness to pay by the average cost-effectiveness of one or more established therapy in a field of indication and furthermore considers the positive healthcare effects of a DiGA.The proposed approach can be fitted into DiGA pricing processes under the given regulatory framework and can provide objective guidance for price negotiations. However, it is only one piece of the pricing puzzle, and numerous methodological and procedural issues related to DiGA pricing are still open. Thus, it remains to be seen to what extent DiGA prices will follow the premise of value-based pricing.

Indexed as

DiGADigital health applicationseHealthFast-track processMarket accessStatutory health insuranceValue-based pricing

Identifiers

PMID35698135
PMCPMC9195309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.