Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42831909›Full record

ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2026

The lack of creative destruction in healthcare systems makes innovation a cost driver.

Christine Westermann-Lammers, Johannes Hohenauer

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Christine Westermann-LammersBDO Global Health Care and Life Sciences Advisory, Vienna, Austria.
Johannes HohenauerBDO Global Health Care and Life Sciences Advisory, Vienna, Austria. Johannes.Hohenauer@bdo.at.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Creative destruction, a concept developed by the economist Joseph Schumpeter, describes the process by which new innovations displace and replace existing technologies, business models and structures. While this approach has driven significant efficiency gains across various industries, it remains largely absent in healthcare. The disproportionate rise in health expenditure relative to care output points to structural inefficiencies and untapped potential. A cross-sectoral comparison with telecommunications and banking shows that technological progress in those industries generated tremendous efficiency gains, as intense competition forced the creative destruction of inefficient structures. In healthcare, by contrast, additive and content-based innovations dominate: they supplement existing processes rather than replace them, increasing complexity and cost without generating efficiency gains. The primary causes are financial misalignment through cost-based reimbursement principles, fee for service mechanisms that favor low-value care, structural barriers such as capital investment lock-in and institutions' cultural resistance to change. At present, creative destruction has little effect in healthcare because systematic mechanisms for de-implementing outdated processes are absent. To enable sustainable efficiency gains, three things are required: embedding cost efficiency as a governance criterion, realigning research and reimbursement incentives towards substitutive and process-based innovations and rigorously establishing de-implementation models. Without these reforms, the efficiency-enhancing potential of disruptive technologies, such as AI-assisted diagnostics, telemedicine and automated administrative processes will remain untapped.

Indexed as

Diffusion of innovationHealthcare reformHealth expendituresInnovation costLow-value care

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.