What value do digital health solutions bring, what are the funding mechanisms and evaluations?

Digital health is currently booming, providing major innovations, particularly in terms of changing the practices of the stakeholders in the healthcare system as a whole. It allows our healthcare system to draw on new synergies between independent, hospital and medico-social professionals, as well as on high-performance digital tools for the benefit of all, users, patients and professionals. These tools, or digital solutions, have a strong potential to improve the healthcare system but also a strong potential for economic development. In this respect, the great diversity of existing and future digital solutions, as well as their vast fields of application, are prompting public and private stakeholders in the sector to question their integration into our healthcare system. The resulting challenges concern the identification of the targets they are intended for, the values they embody and, as a result, the methods of funding and evaluation. At a time when the first reimbursement terms for digital solutions are taking shape in the context of the Social Security Financing Bill for 2022, the roundtable wished to propose 8 recommendations to help structure exchanges between the various stakeholders and initiate avenues of work around the integration of digital solutions into the healthcare system. The main orientations are based on the proposal of a common and transparent reflection methodology around the technical scope of these solutions, the values they bring and the funding mechanisms. Other work will be necessary beyond the points addressed by the round table in order to go into greater depth on certain themes such as the adaptation of existing funding methods to the momentum and specificities of digital technology or the development of research work on the evaluation of the value claimed by these digital solutions.

Chronic patients' satisfaction and priorities regarding medical care, information and services and quality of life: a French online patient community survey.

BACKGROUND: The French healthcare system is evolving to meet the challenges of an aging population, the growing prevalence of chronic diseases, the development of new technologies and the increasing involvement of patients in the management of their disease. The aim of this study is to assess the satisfaction and priorities of chronic patients regarding medical care, information and services and their quality of life. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted from February to March 2018 via the French Carenity platform. Adult patients enrolled in type 1 diabetes, heart failure or obesity communities were invited to answer an online questionnaire. A numeric scale from 0 (meaning not satisfied) to 5 was used to evaluate patients' satisfaction. Patients' priorities were assessed using a ranking question. Patients' satisfaction and priorities have been combined in a matrix to identify patients' expectations. RESULTS: Sixty-seven respondents of each condition answered a questionnaire. The most important and least satisfactory items about medical care are availability and active listening from healthcare providers, as well as access to coordinated and multidisciplinary care. Regarding information and services, respondents mostly expect connected medical devices, in addition to lifestyle and dietary measures. As for the quality of life, respondents fear that their chronic condition will keep impacting their daily mood and ability to do physical activities. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that chronic patients want to be more actively involved in their care pathway. Patient training and therapeutic patient education programs could help them manage their chronic conditions within a patient-centred healthcare system.

Assessment and non-clinical impact of medical devices.

Medical devices (MDs) cover a wide variety of products. They accompany changes in medical practice in step with technology innovations. Innovations in the field of MDs can improve the conditions of use of health technology and/or modify the organisation of care beyond the strict diagnostic or therapeutic benefit for the patients. However, these non purely clinical criteria seem to be only rarely documented or taken into account in the assessment of MDs during reimbursement decisions at national level or for formulary listing by hospitals even though multidimensional models for the assessment of health technologies have been developed that take into account the views of all stakeholders in the healthcare system In this article, after summarising the background concerning the assessment of health technologies in France, a definition of non-clinical criteria for the assessment of MDs is proposed and a decision tree for the assessment of MDs is described. Future lines of approach are proposed as a conclusion.

Medico-economic evaluation of healthcare products. Methodology for defining a significant impact on French health insurance costs and selection of benchmarks for interpreting results.

Decree No. 2012-1116 of 2 October 2012 on medico-economic assignments of the French National Authority for Health (Haute autorité de santé, HAS) significantly alters the conditions for accessing the health products market in France. This paper presents a theoretical framework for interpreting the results of the economic evaluation of health technologies and summarises the facts available in France for developing benchmarks that will be used to interpret incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. This literature review shows that it is difficult to determine a threshold value but it is also difficult to interpret then incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) results without a threshold value. In this context, round table participants favour a pragmatic approach based on "benchmarks" as opposed to a threshold value, based on an interpretative and normative perspective, i.e. benchmarks that can change over time based on feedback.

Scientific evaluation and pricing of medical devices and associated procedures in France.

Medical devices are many and various, ranging from tongue spatulas to implantable or invasive devices and imaging machines; their lifetimes are short, between 18 months and 5 years, due to incessant incremental innovation; and they are operator-dependent: in general, the clinical user performs a fitting procedure (hip implant or pacemaker), a therapeutic procedure using a non-implantable invasive device (arrhythmic site ablation probe, angioplasty balloon, extension spondyloplasty system, etc.) or follow-up of an active implanted device (long-term follow-up of an implanted cardiac defibrillator or of a deep brain stimulator in Parkinson's patients). A round-table held during the XXVIII(th) Giens Workshops meeting focused on the methodology of scientific evaluation of medical devices and the associated procedures with a view to their pricing and financing by the French National Health Insurance system. The working hypothesis was that the available data-set was sufficient for and compatible with scientific evaluation with clinical benefit. Post-registration studies, although contributing to the continuity of assessment, were not dealt with. Moreover, the focus was restricted to devices used in health establishments, where the association between devices and technical medical procedures is optimally representative. An update of the multiple regulatory protocols governing medical devices and procedures is provided. Issues more specifically related to procedures as such, to non-implantable devices and to innovative devices are then dealt with, and the proposals and discussion points raised at the round-table for each of these three areas are presented.