ArticleHealth economics review2024
Negotiating pricing and payment terms for insurance covered mHealth apps: a qualitative content analysis and taxonomy development based on a German experience.
Article in Health economics review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Scoping review on the identification and evaluation of available digital applications for bipolar disorder].Der Nervenarzt · 2025Article
- Testing and Iterative Improvement of the CEN ISO/TS 82304-2 Health App Quality Assessment: Pilot Interrater Reliability Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Digital health reimbursement: A scoping review of global lessons and policy implications.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGermany was the first country worldwide to offer mobile digital health applications (mHealth apps, "DiGA") on prescription with full cost coverage by statutory health insurances. Especially statutory health insurances criticize the current pricing and payment regulations in Germany due to "free and non-transparent" pricing in the first year and lack of cost use evidence. The study consists of two parts: The first part evaluates interests of digital health application providers and statutory health insurances in Germany to identify overlaps and divergences of interests. The second part includes the development of a comprehensive pricing and payment taxonomy for reimbursable mHealth apps in general.
methodsBoth parts of the study used the input from 16 expert interviews with representatives of digital health application providers and statutory health insurances in Germany. In part one the authors conducted a qualitative content analysis and in part two they followed the taxonomy development process according to Nickerson et al. (2013).
resultsA value based care model is expected to bring the greatest benefit for patients while statutory health insurances welcome the idea of usage based pricing. The final pricing and payment taxonomy consists of four design and negotiation steps (price finding, payment prerequisites, payment modalities, composition of negotiation board).
conclusionsAs healthcare resources are scarce and thus need to be optimally allocated, it is important to implement pricing and payment terms for reimbursable mHealth apps that result in the greatest benefit for patients. To the best of the authors' knowledge, there has been no structured study yet that examines alternative pricing strategies for reimbursable mHealth apps.The developed pricing and payment taxonomy for reimbursable mHealth apps serves as planning and decision basis for developers, health policy makers and payers internationally.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.