Using SWOT to Perform a Comparative Analysis of the German and Australian e-Health Systems

  • Isabella EignerEmail author
  • Andreas Hamper
  • Nilmini Wickramasinghe
  • Freimut Bodendorf
Part of the Healthcare Delivery in the Information Age book series (Healthcare Delivery Inform. Age)


The German and Australian healthcare system share extensive similarities in their financial and administrative structures. Both countries follow a two-tiered system offering both public and private insurance. As Germany adapted the Australian DRG system in 2003 to bill patients according to diagnosis-related case rates, patient treatment and accounting also follow similar practices. Despite their common preconditions in the “offline” setting, the goals and execution of their nationally initiated e-health solutions show vast differences. While Australia’s platform-based Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record (PCEHR) offers an opt-in solution for patients and doctors to share healthcare data directly under the control of the patient, Germany’s electronic health card (EHC) mandatorily includes personal and insurance data that can be further expanded with medical data and electronic health records. Information on the EHC is mainly managed by healthcare providers. The differing approaches are linked to different opportunities and weaknesses. This chapter provides a systematic overview of the Australian and German e-health system and gives suggestions on strategies and challenges from both countries. By conducting a SWOT analysis, both e-health systems are critically reflected considering supported processes, applied technologies, and user acceptance. We furthermore discuss the impact of the individual systems on current healthcare issues and the success rate of their initial intentions.


e-Health SWOT analysis Germany Australia DRG Healthcare system EHC PCEHR 


  1. AIHW. (2016). Australian refined diagnosis-related groups (AR-DRG) data cubes: AR-DRG cubes for 1997–98 to 2013–14. Retrieved February 03, 2016, from
  2. Australian Department of Health. (2013). Review of the personally controlled electronic health record. from$File/FINAL-Review-of-PCEHR-December-2013.pdf
  3. Australian Department of Health. (2015). My health record statistics. from
  4. Australian Government, Federal Register of Legislation. (2012). Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Act 2012.Google Scholar
  5. Australian Health Ministers’ Council. (2008). National E-Health Strategy. Google Scholar
  6. Boonstra, A., & Broekhuis, M. (2010). Barriers to the acceptance of electronic medical records by physicians from systematic review to taxonomy and interventions. BMC Health Services Research, 10, 231.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Bunker, D. (2011). E-health and NEHTA: Integrating heterogeneous data sources: A technology or policy challenge.Google Scholar
  8. Castillo, V. H., Martínez-García, A. I., & Pulido, J. R. G. (2010). A knowledge-based taxonomy of critical factors for adopting electronic health record systems by physicians: A systematic literature review. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 10, 60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis, K., Stremikis, K., Squires, D., & Schoen, C. (2014). Mirror, mirror on the wall: How the performance of the U.S. health care system compares internationally. New York: The Commonwealth Fund.Google Scholar
  10. Deutscher Bundestag. (2015). Gesetz für sichere digitale Kommunikation und Anwendungen im Gesundheitswesen sowie zur Änderung weiterer Gesetze.Google Scholar
  11. Dietzel, G. (2001). E-Health und Gesundheitstelematik: Herausforderungen und Chancen. Deutsches Ärzteblatt, 98(4), 158–160.Google Scholar
  12. Eng, T. R. (2001). The eHealth landscape: A terrain map of emerging information and communication technologies in health and heath care. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission. (2015). Digital agenda for Europe: A Europe 2020 initiative, from
  14. Eysenbach, G. (2001). What is e-health? Journal of Medical Internet Research, 3(2), E20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Fetter, R. B., Shin, Y., Freeman, J. L., Averill, R. F., & Thompson, J. D. (1980). Case mix definition by diagnosis-related groups. Medical Care, 18(2), i-53.Google Scholar
  16. Florida, R., Mellander, C., Stolarick, K., Silk, K., Matheson, Z., & Hopgood, M. (2011). Creativity and prosperity: The global creativity index, from
  17. gematik. (2016). gematik Unternehmensorganisation. Retrieved February 06, 2016, from
  18. GKV Spitzenverband. (2015a). Elektronische Gesundheitskarte (eGK), from
  19. GKV Spitzenverband. (2015b). Das Wichtigste über Das Wichtigste über die elektronische Gesundheitskarte. Google Scholar
  20. Haeussler, B., Zich, K., & Bless, H.-H. (2014). Does the implementation of a new payment system for hospital services induce changes in the quality of health care? Experiences from Germany. BMC Health Services Research, 14(Suppl 2), O18.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Hage, E., Roo, J. P., van Offenbeek, M. A., & Boonstra, A. (2013). Implementation factors and their effect on e-health service adoption in rural communities: A systematic literature review. BMC Health Services Research, 13, 19.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. InEK GmbH. (2016). G-DRG-System 2016, from
  23. Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2010). Principles of marketing (13th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  24. Krüger-Brand, H. (2011), TeleHealth 2011 – digitale Medizin: Telemedizin und Gesundheits-Apps, Deutsches Ärzteblatt InternationalGoogle Scholar
  25. Little, A. D. (2016). Global digital health market from 2013 to 2020, by segment (in billion U.S. dollars), from
  26. Lüngen, M., & Lauterbach, K. (2002). Ergebnisorientierte Vergütung bei DRG. In Qualitätssicherung bei pauschalierender Vergütung stationärer Krankenhausleistungen. Gesundheitsmanagement. Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. OECD. (2015). OECD Health Statistics 2015, from
  28. WHO. (2016). eHealth: Glossary of globalization, trade and health terms, from
  29. Wickramasinghe, N. S., Fadlalla, A. M. A., Geisler, E., & Schaffer, J. L. (2005). A framework for assessing e-health preparedness. International Journal of Electronic Healthcare, 1(3), 316–334.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isabella Eigner
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andreas Hamper
    • 1
  • Nilmini Wickramasinghe
    • 2
  • Freimut Bodendorf
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Information Systems, University Erlangen-NurembergNurembergGermany
  2. 2.Deakin UniversityKew EastAustralia

Personalised recommendations