Advertisement

EU Support to eHealth and Cost-Benefits

  • Gabriele Cipriani
Chapter

Abstract

When compared to other countries, the use of ICT in health is relatively developed in Europe although there are significant differences across EU member states. A lot remains to be done before eHealth will have become commonplace for health professionals, patients and citizens. The gap between potential for eHealth development and actual achievements can be significant. A key difficulty is creating systems to be used with satisfaction by both consumers and clinicians. eHealth raises complex management problems and competing options requiring careful consideration of the expected benefits to outweigh the costs. To have a measurable impact, EU actions need a rationale with an identifiable place into national eHealth plans, adapted to different degrees of member states’ ICT development. EU actions should be concentrated on selected activities, according to a rigorous set of priorities commensurate with the available means. Adequate accountability processes should provide a credible review of both expectations and results in view of making future approaches more relevant and effective.

Keywords

EU actions eHealth applications Rationale Cost-effectiveness Accountability 

References

  1. 1.
    Treaty of Maastricht (1992) Official J Eur Comm No C 191 of 29 Jul 1992Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) Official J Eur Comm No C 340 of 10 Nov 1997Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Treaty of Lisbon (2007) Official J Eur Union No C 306 of 17 Dec 2007Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    European Commission (2011) Impact assessment of the proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the council establishing a health for growth programme for the period 2014–2020, SEC (2011) 1322 final, Brussels, 9 Nov 2011 Annex 6Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Council of the European Union (2006) Conclusions on Common Values and Principles in European Union Health Systems, Brussels, 1–2 June 2006. Official J European Union C 146: 1–5Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    European Commission (2007) Together for health: a strategic approach for the EU 2008–2013, COM (2007) 630 final; SEC (2007) 1374; SEC (2007) 1376, Brussels, 23 Oct 2007Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    European Commission (2007) A lead market initiative for Europe, COM (2007) 860 final; SEC (2007) 1729, Brussels, 21 Dec 2007Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    OECD (2011), Health at a Glance 2011, OECD Indicators, Paris (http://www.oecd.org/health/healthpoliciesanddata/49105858.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2013)
  9. 9.
    Ronchi E, Khan M, Saad (2010) Achieving efficiency improvements in the health sector through ICTs—Final Report, OECD, Paris (http://www.epractice.eu/files/Achieving%20Efficiency%20Improvements%20in%20the%20Health%20sector%20through%20ICTs%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2013)
  10. 10.
    Stroetmann KA, Jones J, Dobrev A, Stroetmann VN (2006) eHealth is Worth it, the economic benefits of implemented eHealth solutions at ten European sites, European Communities, Luxembourg (http://www.ehealth-impact.org/download/documents/ehealthimpactsept2006.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2013)
  11. 11.
    European Commission (2004) e-Health—making healthcare better for European citizens: An action plan for a European e-Health area, COM (2004) 356 final, Brussels, 30 April 2004Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Council of the European Union (2011) Conclusions of the 3095th employment, social policy, health and consumer affairs council meeting, Brussels, 6 June 2011, point 12Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Suhrcke M, McKee M, Sauto Arce R, Tsolova S, Mortensen J (2005) The contribution of health to the economy in the EU, Brussels, p 21 (http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_overview/Documents/health_economy_en.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2013)
  14. 14.
    European Commission (2012) eHealth action plan 2012–2020—Innovative healthcare for the 21st century, COM (2012) 736 final; SWD (2012) 414 final, Brussels, 6 Dec 2012Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Olsson S, Lymberis A, Whitehouse D (2004) European commission activities in eHealth. Int J Circumpolar Health 63(4):310–316Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aho E (2006) Creating an innovative Europe: Report of the independent expert group on R+D and innovation, European communities, Luxembourg (http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/action/2006_ahogroup_en.htm. Accessed 14 Feb 2013)
  17. 17.
    European Commission (2010) A digital agenda for Europe, COM (2010) 245 final, Brussels, 26 Aug 2010Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    European Commission (2009) Lead market initiative for Europe mid-term progress report, SEC (2009) 1198 final, Brussels, 9 Sept 2009, pp 19–20Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    See European Commission, Recommendation of 2 July 2008 on cross-border interoperability of electronic health record systems (Official Journal of the European Union No L 190, 18 July 2008, p 37)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    European Commission (2008) Telemedicine for the benefit of patients, healthcare systems and society, COM (2008) 689 final, Brussels, 4 Nov 2008Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    European Commission (2007) eHealth priorities and strategies in European countries, eHealth ERA report, European communities, Luxembourg, pp 8–9 (http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/health/docs/policy/ehealth-era-full-report.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2013)
  22. 22.
    Stroetmann KA, Artmann J, Stroetmann VN, Protti D, Dumortier J, Giest S, Walossek U, Whitehouse D (2011) European countries on their journey towards national eHealth infrastructures, Final European progress report, European Commission, Brussels (http://ehealth-strategies.eu/report/eHealth_Strategies_Final_Report_Web.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2013)
  23. 23.
    Kotsiopoulos I, Whitehouse D (2011) Assessing the progress of the eHealth action plan for the period 2004–2010, European commission, Brussels, p 31. (http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/health/docs/policy/ehap_assess082011.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2013)
  24. 24.
    Anderson GF et al (2006) Health care spending and use of information technology in OECD countries. Health Aff 25(3):819–831Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bristol N (2012) Health IT continues to lag despite federal investments. The Commonwealth Fund, Health Policy Week in Review—FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rozenblum R et al (2011) A qualitative study of Canada’s experience with the implementation of electronic health information technology. Canadian Med Assoc J 183(5):E281Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    World Health Organization (2010) Telemedicine: opportunities and developments in Member States: report on the second global survey on eHealth 2009, Global Observatory for eHealth Series, 2, Geneva, p 54 (http://www.who.int/goe/publications/goe_telemedicine_2010.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2013)
  28. 28.
    Deloitte & Ipsos Belgium (2011) eHealth Benchmarking III, Final Report, European Commission, Brussels, pp 58, 73, 78 (http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/benchmarking/ehealth_benchmarking_3_final_report.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2013)
  29. 29.
    National Audit Office (2011) Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, The National Programme for IT in the NHS, HC 888Session 2010–2012, London (http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1012/npfit.aspx. Accessed 14 Feb 2013)
  30. 30.
    Rinaldi G, Gaddi A, Capello F (2012) Medical data, Information Economy and Federative Networks. The concepts underlying the comprehensive electronic clinical record framework. Nova Science Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    European Commission (2012) Redesigning health in Europe for 2020, eHealth Task Force Report, European Union, Luxembourg (http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/health/docs/policy/taskforce/redesigning_health-eu-for2020-ehtf-report2012.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2013)
  32. 32.
    Dobrev A, Jones T, Stroetmann VN, Stroetmann KA, Artmann J, Kersting A, Kasiri N, Zegners D, Lilischkis S (2008) Report on Sources of financing and policy recommendations to Member States and the European Commission on boosting eHealth investment, December (http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/health/docs/studies/boosting-ehealth-invest_report.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2013)
  33. 33.
    Jolly R (2011) The e health revolution—easier said than done, Parliament of Australia, Department of Parliamentary Services, Research Paper No. 3, 2011–12, ISBN 1834-9854 (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/1232345/upload_binary/1232345.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search=%222010s%20jolly,%20rhonda%22. Accessed 14 Feb 2013)
  34. 34.
    Webster PC, Kondro W (2011) Medical data debates: big is better? Small is beautiful?. Canadian Med Assoc J 183(5):539Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    House of Commons (2011) The National Programme for IT in the NHS: an update on the delivery of detailed care records systems, London (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmpubacc/1070/1070.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2013)
  36. 36.
    European Court of Auditors (2009) The European Union’s Public health programme (2003–2007): an effective way to improve health?, Special Report No 2/2009, Luxembourg (http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/8038900.PDF. Accessed 14 Feb 2013)
  37. 37.
    Barroso JM (2008) address to the conference on Reforming the Budget, Changing Europe, Brussels, 12 November (http://ec.europa.eu/budget/reform2008/library/conference/intro_president.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2013)
  38. 38.
    Wiener CL (2004) Holding American hospitals accountable: rhetoric and reality. Nurs Inquiry 11:82–90Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cipriani G (2010) The EU budget: responsibility without accountability?, CEPS Paperback, Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels, pp 3–6. (http://www.ceps.eu/book/eu-budget-responsibility-without-accountability. Accessed 14 Feb 2013)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.European Court of AuditorsLuxembourgGrand Duchy of Luxembourg

Personalised recommendations