SpringerLink
Log in

EU Support to eHealth and Cost-Benefits

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
eHealth, Care and Quality of Life

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.

The opinions expressed by the author in this publication in no way commit the European Court of Auditors to which he belongs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    For example: customs union; the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market; monetary policy for the member states whose currency is the euro; the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy; common commercial policy (see Article 3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union—TFEU).

  2. 2.

    See Articles 6 and 168 TFEU.

  3. 3.

    For an indicative list of EU health legislation and legislation on pharmaceutical products and medical devices see [4]. Furthermore, final approval of a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on serious cross-border threats to health is expected by the Autumn 2013.

  4. 4.

    Those values are Universality, Access to good quality care, Equity and Solidarity. All health systems in the EU aim to make provision, which is patient-centered and responsive to individual need (see [5]).

  5. 5.

    See Articles 4 and 5 of the Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 (Official Journal of the European Union No. L 88, 4 April 2011, p 45). The Directive lays down rules to facilitate access to safe and high-quality crossborder healthcare and on reimbursement of such healthcare. With a view to harmonize the information contained in medical prescriptions issued in one member state and used in another, the Commission has proposed end-2012 a common set of descriptive elements to help identify prescribers, patients and prescribed products (see Commission implementing Directive 2012/52/EU of 20 Dec 2012, Official Journal of the European Union No. L 356 of 22 Dec 2012, p 68). Member states shall integrate these measures into national legislation before 25 October 2013.

  6. 6.

    One example among many: ‘Good eHealth – Exchange of Good Practices in eHealth’ is a three-year study (2006–2008) aiming at: One example among many: ‘Good eHealth – Exchange of Good Practices in eHealth’ is a three-year study (2006-2008) aiming at:

    • identify good practices and their associated benefits;

    • develop and implement proven approaches to wider dissemination and transfer real-life experiences;

    • stimulate accelerated take-up of eHealth by addressing common implementation challenges and lessons learned.

  7. 7.

    See Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, op. cit.

  8. 8.

    A claim is that 74 % of all IT projects in 2008 failed; the same percentage as in 1980. Failure includes budget overruns and missed deadlines. About 28 % fail completely (see [32]).

  9. 9.

    The SMART objectives have been defined in the frame of the ‘value for money’ principle as defined by the EU financial Regulation (see Article 30(3) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (Official Journal of the European Union No L 298, 26 Oct 2012).

References

  1. Treaty of Maastricht (1992) Official J Eur Comm No C 191 of 29 Jul 1992

    Google Scholar 

  2. Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) Official J Eur Comm No C 340 of 10 Nov 1997

    Google Scholar 

  3. Treaty of Lisbon (2007) Official J Eur Union No C 306 of 17 Dec 2007

    Google Scholar 

  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 6

    Google Scholar 

  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: 1–5

    Google Scholar 

  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 2007

    Google Scholar 

  7. European Commission (2007) A lead market initiative for Europe, COM (2007) 860 final; SEC (2007) 1729, Brussels, 21 Dec 2007

    Google Scholar 

  8. OECD (2011), Health at a Glance 2011, OECD Indicators, Paris (http://www.oecd.org/health/healthpoliciesanddata/49105858.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2013)

  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. 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. 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 2004

    Google Scholar 

  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 12

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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 2012

    Google Scholar 

  15. Olsson S, Lymberis A, Whitehouse D (2004) European commission activities in eHealth. Int J Circumpolar Health 63(4):310–316

    Google Scholar 

  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. European Commission (2010) A digital agenda for Europe, COM (2010) 245 final, Brussels, 26 Aug 2010

    Google Scholar 

  18. European Commission (2009) Lead market initiative for Europe mid-term progress report, SEC (2009) 1198 final, Brussels, 9 Sept 2009, pp 19–20

    Google Scholar 

  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. European Commission (2008) Telemedicine for the benefit of patients, healthcare systems and society, COM (2008) 689 final, Brussels, 4 Nov 2008

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. Anderson GF et al (2006) Health care spending and use of information technology in OECD countries. Health Aff 25(3):819–831

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bristol N (2012) Health IT continues to lag despite federal investments. The Commonwealth Fund, Health Policy Week in Review—February

    Google Scholar 

  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):E281

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. 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 York

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. Webster PC, Kondro W (2011) Medical data debates: big is better? Small is beautiful?. Canadian Med Assoc J 183(5):539

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. Wiener CL (2004) Holding American hospitals accountable: rhetoric and reality. Nurs Inquiry 11:82–90

    Google Scholar 

  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)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Court of Auditors, 16, rue A. De Gasperi, 1615, Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

    Gabriele Cipriani

Authors
  1. Gabriele Cipriani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriele Cipriani .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Università degli Studi di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Antonio Gaddi

  2. CERN, Liverpool, United Kingdom

    Fabio Capello

  3. Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Marco Manca

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Italia

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cipriani, G. (2014). EU Support to eHealth and Cost-Benefits. In: Gaddi, A., Capello, F., Manca, M. (eds) eHealth, Care and Quality of Life. Springer, Milano. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-5253-6_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-5253-6_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Milano

  • Print ISBN: 978-88-470-5252-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-88-470-5253-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation