| Title |
Erstattung von Health-Apps durch die gesetzliche Krankenversicherung
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00103-018-2689-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Johanna Gregor-Haack |
| Abstract |
A reimbursement category for "apps" does not exist in German statutory health insurance. Nevertheless different ways for reimbursement of digital health care products or processes exist. This article provides an overview and a description of the most relevant finance and reimbursement categories for apps in German statutory health insurance. The legal qualifications and preconditions of reimbursement in the context of single contracts with one health insurance fund will be discussed as well as collective contracts with national statutory health insurance funds. The benefit of a general outline appeals especially in respect to the numerous new players and products in the health care market. The article will highlight that health apps can challenge existing legal market access and reimbursement criteria and paths. At the same time, these criteria and paths exist. In terms of a learning system, they need to be met and followed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 28% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 17% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Professor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 11% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 11% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 January 2018.
All research outputs
#17,927,741
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz
#713
of 934 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#309,715
of 440,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz
#10
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 934 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,577 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.