Development of digital healthcare technologies within the concept of responsible innovation

Aim. The work aimed to determine the way the economic and organizational foundations for managing the digital healthcare circuit contribute to the creation of “responsible” technologies.

Objectives. The work analyzes the regulatory and methodological foundations governing the processes of creating digital healthcare technologies; conducts an exploratory analysis of data on public procurement of digital healthcare technologies for the period of implementation of the federal project Creating a Single Digital Circuit in Healthcare Based on the Uniform State Health Information System (USHIS) (2019–2024); and presents the factors influencing the processes of implementing digital healthcare projects, based on the value system of responsible healthcare innovations.

Methods. The work identifies factors influencing the implementation of regional digital healthcare projects using the policy frameworks, namely Responsible Innovation in Health (RIH), Health Technology Assessment (HTA), and Minimum Viable Product (MVP). The factors are presented in terms of such values of the responsible approach as public health, healthcare system, economy, organization, and environment. Based on the data of public procurement of digital health technologies for 2019–2024, selected by relevant codes of types of expenses, while the results are supplemented by testing hypotheses about the impact of financing processes on project implementation.

Results. The digital health management system is focused on the development of a regional standard scenario, which restricts regional authorities in conducting a full-fledged economic assessment of purchased digital solutions, which involves comparing several promising options. Public procurement serves as a mechanism for delivering funds to the contractor rather than as a tool for facilitating high-quality project implementation, which is expressed in periods of active procurement and disproportionate deadlines and contract prices.

Conclusions. The grounds for development in digital health contribute to the expansion of innovation in the regions. However, administrative processes influencing their generation have an impeding effect on activities of responsible innovation development. Concluding contracts with a predominance of the electronic auction (76.6% of cases) becomes unreasonable in relation to digital solutions that are being constantly used. Subsidiary dependence of regions can elucidate the shortest terms of contract execution (during the federal project implementation, the average declared term of execution of a contract concluded on behalf of regional, federal authorities and budgetary institutions is 7.5, 9 and 9.4 months, respectively. The possible consequences of such conditions include a high burden on contract executors and an increased probability of delays in their execution. The process of implementing digital healthcare projects can be complicated by the incomparability of contract prices, indicating their scale, and execution terms.

1. Iakovleva T., Oftedal E.M., Bessant J. Responsible innovation in digital health. In: Responsible innovation in digital health. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2019:1-8. DOI: 10.4337/9781788975063.00008

2. Pacifico Silva H., Lehoux P., Miller F.A., Denis J.-L. Introducing responsible innovation in health: A policy-oriented framework. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2018;16(1):90. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-018-0362-5

3. Martinuzzi A., Blok V., Brem A., Stahl B., Schönherr N. Responsible research and innovation in industry – challenges, insights and perspectives. Sustainability. 2018;10(3):702. DOI: 10.3390/su10030702

4. Teerawattananon Y., Painter C., Dabak S., Ottersen T., Gopinathan U., Chola L., Chalkidou K., Culyer A.J. Avoiding health technology assessment: A global survey of reasons for not using health technology assessment in decision making. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation. 2021;19(1):62. DOI: 10.1186/s12962-021-00308-1

5. Alami H., Rivard L., Lehoux P., Ag Ahmed M.A., Fortin J.P., Fleet R. Integrating envi ronmental considerations in digital health technology assessment and procurement: Stakeholders’ perspectives. Digital Health. 2023;9. DOI: 10.1177/20552076231219113

6. Shklyaruk M.S., Dushkin R.V. The state as a platform. People and technologies. Moscow: Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration; 2019. 111 p. (In Russ.).

7. Bitomsky L., Hollender J., Nißen M., Kowatsch T. Navigating Germany’s digital health ecosystem: Insights from a health insurance industry expert. In: 17th Int. joint conf. on biomedical engineering systems and technologies (BIOSTEC). (Rome, February 21-23, 2024). Setúbal: SciTePress; 2024:865-870. DOI: 10.5220/0012401500003657

8. Register of contracts concluded by customers. Unified Information System in the Field of Procurement. URL: https://zakupki.gov.ru/epz/contract/search/results.html (accessed on 01.08.2024). (In Russ.).

9. On the contract system in the sphere of procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs. Federal Law of April 5, 2013 No. 44-FZ. Konsul’tantPlyus. URL: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_144624/?ysclid=m5pnx61z sm116503234 (accessed on 10.07.2024). (In Russ.).

10. Mendelow A.L. Environmental scanning — The impact of the stakeholder concept. Proceedings from the Second International Conference on Information Systems. 1981;20:407-418.

11. On approval of the state program of the Russian Federation “Development of Healthcare”. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 26, 2017 No. 1640. Garant.ru. URL: https://base.garant.ru/71848440/ (accessed on 10.07.2024). (In Russ.).

12. Minutes of the meeting on the implementation of activities of the federal project “Creation of a single digital contour in healthcare based on the unified state information system in healthcare (EGISZ)” of the national project “Healthcare” by the constituent entities of the Russian Federation dated May 25, 2023 No. 55/18-5/242. Association for the Development of Medical Information Technologies. URL: https://armit.ru/news/files/%D0%9F%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%BE_%D0%B2_%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%8B_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB_%D0%BE%D1%82_25_05_2023_%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%B8%CC%86%D0%BB_%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8% D1%8F.pdf?ysclid=m6rwxyvbfz310452357 (accessed on 01.07.2024). (In Russ.).

13. Methodological recommendations for assessing the level of informatization of medical organizations and informatization of the healthcare system of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, as well as assessing the compliance of the medical information systems used in medical organizations with the approved requirements of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. Version: 1.0. Approved by the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation on November 28, 2019. Portal for operational interaction of participants in the Unified State Health Information System. URL: https://portal.egisz.rosminzdrav.ru/materials/3513 (accessed on 15.07.2024). (In Russ.).

14. On approval of methods for calculating target indicators of the national development goal of the Russian Federation “Digital Transformation”. Order of the Ministry of Digital Development of Russia dated November 18, 2020 No. 600. Konsul’tantPlyus. URL: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_372437/2ff7a8c72de3994f30496a0ccbb1dda fdaddf518/?ysclid=m5pok1tddc492183175 (accessed on 01.07.2024). (In Russ.).

15. Methodology for calculating the level of use of medical information systems in medical organizations. St. Petersburg State Budgetary Healthcare Institution “Medical Information and Analytical Center”. URL: https://spbmiac.ru/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Metodika rascheta-SI-MIS.pdf?ysclid=m1wjeic29o788067654 (accessed on 07.09.2024). (In Russ.).

16. On the requirements for the procedure for the creation, development, commissioning, operation and decommissioning of state information systems and the subsequent storage of information contained in their databases. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 6, 2015 No. 676. Konsul’tantPlyus. URL: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_182413/904c36e7365759fd27de9957ebf40b0a09c91a5c/?ysclid=m5poqu8xws789349676 (accessed on 01.07.2024). (In Russ.).

17. Implementation guides. Portal for Operational Interaction of Participants of the Unified State Health Information System. URL: https://portal.egisz.rosminzdrav.ru/search?query=%D1%81%D1%8D%D0%BC%D0%B4 (accessed on 10.08.2024). (In Russ.).

18. Report on the results of the expert-analytical event “Monitoring the development of the public and corporate procurement system in the Russian Federation for 2019”. Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation. 2020. URL: https://ach.gov.ru/upload/iblock/fea/fea86920fc7f4c8b39262ce74beb32d8.pdf (accessed on 11.07.2024). (In Russ.).

19. Boon W., Edler J. Demand, challenges, and innovation. Making sense of new trends in innova tion policy. Science and Public Policy. 2018;45(4):435-447. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scy014

20. Orlov G.M., Chugunov A.V. Digital healthcare: Program-targeted approach and the problems of aging. International Journal of Open Information Technologies. 2022;10(11):113-125. (In Russ.).

21. Nicholson B., Nielsen P., Sahay S., Sæbø J.I. Digital public goods platforms for development: The challenge of scaling. The Information Society. 2022;38(5):364-376. DOI: 10.1080/01972243.2022.2105999

22. Maslyuk A.V., Plotnikov V.A. Register of unfair suppliers: Problems of legal regulation. Sotsiologiya i pravo = Sociology and Law. 2024;16(1):93-107. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.35854/2219-6242-2024-1-93-107

23. Kunin V.A., Torpishchev T.R. Mechanism to effectively manage the interaction of a two sided platform with buyers and sellers. Ekonomika i upravlenie = Economics and Management. 2024;30(6):706-719. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.35854/1998-1627-2024-6-706-719

24. Abramtseva A.N., Antipov A.A., Radik V.Ya. Main trends and prospects of Russian tech nology transfer: Statistical study. Ekonomika. Pravo. Innovatsii = Economics. Law. Innovation. 2023;(1):27-36. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17586/2713-1874-2023-1-27-36

25. Rauch M., Ansari S. From “publish or perish” to societal impact: Organizational repurposing towards responsible innovation through creating a medical platform. Journal of Management Studies. 2022;59(1):61-91. DOI: 10.1111/joms.12737

26. Naughton B., Dopson S., Iakovleva T. Responsible impact and the reinforcement of respon sible innovation in the public sector ecosystem: Cases of digital health innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation. 2023;10(1):2211870. DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2023.2211870