>> In the opinion of the BMC, the Innovation Fund (IF) according to Sections 92a and b SGB V is a success story. Since its founding, it has significantly improved the climate of innovation in the health system, encouraged the actors involved to come up with innovative ideas and enabled a wide range of collaborations in diverse consortia that have tested new forms of care (NVF) and carried out practical health care research (VSF). In addition, the IF achieves “to a certain extent that funded projects actually address existing optimization needs” through funding calls for funding and through the participation of the pool of experts with stakeholders from the healthcare sector. The fund's practice-oriented approach has proven particularly successful: all innovative care concepts are tested in a real care setting and must immediately pass the practical test in compliance with a scientific study design.
That was the positive part. After the praise, the BMC emphasizes that the IF has so far been a story of missed opportunities that anyone who has ever been involved in a project can tell you a thing or two about. The administrative effort involved in submitting an application and in particular in project adjustments during the term is extremely high and represents a significant hurdle for inexperienced actors outside of universities with experience of third-party funding, but also for funds that are involved in many projects at the same time. This is even more true than that An exchange of experiences between projects only takes place on an informal level and is not structured. This would result in a missed opportunity to learn from each other in the interests of systemic further development. More than 400 projects have now gained practical experience with the IF. Some of them exchanged ideas in the BMC working group “Funded Innovation Fund Projects” and developed suggestions on how the implementation of projects could be made easier and the opportunities offered by the IF could be better used.
The BMC welcomes the continuation of the IF planned in the coalition agreement of the traffic light partners. The final report on the overall evaluation of the IF also recommends its continuation indefinitely. However, now six years after its launch, the BMC's proposed, rather cosmetic adjustments are not enough because the IF has not yet been able to provide the most important proof of its raison d'être: the actual improvement of standard care through tried-and-tested innovations. In the BMC's opinion, this is not due to the projects, but rather to the existing framework conditions: "The existing experiences, especially with the emerging transfer problems, show a need for structural further development of the IF." <<
by: MVF editor-in-chief Peter Stegmaier
1. Pursue structural changes to standard care as a goal
A “requirements specification” must bindingly request all relevant institutions (not just the G-BA) to quickly deal with innovations that have been positively assessed by the Innovation Committee (IA). The IA should regularly report to the BMG on the implementation status.
2. Form cross-project clusters
Similar projects should be thematically clustered and evaluated together in the sense of an evidence synthesis in order to coordinate steps for implementation in standard care.
3. Involve patients in design and evaluation
Innovations must be consistently developed from the patient perspective. To this end, appropriate patient participation should be a prerequisite for a funding commitment in the future.
4. Reduce bureaucracy
The IF needs to become faster and simpler. This is achieved with model contracts as a legal basis for performance, standard processes for data management and less project bureaucracy.
5. Establish transparent project monitoring and portfolio management
The IA should introduce project portfolio management to track progress. There is also a need for public project monitoring with a structured database.
6. Prepare translation of the results early
An early interim assessment of project findings is needed, which can serve as a basis for possible transfer financing and a comprehensive exchange of experiences.
7. Make project duration and implementation more flexible
The IF must provide flexibility for projects of varying scope and complexity. There needs to be space for short-term testing as well as sufficient testing periods for disruptive projects.
8. Announce tender deadlines early
The IA should announce the planned tendering dates for new funding lines a year in advance in order to make the laborious process of consortium formation easier.
9. Close funding gaps
The funding period should exceed the intervention period by a flat rate of six months in order to cover the consortium partners' costs until the project is completed.
Link to the position paper: https://bit.ly/3BvYNto
