>> The establishment of an innovation fund is the right step – the impartial G-BA Chairman, Professor Josef Hecken, agrees with most healthcare stakeholders on this point. However, whether the €1.2 billion in funding to be distributed over the next four years for innovative forms of care (€225 million per year) and for health services research (€75 million per year) can sustainably resolve the innovation backlog in the system depends to a large extent on the design of the funding criteria and, of course, on the decisions of the Innovation Committee.
The deficits in structural and process quality, as well as in health services research, are well known, Hecken admitted on September 14 before an audience of around 500 at the Langenbeck-Virchow-Haus. Many solutions have already been tested on a small scale; now the task is to generate evidence and enable their transfer into standard care. In Hecken's view, this requires a certain minimum size for the projects, as otherwise no significant conclusions about the evidence can be derived. "Wallflower funding cannot ultimately lead to the success desired by the legislature," Hecken stated.
Exclusive focus on large projects wasted
Innovation potential
On the one hand, the focus on large projects is understandable. On the other hand, a mix of large and small projects could potentially give the Innovation Fund even more impetus. There are certainly areas that require improvement, such as the care of rare diseases, where large-scale projects are not feasible simply due to the low case numbers. Nevertheless, scenarios are conceivable here that allow for evidence-based statements. The decisive factor is less the initially planned case numbers than the scalability and development potential of the model. Furthermore, the announcement that only large projects will be funded carries the risk of unnecessarily inflating applications.
Participation of health insurance companies “more than sensible”

From Hecken's perspective, the involvement of one or more small health insurance companies is "more than sensible"—in other words, essential. However, one must not lose sight of the fact that the legislature recently had good reasons for largely opening up the pool of applicants. In this respect, a dominant role for health insurance companies would partially counteract this opening.
Overall, it should be considered that the approach outlined by Hecken allows for less entrepreneurial leeway. However, valuable innovation impulses could be expected from the entrepreneurial side, especially... <