Introduction: For telemonitoring to support care coordination, a sound business model is conditional. The aim of this study is to explore the systemic and economic differences in care coordination via business-to-business and business-to-consumer models for telemonitoring patients with chronic diseases.
Methods: We performed a literature search in order to design the business-to-business and business-to-consumer telemonitoring models, and to assess the design elements and themes by applying the activity system theory, and describe the transaction costs in each model. The design elements are content, structure, and governance, while the design themes are novelty, lock-in, complementarities, and efficiency. In the transaction cost analysis, we looked into all the elements of a transaction in both models.
Results: Care coordination in the business-to-business model is designed to be organized between the places of activity, rather than the participants in the activity. The design of the business-to-business model creates a firm lock-in but for a limited time. In the business-to-consumer model, the interdependencies are to be found between the persons in the care process and not between the places of care. The differences between the models were found in both the design elements and the design themes.
Discussion: Care coordination in the business-to-business and business-to-consumer models for telemonitoring chronic diseases differs in principle in terms of design elements and design themes. Based on the theoretical models, the transaction costs could potentially be lower in the business-to-consumer model than in the business-to-business, which could be a promoting economic principle for the implementation of telemonitoring.

, , , ,,
International Journal of Care Coordination
Erasmus University Rotterdam

Grustam, A., Vrijhoef, H., Cordella, A., Koymans, R., & Severens, H. (2017). Care coordination in a business-to-business and a business-to-consumer model for telemonitoring patients with chronic diseases. International Journal of Care Coordination, 20(4), 135–147. doi:10.1177/2053434517747908