A Comprehensive Financial and Organizational Analysis of Telerehabilitation Business Models for Sustainable Growth and Market Expansion in the Healthcare Sector
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This shift marked the end of the pandemic era, where telerehabilitation was merely an emergency measure, and the beginning of a new growth trajectory for digital health, with the global market estimated at USD 5.32 billion in 2024 and projected to grow to USD 11.81 billion by 2030 at a CAGR of 13.2 per cent. However, the financial and organisational basis of this growth is poorly documented, to varying degrees, in the different clinical indications. This paper presents a financial and organisational evaluation of fourteen peer-reviewed and industry-based sources to create a holistic view of business models for telerehabilitation. Evidence is presented under three themes: Business model frameworks in digital health, Health-economic evidence for telerehabilitation, and Clinical and organisational implementation. Results found that per-patient savings ranged from USD 565.66 to USD 2,352.00, with four of eight studies showing moderate results for combined neurological and cardiological populations; per-patient savings were found to be favourable, with ninety-two per cent of reviewed cardiac studies showing favourable results for protocolized, exercise-based cardiac interventions; and results were least consistent for heterogeneous musculoskeletal indications. Financial sustainability of telerehabilitation businesses was identified through business model syntheses as having common elements such as diversified revenue streams, partnerships with payers and with technology vendors, and adaptive governance. Analysis shows that rather than a common telerehabilitation approach, business model design is the most defendable path to sustainable market expansion.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
[1] F. Acheampong and V. Vimarlund, “Business models for telemedicine services: a literature review,” Heal. Syst., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 189–203, 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/hs.2014.20.
[2] S. Baffert, N. Hadouiri, C. Fabron, F. Burgy, A. Cassany, and G. Kemoun, “Economic Evaluation of Telerehabilitation: Systematic Literature Review of Cost-Utility Studies,” JMIR Rehabil. Assist. Technol, vol. 10, p. Art. no. e47172, 2023, doi: 10.2196/47172.
[3] L. Batalik, K. Filakova, M. Sladeckova, F. Dosbaba, J. Su, and G. Pepera, “The cost-effectiveness of exercise-based cardiac telerehabilitation intervention: a systematic review,” Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med., vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 245–248, 2023, doi: 10.23736/S1973-9087.23.07773-0.
[4] R. Del Pino et al., “Costs and effects of telerehabilitation in neurological and cardiological diseases: A systematic review,” Front. Med., vol. 9, no. Art. no. 832229, 2022, doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.832229.
[5] F. Fusco and G. Turchetti, “Interactive Business Models for Telerehabilitation after Total Knee Replacement BT - Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering,” Proc. Int. Conf. Bioinform. Biomed. Eng, vol. 9044, pp. 502–511, 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16480-9_49.
[6] Grand View Research, “Telerehabilitation market size & share, industry report, 2030.” [Online]. Available: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/telerehabilitation-market-report.
[7] E. Javanmardi, P. Maresova, N. Xie, and R. Mierzwiak, “Exploring business models for managing uncertainty in healthcare, medical devices, and biotechnology industries,” Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 4, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25962.
[8] K. E. Laver, Z. Adey-Wakeling, M. Crotty, N. A. Lannin, S. George, and C. Sherrington, “Telerehabilitation services for stroke,” Cochrane Database Syst. Rev., vol. 2020, no. 1, 2020, doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010255.pub3.
[9] P. Molina-Garcia, M. Mora-Traverso, R. Prieto-Moreno, A. Díaz-Vásquez, B. Antony, and P. Ariza-Vega, “Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telerehabilitation for musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” Ann. Phys. Rehabil. Med., vol. 67, no. 1, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2023.101791.
[10] J. Prvu Bettger and L. J. Resnik, “Telerehabilitation in the age of covid-19: An opportunity for learning health system research,” Phys. Ther., vol. 100, no. 11, pp. 1913–1916, 2020, doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzaa151.
[11] J. Sibalija, D. Barrett, M. Subasri, L. Bitacola, and R. B. Kim, “Understanding value in a healthcare setting: An application of the business model canvas,” Methodol. Innov., vol. 14, no. 3, 2021, doi: 10.1177/20597991211050477.
[12] J. J. Su et al., “Feasibility and effectiveness of cardiac telerehabilitation for older adults with coronary heart disease: A pilot randomized controlled trial,” Contemp. Clin. Trials Commun., vol. 42, no. September, p. 101365, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2024.101365.
[13] F. Velayati, H. Ayatollahi, M. Hemmat, and R. Dehghan, “Telehealth Business Models and Their Components: Systematic Review,” J Med Internet Res, vol. 24, no. 3, p. Art. no. e33128, 2022, doi: doi:10.2196/33128.
[14] Z. Yang et al., “Efficacy and Safety of Hybrid Comprehensive Telerehabilitation (HCTR) for Cardiac Rehabilitation in Patients with Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials,” Occup. Ther. Int., vol. 2023, p. Art. no. 5147805, 2023, doi: 10.1155/2023/5147805.