Orion Health Group Limited Independent Adviser’S Report and Independent Appraisal Report

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Orion Health Group Limited Independent Adviser’S Report and Independent Appraisal Report Orion Health Group Limited Independent Adviser’s Report and Independent Appraisal Report September 2018 STATEMENT OF INDEPENDENCE KordaMentha confirms that it: (a) has no conflict of interest that could affect its ability to provide an unbiased report; and (b) has no direct or indirect pecuniary or other interest in the proposed transaction considered in this report, including any success or contingency fee or remuneration, other than to receive the cash fee for providing this report. KordaMentha has satisfied the Takeovers Panel, on the basis of the material provided to the Panel, that it is independent under the Takeovers Code for the purposes of preparing this report. Independent New Zealand firm internationally affiliated with KordaMentha Contents 1 Terms of the Proposed Transactions ........................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 The Proposed Transactions ................................................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Shareholder Approval .......................................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Purpose of the Report .......................................................................................................................................... 4 1.5 Other ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5 2 Merits of the Proposed Transactions ........................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Summary of the merits of the Proposed Transactions ...................................................................................... 6 2.2 Fairness assessment under NZX Listing Rules .................................................................................................. 6 2.3 Orion Health ......................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Valuation of Solution Groups .............................................................................................................................10 2.5 Hg Transaction ...................................................................................................................................................11 2.6 Share Buyback ...................................................................................................................................................12 2.7 Potential outcomes of the Proposed Transactions ..........................................................................................13 2.8 Prospect of alternative transactions to acquire Orion Health .........................................................................15 2.9 Acceptance or rejection .....................................................................................................................................15 3 Profile of Orion Health .................................................................................................................................................16 3.1 Background and History ....................................................................................................................................16 3.2 Business Operations ..........................................................................................................................................17 3.3 Industry Overview ...............................................................................................................................................18 3.4 Group Financial Performance ...........................................................................................................................21 3.5 Rhapsody ............................................................................................................................................................22 3.6 PHM ....................................................................................................................................................................25 3.7 Hospitals .............................................................................................................................................................29 3.8 Group Financial Position ....................................................................................................................................31 3.9 Capital Structure and Ownership ......................................................................................................................32 3.10 Share Price Performance...................................................................................................................................33 4 Valuation ......................................................................................................................................................................34 4.1 Valuation Approach ............................................................................................................................................34 4.2 Rhapsody Valuation ...........................................................................................................................................35 4.3 PHM Valuation ...................................................................................................................................................39 4.4 Hospitals Valuation ............................................................................................................................................40 4.5 Hg Transaction ...................................................................................................................................................41 4.6 Share Buyback ...................................................................................................................................................43 Appendix 1: Sources of Information ....................................................................................................................................44 Appendix 2: Qualifications and Declarations ......................................................................................................................45 Appendix 3: Valuation Methodologies .................................................................................................................................46 Appendix 4: Valuation Evidence ..........................................................................................................................................47 Appendix 5: Glossary of Key Terms and Definitions ...........................................................................................................56 Page 1 1 Terms of the Proposed Transactions 1.1 Introduction Orion Health Group Limited (Orion Health or the Company) is a New Zealand incorporated company listed on the NZX Main Board. It is a provider of healthcare information technology (IT). Orion Health’s operations span three business units (each deemed a Solution Group): • Rhapsody: An integration solution which allows complex healthcare systems to seamlessly connect with one another. • Population Health Management (PHM): Provides software that aggregates and allows for the analysis of health data from a diverse set of sources such as General Practitioners, Specialists and Hospitals. • Hospitals: Offers software solutions that assist with the administration of hospitals. Orion Health’s largest shareholder is McCrae Limited, which is associated with Orion Health’s founder and Managing Director Ian McCrae. McCrae Limited and associated parties own 50.5% of the fully paid ordinary shares in Orion Health (Shares). Orion Health has announced a relatively complex transaction (the Hg Transaction), which would result in the sale of 75.1% of Rhapsody and 24.9% of PHM to ‘Mercury 2 Fund’, a vehicle managed by HgCapital LLP (Hg). Hg is a private equity firm with approximately GBP 10 billion funds under management. Hg has offices in London and Munich and serves more than 100 highly regarded institutional investors, including private and public pension funds, endowments, insurance companies and fund of funds. Orion Health has announced that on completion of the Hg Transaction, it would undertake a share buyback, at an estimated price range of $1.16–$1.26 per share (the Share Buyback). It is anticipated that the Share Buyback would occur by December 2018. The approval of the Hg Transaction and Share Buyback are cross-conditional, so either both are approved or neither will occur. In this report, we refer to the Hg Transaction and the Share Buyback together as ‘the Proposed Transactions’. The Proposed Transactions will effectively give Orion Health shareholders the option to: • Sell their existing Shares for cash consideration, estimated to be in the range of $1.16–$1.26 per share, with the ultimate price dependant on Orion Health’s available cash following completion of the Hg Transaction. • Remain a shareholder of ‘New Orion’, which will own: − 24.9% of Rhapsody − 75.1% of PHM − 100% of Hospitals. • Partially exit
Recommended publications
  • D2.1 State of the Art and Requirements Analysis V1 Project Deliverable
    Collective Wisdom Driving Public Health Policies Del. no. – D2.1 State of the Art and Requirements Analysis v1 Project Deliverable This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Programme (H2020-SC1-2016-CNECT) under Grant Agreement No. 727560 D2.1 State of the Art and Requirements 29/09/2017 Analysis v1 D2.1 State of the Art and Requirements Analysis v1 Work Package: WP2 Due Date: 01/09/2017 Submission Date: 29/09/2017 Start Date of Project: 01/03/2017 Duration of Project: 36 Months Partner Responsible of Deliverable: SIEMENS Version: 1.0 Final Draft Ready for internal Review Status: Task Leader Accepted WP leader accepted Project Coordinator accepted Dimosthenis Kyriazis (UPRC), Ilias Maglogiannis (UPRC), Christos Xenakis (UPRC), Argyro Mavrogiorgou (UPRC), Athanasios Kiourtis (UPRC), George Peppas (UPRC), Carlos Cavero (ATOS), Santiago Aso (ATOS), Antonio De Nigro (ENG), Francesco Torelli (ENG), Domenico Martino (ENG), George Moldovan (SIEMENS), Kosmin- Septimiu Nechifor (SIEMENS), Salvador Tortajada Velert (HULAFE), Sokratis Nifakos (KI), Tanja Tomson (KI), Jan Janssen (DFKI), Serge Autexier (DFKI), Petrina Smyrli (BIO), Andreas Menychtas (BIO), Author name(s): Christos Panagopoulos (BIO), Chris Orton (ICE), Usman Wajid (ICE), Thanos Kosmidis (CRA), Ricardo Jimenez-Peris (LXS), Patricio Martinez (LXS), Marta Patino-Martinez (UPM), Rafael Fernandez (UPM), Michael Boniface (IT-INN), Vegard Engen (IT- INN), Daniel Burns (IT-INN), Mitja Lustrek (JSI), Maroje Soric (ULJ), Patrick Weber (EFMI), John Mantas (EFMI),
    [Show full text]
  • Personal Health Records: the People’S Choice? Lisa Sprague, Senior Research Associate
    Issue Brief – No. 820 November 30, 2006 Personal Health Records: The People’s Choice? Lisa Sprague, Senior Research Associate OVERVIEW — Information technology (IT), especially in the form of an electronic health record (EHR), is touted by many as a key component of meaningful improvement in health care delivery and outcomes. A personal health record (PHR) may be an element of an EHR or a stand-alone record. Proponents of PHRs see them as tools that will improve consumers’ ability to manage their care and will also enlist consumers as advocates for wide- spread health IT adoption. This issue brief explores what a PHR is, the extent of demand for it, issues that need to be resolved before such records can be expected to proliferate, and public-private efforts to promote them. NATIONAL HEALTH POLICY FORUM FACILITATING DIALOGUE. FOSTERING UNDERSTANDING. Issue Brief – No. 820 November 30, 2006 Personal Health Records: The People’s Choice? Take control, health care consumers are exhorted. Don’t risk having your health information swept away in a storm or unavailable when you are taken unconscious to the emergency room. Safeguard yourself and your family. Become empowered! The empowered consumer, a stock character in health-reform scenarios, is not so easily identified in real life. There is a range of reasons for this: A given consumer may be sick or injured or cognitively impaired, thus lack- ing the ability and/or will to exercise choice. He or she may have been conditioned to do what the doctor says without second-guessing. Most commonly, he or she may lack the information that is the coin of empow- erment.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 11 AC Group's 2007 Annual Report the Digital Medical Office Of
    Chapter 11 AC Group’s 2007 Annual Report The Digital Medical Office of the Future Performance A. Methodology The majority of previous EMR evaluations have been limited to self-reported functionality. Although high rankings in this arena often indicate a superior product, the reviewers are aware that in some cases this correlation does not always hold. There may be some highly ranked products offering the full range of functionality that from the end user’s point of view may have features, organization or display that are limiting. The converse may also occur where a product that achieves a lower ranking because it offers less that full functionality nonetheless offers highly innovative features that would be advantageous for all end users. In short, although scores from self-reported functionality are extremely useful, they do not capture rich qualitative information that could significantly influence the practitioner’s decision of which system to choose. The purpose of this document is to help a physician evaluate a vendor’s solution. The document is divided into separate product demonstrations. If the practice is interested in one fully integrated system, then have the vendor complete and interact with this entire document. If the practice is only interested in a Document Image Management solution, complete sections B and D. If the practice is only interested in a comprehensive EMR/EHR application, then complete sections B and E. Speed is essential Time the execution of the tasks and record how long they take. You may be surprised at the significant difference in the results. Speed is extremely important during physician documentation.
    [Show full text]
  • Implications of an Emerging EHR Monoculture for Hospitals And
    Koppel R, Lehmann CU, J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015;22:465–471. doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2014-003023, Perspective Implications of an emerging EHR RECEIVED 29 May 2014 REVISED 29 July 2014 ACCEPTED 4 August 2014 monoculture for hospitals and healthcare PUBLISHED ONLINE FIRST 23 October 2014 systems Ross Koppel1, Christoph U Lehmann2 ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................... In many hospitals and health systems, a ‘new’ electronic health record means a shift to one vendor: Epic, a vendor that dominates in large and medium hospital markets and continues its success with smaller institutions and ambulatory practices. Our paper examines the implications of this emerging monoculture: its advantages and disadvantages for physicians and hospitals and its role in innovation, professional autonomy, implementation difficulties, workflow, flexibil- ity, cost, data standards, interoperability, and interactions with other information technology (IT) systems. .................................................................................................................................................... Key words: Epic; Implementation; Cost; Markets; Data Standards; Innovation Many healthcare systems and practices are shifting to Epic’s Several Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) describe Epic as the electronic health record (EHR).1 Based on software (MUMPS) default EHR choice—not because of its outstanding perform- developed at Massachusetts General
    [Show full text]
  • Athenahealth, Inc. (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)
    Table of Contents UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 Form 10-K (Mark One) þ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 or ¨ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from to Commission File Number 001-33689 athenahealth, Inc. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 04-3387530 (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer incorporation or organization) Identification No.) 311 Arsenal Street, Watertown, Massachusetts 02472 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) 617-402-1000 Registrant’s telephone number, including area code Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Name of each exchange on which registered Common Stock, $0.01 par value The NASDAQ Stock Market Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes þ No ¨ Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ¨ No þ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
    [Show full text]
  • Healthcare It Industry Update │ Q3 2016
    HEALTHCARE IT INDUSTRY UPDATE │ Q3 2016 www.harriswilliams.com Investment banking services are provided by Harris Williams LLC, a registered broker-dealer and member of FINRA and SIPC, and Harris Williams & Co. Ltd, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Harris Williams & Co. is a trade name under which Harris Williams LLC and Harris Williams & Co. Ltd conduct business. 0 HEALTHCARE IT INDUSTRY UPDATE | Q3 2016 HEALTHCARE IT PRACTICE OVERVIEW CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . WHAT WE’RE READING Harris Williams & Co. is pleased to present our review of Q3 Healthcare IT . KEY HEALTHCARE MACRO activity. This report provides commentary and analysis on current capital market INDICATORS trends and merger and acquisition dynamics within the Healthcare IT industry. PUBLIC MARKETS . PUBLIC COMPARABLES We hope you find this edition helpful and encourage you to contact us directly if . M&A ACTIVITY you would like to discuss our perspective on current industry trends and M&A . PRIVATE PLACEMENT ACTIVITY opportunities or our relevant industry experience. IPO ACTIVITY OUR PRACTICE CONTACTS Sam Hendler Harris Williams & Co. is a leading advisor to the Healthcare IT industry. Our global Managing Director practice includes professionals across the firm from Harris Williams & Co.’s [email protected] Technology, Media & Telecom Group and Healthcare & Life Sciences Group. +1 (617) 654-2117 Jeff Bistrong HW&Co. Healthcare IT Taxonomy Managing Director [email protected] +1 (617) 654-2102 . Patient-Facing Solutions Mike Wilkins . Care Delivery: Managing Director Operational Efficiency [email protected] +1 (415) 271-3411 . Care Delivery: Clinical / Acute Thierry Monjauze Managing Director . Care Delivery: [email protected] Clinical / Non-Acute +44 20 7518 8901 CARE DELIVERY EMPLOYERS ORGANIZATIONS PATIENTS .
    [Show full text]
  • PROPERTY RIGHTS and ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS by Jessica Carges
    No. 17-37 Summer 2017 MERCATUS GRADUATE POLICY ESSAY PROPERTY RIGHTS AND ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS by Jessica Carges The opinions expressed in this Graduate Policy Essay are the author’s and do not represent official positions of the Mercatus Center or George Mason University. Abstract This is an analysis of the current assignment of property rights of electronic health records and patient medical data. The paper focuses on the adverse incentives created by the current structure of property rights and hypothesizes that giving patients and provers co-ownership of medical data will best address concerns about interoperability and privacy, and also result in a number of additional positive benefits. Next the paper describes ways to make stronger patient ownership a reality despite the presence of special interest groups incentivized to block access. The paper concludes with state policy level analysis examining New Hampshire – the only state to currently grant patient ownership over medical data and electronic health record. this paper finds that state governments can follow New Hampshire’s lead and extend co-property rights to patients and providers to improve interoperability and privacy outcomes. Author Bio Jessica Carges is a research associate with the State Fiscal Health Team at The Pew Charitable Trusts. She received an MA in economics from George Mason University, and is an alumna of the Mercatus MA Fellowship program. Jessica holds a BS in economics, also from George Mason University. Committee Members Bobbi Herzberg, Distinguished Senior Fellow, F.A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. Nicole Fisher, President, HHR Strategies, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Vision Paper Proceedings of the July 8, 2019 HIT Summit
    Vision Paper Proceedings of the July 8, 2019 HIT Summit HIT Summit Planning Task Force Co-Chairs: Stephen Epstein, MD, MPP, FACEP (CEDR Committee Immediate Past Chair) Todd B. Taylor, MD, FACEP (Past Council Speaker, SEMI Founding Member) Members: JT Finnell, MD, FACEP, FACMI (ACEP Board Member) Jon Mark Hirshon, MD, PhD, MPH, FACEP (ACEP Board Member) Aisha Liferidge, MD, MPH, FACEP (ACEP Board Member) James Augustine, MD, FACEP (ACEP Board Member) Abhi Mehrotra, MD, MBA, FACEP (CEDR Committee Chair) Michelle Lin, MD, MPH, MS, FACEP (CEDR Committee Vice-Chair) Richard Griffey, MD, MPH, FACEP (Quality & Patient Safety Committee Chair) Nicholas Genes, MD, PhD, FACEP (SEMI Chair) Keith Kocher, MD, FACEP (Quality & Patient Safety Committee Vice-Chair) Benjamin Slovis, MD, MA, FACEP (SEMI Chair-Elect) Jay Schuur, MD, MHS, FACEP (E-QUAL Co-PI) Pawan Goyal, MD, MHA, CBA, PMP, FHIMSS, FAHIMA (ACEP Assc Executive Dir, Quality) Bill Malcom, MBA, PMP (ACEP CEDR Program Director) Nalani Tarrant, MPH, PMP (Dir, ACEP Quality Collaboratives, Data & Quality Measures) Dhruv Sharma, MS (Project Manager, ACEP Quality Collaboratives) Joseph Kennedy, MBA (ACEP Quality Administrator) SEMI = ACEP Section for Emergency Medicine Informatics WordCloud: Entire Document (visual representation of word frequency) ACEP Healthcare Information Technology Summit Evolving Emergency Care with Technology Vision Paper Proceedings of the July 8, 2019 Summit ACEP Headquarters, Irving, Texas INTRODUCTION ACEP convened an inaugural Healthcare Information Technology (HIT) Summit of ACEP members, industry luminaries, regulatory officials & ACEP staff (fig. 1) focusing on “Evolving Emergency Care with Technology”. This day-long event was structured using plenary keynotes, plenary group Figure 1 discussions and two breakout vision-sessions on HIT Policy, Artificial Attendee Demographics (Total 99) Intelligence, Distributed Healthcare, Data Integration\Management, Quality & 60 = ACEP Member Population Health (see appendix 1: Agenda).
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from The
    Ideas from the NHS Dr. Francis Wong, MBBS, MBA, MPH www.franciswong.com September 2018 Purpose Background: The NHS (National Health System) is the largest single-payer system in the world and was ranked #1 in the Commonwealth Fund’s Health Care System Performance Rankings in 20171 (US placed #11). It achieved particularly high scores in Care Process (prevention, safe care, coordination & patient engagement), Access (timeliness & affordability) and Equity. The NHS is also one of the world’s largest employers with around 1.5m staff nationwide. In 2014, the UK spent 9.8% of GDP on healthcare2. Of course, it is not without shortcomings, but I am immensely proud of the NHS and stand behind its founding principles. As a physician who has worked in both UK and US, I believe there is much that the countries can learn from each other. My goals for this document are: • Outline several examples of successful, promising and even controversial innovations in the UK’s National Health Service with an emphasis on primary care. • Briefly describe their impact on care delivery in the UK. • Hypothesize how these innovations might be applied to a US employer-based model. 1 Commonwealth Fund: Mirror, Mirror 2017 2 NHS spends about EU average as percentage of GDP on health Primary Care as Gatekeeper Overview Impact Relevance In England, there are approximately 340M GP Primary care as a gatekeeper to specialists is The gatekeeping role of primary care in the UK consultations a year with an average of 6 visits not a novel concept in the US and is a defining originated over 100 years ago, prior to the per year.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Thesis
    This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from the King’s Research Portal at https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/ Big data approaches to investigating Child Mental Health disorder outcomes Downs, Jonathan Muir Awarding institution: King's College London The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without proper acknowledgement. END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT Unless another licence is stated on the immediately following page this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the work Under the following conditions: Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Non Commercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes. No Derivative Works - You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. Any of these conditions can be waived if you receive permission from the author. Your fair dealings and other rights are in no way affected by the above. Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 07. Oct. 2021 BIG DATA APPROACHES TO INVESTIGATING CHILD MENTAL HEALTH DISORDER OUTCOMES JOHNNY DOWNS Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy September 2017 Department of Psychological Medicine Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience King’s College London ABSTRACT Background: In the UK, administrative data resources continue to expand across publically funded youth-orientated health, education and social services.
    [Show full text]
  • NHS Data: Maximising Its Impact on the Health and Wealth of the United Kingdom Saira Ghafur, Gianluca Fontana, Jack Halligan James O’Shaughnessy & Ara Darzi Contents
    NHS data: Maximising its impact on the health and wealth of the United Kingdom Saira Ghafur, Gianluca Fontana, Jack Halligan James O’Shaughnessy & Ara Darzi Contents 02 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 04 FOREWORD 05 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 08 INTRODUCTION: MAXIMISING THE IMPACT OF NHS DATA 12 PUBLIC OPINION AND ENGAGEMENT 16 DATA GOVERNANCE AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKS 20 DATA QUALITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE 24 CAPABILITIES 26 INVESTMENT SUGGESTED CITATION Ghafur S, Fontana G, Halligan J, O’Shaughnessy J, Darzi A. NHS data: Maximising its impact 28 VALUE SHARING on the health and wealth of the United Kingdom. Imperial College London (2020) doi: 10.25561/76409 34 REFERENCES Acknowledgements We would like to thank the following people who contributed to this document through interviews/ attendance at a round table and have agreed to be acknowledged: NAME ORGANISATION Dr. Natalie Banner * Understanding Patient Data Professor Sir John Bell * The Academy of Medical Sciences Kate Cheema British Heart Foundation Professor Diane Coyle University of Cambridge Douglas de Jager * Human.ai Rachel Dunscombe * NHS Digital Academy Dr. Andrew Elder Albion Capital Lord Valerian Freyberg * House of Lords John Godfrey * Legal & General Joanne Hackett * Genomics England Dr. Hugh Harvey * Hardian Health Eleonora Harwich * Reform A total of 26 one-to-one interviews were held with individuals with a strong Geoff Heyes Mind interest in this topic. Interviewees included representatives from government, Dr. Dominic King Google Health the NHS, academia, industry (technology and life sciences), research Dr. Jack Kreindler * Centre for Health & Human Performance institutions, charities and data privacy organisations. We have not consulted the public or healthcare professionals for the purposes of this paper, as we Michael MacDonnell * Google Health chose to focus on experts in the data policy and governance space.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Health in the UK: an Industry Study for the Office of Life Sciences
    Digital Health in the UK An industry study for the Office of Life Sciences September 2015 Contents Foreword 1 Executive summary 2 Part 1. Market introduction 6 Part 2. Telehealthcare 10 Part 3. mHealth 21 Part 4. Data Analytics 32 Part 5. Digitised health systems 39 Part 6. Conclusions on the digital health UK competitive position 45 Monitor Deloitte team 51 References 52 Foreword Welcome to the Monitor Deloitte report on Digital Health. This is one of a series of reports reflecting work commissioned by Office of Life Sciences in March 2015 on key healthcare and life science industry segments in the United Kingdom. Digital Health is an emerging industry arising from the intersection of healthcare services, information technology and mobile technology. Digital health innovations are only just starting to be more widely accepted as necessary for the future of efficient healthcare service delivery. As we address the behaviour, social, legal and technical challenges, over time, digital health advances have the potential to help increase access, decrease healthcare system costs and improve health outcomes. This report analyses trends in the digital health industry based on discussions with stakeholders, literature reviews and our work across the sector. It focuses on the United Kingdom but in the context of the global market and draws on examples from other countries. The report considers the challenges to growth, barriers to adoption, shifting dynamics and how the emergent industry is developing. The intention is to provoke discussion and offer readers an overview of the industry challenges and dynamics in the United Kingdom. We welcome your feedback and comments.
    [Show full text]