DigiHealthAccess

Regulatory Briefing


Every country in full

The same matrix as above, complete and without picking columns — all 13 criteria for every country and category.

🇩🇪 Germany DTx DiGA · §139e SGB V Established

Manufacturer sets the price freely in year 1, then negotiates with statutory insurers.

01 · Legal basis

Digital Healthcare Act (DVG), Dec 2019; §139e SGB V

02 · Competent authority

BfArM (listing decision) — DiGA directory; G-BA for adjacent EBM matters; BfArM also offers pre-application consultations and an FAQ on the DigiG

03 · Payer & co-pay

Payer: Statutory health insurance fund (GKV) — for recognised occupational diseases/accidents, the accident insurance carrier (Berufsgenossenschaft) instead (§§ 26 ff. SGB VII); Co-pay: none — per KBV guidance, DiGA are explicitly exempt from patient co-payment — manufacturers could in principle also offer paid add-on options directly to users, though in practice this doesn’t happen

04 · Regulatory approval

CE mark as a medical device (usually class I/IIa; class IIb possible since 2024); a DiGA with a telemonitoring function typically falls into risk class IIb per BfArM’s guidance on the combination and must deliver individualised feedback addressed directly to patients rather than just passing raw data to physicians; any physician services involved are billed separately as a regular EBM item, not through DiGA reimbursement; such class-IIb DiGA are also excluded from provisional trial listing (see row 12) — see Telemonitoring, row 8

05 · Data-protection certification

GDPR + BfArM data-protection criteria (DiGAV Annex 1/2, legal basis § 139e(11) SGB V) — BfArM applies the identical criteria catalogue as for DiPA; BSI TR-03161 on every code change, BSI TR-03185 for the recurring-update lifecycle. Since 2024 also mandatory connection to the electronic patient record (ePA) and secure login — per the legislator primarily via the GesundheitsID, alternatively username & password with two-factor authentication (see DiGA Implementation Guide ch. 3.5.4.4).

06 · Clinical evidence — RCT & real-world data

Provisional listing: a study protocol alone is not enough — endpoints must be plausibly justified, plus early trends from an ongoing study or RWE investigation; permanent listing: a completed comparative study (typically an RCT), with tightened requirements on randomisation, ITT analysis and publication since guideline v3.6

07 · Health-economic assessment

Not mandatory for listing (only medical benefit counts); outcome-linked pricing elements begin in 2026, but there’s no AMNOG-style cost-benefit requirement

08 · Access / prescription

Prescribed by physicians & psychotherapists; a direct application to the health insurer is theoretically possible too; the insurer must then see or request a current (max. 30-day-old) proof of indication and rule out contraindications — in practice a largely theoretical route that can end up requiring an extra doctor visit and taking longer overall; once approved, the insured person receives a 16-digit activation code to unlock the app

09 · Eligible user

Only the person with the diagnosed condition

10 · Reimbursement / pricing model

Manufacturer sets the price freely in year 1, but only up to 2,000 redeemed activation codes per DiGA ID — beyond that, the GKV maximum amount already applies instead of the free price, even within year 1; after 12 months (applies only to permanently listed DiGA) price negotiation with GKV-Spitzenverband, with an arbitration board (Schiedsstelle, § 134(3) SGB V) deciding within a further 3 months if no agreement is reached — decisions tend to be more favourable when a health-economic assessment proves financial benefit; from 01/01/2027 an additional volume-based rebate applies to the reimbursement amount (at least 2% above 3,000, at least 30% above 100,000 dispensed units/year); from 01/01/2026 the reimbursement agreement must also include a success-dependent price share of at least 20%, tied to the results of the application-accompanying success measurement (AbEM, details in row 13); the insurer pays the manufacturer directly — billed individually per activation

11 · Application / listing process

Application via the BfArM application portal, fast-track decision within 3 months — the clock only starts once the documents are formally complete, and can be extended by up to 3 further months in justified individual cases; see the DiGA Implementation Guide (v3.6, 10 Dec 2025), which updates the (already effective since 2024) requirements on connecting to the electronic patient record (ePA) and the GesundheitsID (ch. 3.5.4.4)

12 · Trial / provisional listing

Yes — a provisional trial listing is possible, initially for 1 year, extendable to a maximum of 2 years; risk-class IIb DiGA are excluded from this (e.g. many telemonitoring DiGA, see row 4) — for those, only permanent listing with full benefit evidence is possible from the outset

13 · Time limit / re-evaluation

Application-accompanying success measurement (AbEM): mandatory from 01/07/2026 for permanently listed DiGA with proven medical benefit, with continuous quarterly data collection and half-yearly submission to BfArM (Q1 + Q2 due 15 Oct, Q3 + Q4 due 15 Apr the following year, first submission per the DiGA guideline explicitly due 15 Apr 2027), plus from 01/01/2026 a success-dependent price share of at least 20% in the reimbursement agreement (§ 134 SGB V) — the 20% quota itself is set by law, but its concrete design is only meant to follow once first AbEM data has been evaluated; in a joint statement, the SVDGV voices doubt that this can be implemented without extra bureaucratic burden and fairly across indications, since therapy goals and usage duration differ by indication
🇫🇷 France DTx PECAN → LPPR Established

€435 for the first 3 months, then €38.30/month, capped at €780/year.

01 · Legal basis

Legal foundation laid 2022 (Social Security Financing Act/LFSS); PECAN scheme launched 03/2023 (modelled on DiGA); DTx pricing within PECAN defined 04/2024; permanent route via LPPR

02 · Competent authority

HAS/CNEDiMTS (benefit assessment); CEPS & Assurance Maladie (price/payment)

03 · Payer & co-pay

Payer: Assurance Maladie (statutory health insurance); Co-pay: none during the PECAN early-access phase — the flat tariff is fully covered by Assurance Maladie (see row 10) — not documented for permanent LPPR listing

04 · Regulatory approval

CE mark (MDR)

05 · Data-protection certification

GDPR + mandatory HDS certification (Hébergeur de Données de Santé) for health-data hosting

06 · Clinical evidence — RCT & real-world data

PECAN: preliminary/technical data is enough, RWD collection runs in parallel; permanent listing expects comparative (typically RCT) data

07 · Health-economic assessment

CEESP (HAS) can require a health-economic evaluation where budget impact is significant

08 · Access / prescription

Physician prescription (DMD category)

09 · Eligible user

The diagnosed patient themselves (physician-prescribed)

10 · Reimbursement / pricing model

PECAN tariff: €435 for the first 3 months, then €38.30/month, capped at €780/year; an LPPR tariff applies after listing

11 · Application / listing process

Two routes: PECAN (early access) or straight to LPPR; HAS assesses, Assurance Maladie pays; per the DNS progress report, the target of 50 PECAN candidates by end of 2026 is considered clearly missed — since 2023 only 16 dossiers have been submitted, 14 of them closed, with just 4 obtaining PECAN coverage

12 · Trial / provisional listing

Yes — PECAN itself is the time-limited trial route (1 year) ahead of permanent listing via LPPR

13 · Time limit / re-evaluation

A follow-up application for permanent listing is due within 6 months of the PECAN approval decision itself, not only after the 12-month PECAN period ends
🇨🇭 Switzerland DTx MiGeL Ch. 40 · dGA Emerging

Live since 1 Jul 2026, evaluation status runs through end of 2026.

01 · Legal basis

FOPH decision Dec 2025; MiGeL Ch. 40 live since 1 Jul 2026

02 · Competent authority

FOPH/BAG (MiGeL listing); health insurers (OKP) implement reimbursement case by case

03 · Payer & co-pay

Payer: Health insurers under the mandatory basic insurance (OKP); Co-pay: the standard OKP cost-sharing applies — an annual deductible (Franchise, CHF 300–2,500, patient-selected) plus 10 % coinsurance up to a cap of CHF 700/year for adults — if the product price exceeds the MiGeL maximum reimbursement amount, the patient pays the difference themselves or via private supplementary insurance (see row 10)

04 · Regulatory approval

CE mark required

05 · Data-protection certification

revFADP (Swiss data-protection act) + GDPR for any EU data flows

06 · Clinical evidence — RCT & real-world data

„Coverage with evidence development" — explicitly RWD-driven, no RCT required before initial listing

07 · Health-economic assessment

No formal cost-benefit study required; price is capped via the maximum reimbursement amount rather than HTA-based

08 · Access / prescription

Prescribed by a specialist physician (e.g. psychiatry/psychotherapy); can be used alongside psychotherapy or as a bridge while awaiting a psychotherapy place

09 · Eligible user

The diagnosed patient themselves

10 · Reimbursement / pricing model

OKP covers the maximum reimbursement amount (e.g. CHF 193 of CHF 271); the remainder via supplementary insurance

11 · Application / listing process

Listing on MiGeL is required; the application dossier is submitted directly to FOPH/BAG

12 · Trial / provisional listing

Yes — a time-limited evaluation status, officially termed „Leistungspflicht in Evaluation" (comparable to "coverage with evidence development"); for the first listed position (depression/CBT app, 40.01.01.00.1) it runs through 31 December 2026 — the end date can vary by position, and reimbursement was denied outright for severe depression

13 · Time limit / re-evaluation

After the evaluation status expires, FOPH decides on permanent listing
🇯🇵 Japan DTx NHI · Chuikyo listing Established

No separate DTx track — priced like any other reimbursed medical technology.

01 · Legal basis

No separate DTx track — runs through the regular NHI reimbursement system; its legal basis is the National Health Insurance Act

02 · Competent authority

PMDA (device approval); Chuikyo (price/reimbursement decision)

03 · Payer & co-pay

Payer: National Health Insurance (NHI) carriers; Co-pay: the standard NHI coinsurance of 10–30% applies, depending on age and income, as for other NHI-covered services

04 · Regulatory approval

PMDA approval as a medical device is mandatory

05 · Data-protection certification

APPI (Act on Protection of Personal Information); industry guidelines for healthcare information security apply in addition

06 · Clinical evidence — RCT & real-world data

PMDA typically requires a comparative clinical study (RCT) in the approval dossier

07 · Health-economic assessment

Typically priced by analogy to a comparable technology; a full cost-effectiveness review only applies where budget impact is high

08 · Access / prescription

Physician prescription; dispensed through pharmacies/clinics much like a medicine

09 · Eligible user

The diagnosed patient themselves

10 · Reimbursement / pricing model

Chuikyo assigns an NHI point value (e.g. CureApp SC: 2,540 points per course)

11 · Application / listing process

After PMDA approval: the application (保険適用希望書, Insurance Coverage Request Form) is submitted directly to MHLW, including details on engagement with the relevant medical society/societies; reimbursement is either folded into existing technical fees, or — for higher-value classifications — runs as a "Special Treatment Medical Device" with its own health-economic evaluation, ahead of final Chuikyo listing; CureApp SC went through the technical-fee route

12 · Trial / provisional listing

No — no trial model, the regular medical-technology process applies from the start

13 · Time limit / re-evaluation

Re-evaluation happens within the regular NHI price-revision cycles
🇺🇸 USA DTx Medicare DMHT G-codes Early stage

Live since 1 Jan 2025 — CMS is deliberately running a „Phase 1" adoption curve.

01 · Legal basis

CMS 2025 Physician Fee Schedule (HCPCS G0552–G0554), live since 1 Jan 2025

02 · Competent authority

FDA (clearance); CMS (coding & payment rate)

03 · Payer & co-pay

Payer: Medicare (CMS) or, depending on coverage, a private payer; Co-pay: under Medicare, the standard Part B coinsurance of 20% applies unless covered by supplemental insurance (Medigap) or Medicaid

04 · Regulatory approval

FDA clearance (510(k)/De Novo/PMA); DMHT originally classified under 21 CFR 882.5801 (substance use, insomnia, depression), and since the CY2026 expansion also 21 CFR 882.5803 (ADHD)

05 · Data-protection certification

HIPAA compliance; FDA cybersecurity guidance for SaMD

06 · Clinical evidence — RCT & real-world data

De Novo/PMA typically requires RCT evidence; 510(k) can rely on substantial equivalence rather than a full RCT; RWE is increasingly accepted post-market

07 · Health-economic assessment

No formal HTA/cost-effectiveness threshold — an RVU-based fee schedule

08 · Access / prescription

Prescribed by a physician, tied to a treatment plan

09 · Eligible user

The person with the treated condition

10 · Reimbursement / pricing model

G0552 (device setup — has no fixed national rate; per the CY2026 rule it remains individually "contractor priced" by the regional MAC) + G0553/G0554 (monthly management, ~$20/20 min)

11 · Application / listing process

No central listing process — billing is possible directly after FDA clearance

12 · Trial / provisional listing

No product-level trial model — though the codes introduced in 2025 are themselves designed as a cautious „phase 1" rollout

13 · Time limit / re-evaluation

CMS has already expanded the codes introduced in 2025 once for the CY2026 fee schedule (adding ADHD devices, see row 4) and is now collecting comments on a further expansion to fibromyalgia, gastrointestinal disorders and sleep disturbances
🇬🇧 UK DTx NHS Talking Therapies · NICE EVA Established, regional

Nationally vetted list, locally commissioned — no single national price.

01 · Legal basis

No DiGA-style law — runs via NICE Early Value Assessment & the DET process (Digitally Enabled Therapy)

02 · Competent authority

MHRA (approval); NICE (assessment); NHS England (commissioning)

03 · Payer & co-pay

Payer: NHS budget (tax-funded, not insurance in the strict sense); Co-pay: none — NHS services are free at the point of use for patients

04 · Regulatory approval

UKCA/CE mark as a medical device; the UKCA transition deadline has already been extended multiple times

05 · Data-protection certification

UK GDPR + the NHS’s DTAC (Digital Technology Assessment Criteria) — a mandatory check before commissioning

06 · Clinical evidence — RCT & real-world data

NICE EVA allows a conditional recommendation on preliminary data, with RCT evidence generated further during the conditional period

07 · Health-economic assessment

Central to the process: QALY-based cost-effectiveness assessment is a core criterion of the NICE recommendation; the threshold follows NICE’s established cost-per-QALY ranges

08 · Access / prescription

Access via NHS Talking Therapies services (commissioned locally); self-referral is often possible, otherwise via GP

09 · Eligible user

The person with the diagnosed condition

10 · Reimbursement / pricing model

Locally commissioned from a nationally vetted list — no single national price

11 · Application / listing process

Since Feb 2025 bundled into the new NICE HealthTech programme (formerly separate MedTech/Diagnostics/Interventional Procedures processes); decisions are published in HTE/HTG format, e.g. HTE8 for digitally enabled therapies for depression/anxiety

12 · Trial / provisional listing

Yes — NICE Early Value Assessment is inherently a time-conditional recommendation with an evidence-generation requirement

13 · Time limit / re-evaluation

Regional ICBs can apply their own prioritisation until further evidence arrives
🇱🇻 Latvia DTx NVD reimbursement code Unconfirmed

Code assigned in 2021 (Vigo) — live 2025/26 status not independently verified.

01 · Legal basis

No DTx law — reimbursement rides on an NVD „manipulation list" code

02 · Competent authority

NVD (National Health Service, Latvia)

03 · Payer & co-pay

Payer: NVD (state health fund); Co-pay: not documented

04 · Regulatory approval

CE mark

05 · Data-protection certification

GDPR applies as an EU member state; no further data available

06 · Clinical evidence — RCT & real-world data

No data available

07 · Health-economic assessment

No data available

08 · Access / prescription

No data available

09 · Eligible user

No data available

10 · Reimbursement / pricing model

Assigned manipulation-list code (2021, Vigo)

11 · Application / listing process

No structured, DTx-specific process is known

12 · Trial / provisional listing

No data available

13 · Time limit / re-evaluation

No data available
🇩🇪 Germany RPM EBM telemonitoring Established

EBM codes 13583–13587, live since Jan 2022 (heart failure).

01 · Legal basis

G-BA decision 2020; EBM coding since Jan 2022 (heart failure); pacemaker/ICD/CRT monitoring already billable since Apr 2016

02 · Competent authority

G-BA (EBM inclusion decision); KBV & GKV-Spitzenverband (fee schedule)

03 · Payer & co-pay

Payer: Statutory health insurance fund (GKV), same as for DiGA; Co-pay: none — a regular physician-billed EBM service with no patient contribution (the former practice fee, Praxisgebühr, was abolished in 2013)

04 · Regulatory approval

CE mark on the sensor/medical device used

05 · Data-protection certification

GDPR + MDR data-security requirements; no dedicated BfArM process (doesn’t run through DiGA)

06 · Clinical evidence — RCT & real-world data

G-BA relies on the underlying evidence base (e.g. the TIM-HF2 RCT); RWD increasingly features in Innovationsfonds pilot evaluations (e.g. sekTOR-HF)

07 · Health-economic assessment

G-BA weighs cost/benefit within the statutory-insurance framework, but there’s no formal QALY-based HTA as at NICE

08 · Access / prescription

Billed by the contracted physician under EBM codes 13583–13587, 03325/03326; telemonitoring can alternatively be delivered as an integrated part of a DiGA — see DTx, row 4, for BfArM’s requirements on this combination, with physician services still billed separately via regular EBM codes

09 · Eligible user

The monitored person themselves (e.g. a heart-failure patient)

10 · Reimbursement / pricing model

A regular EBM fee-schedule item — independent of DiGA’s manufacturer-pricing logic

11 · Application / listing process

No product-level listing process — tied to physician billing rather than an individual product

12 · Trial / provisional listing

No — a regular EBM item, no trial phase

13 · Time limit / re-evaluation

The separate regional sekTOR-HF payment model (Innovationsfonds pilot) ended 05/2024 — on 19 Nov 2025 the G-BA issued no recommendation to transfer it into routine care
🇫🇷 France RPM LATM · LPPR Established

HAS assessment, via PECAN early access or a direct LPPR/LATM route.

01 · Legal basis

ETAPES precursor programme (2014–2022); statutory DMD foundation laid 2022 (Social Security Financing Act/LFSS); PECAN scheme launched 03/2023; today the LATM line under LPPR

02 · Competent authority

HAS (benefit assessment); CEPS & Assurance Maladie (tariff/payment)

03 · Payer & co-pay

Payer: Assurance Maladie; Co-pay: not documented

04 · Regulatory approval

CE mark (medical device)

05 · Data-protection certification

GDPR + mandatory HDS certification (Hébergeur de Données de Santé)

06 · Clinical evidence — RCT & real-world data

HAS typically expects comparative clinical data; RWD from ETAPES-style pilot phases has historically fed into this

07 · Health-economic assessment

A CEESP evaluation (HAS) can apply where budget impact is significant

08 · Access / prescription

Physician prescription

09 · Eligible user

The monitored patient themselves

10 · Reimbursement / pricing model

PECAN technical flat fee €50/month; once permanently listed, a LATM technical fee set at 4 benefit tiers: €50 (organisational), €73.33 (quality of life), €82.50 (morbidity), €91.67 (mortality) per month, scaled down by patient volume, plus a separate medical-monitoring fee

11 · Application / listing process

Same as DTx: PECAN early access or direct LPPR/LATM listing, assessed by HAS

12 · Trial / provisional listing

Yes — same PECAN model as for DTx (time-limited to 1 year)

13 · Time limit / re-evaluation

Transitioning to permanent listing is required within 9 months of the PECAN approval decision; example: Cureety TechCare (oncology telemonitoring) succeeded in transitioning to permanent listing for its original PECAN indication, but HAS rejected a separately requested broader indication (radiotherapy-only patients) for lack of robust evidence
🇧🇪 Belgium RPM mHealthBELGIUM · Level M3 Established, tiered

INAMI-RIZIV has funded Level M3 since 29 Jan 2021.

01 · Legal basis

Validation pyramid since 2019; Level M3 active since January 2021 per parliamentary record (secondary sources cite 20 January as the exact day)

02 · Competent authority

INAMI/RIZIV (M3 reimbursement decision); the mHealthBELGIUM platform itself has been run solely by beMedTech/Agoria since end of 2023 (INAMI/RIZIV was previously a co-administrator)

03 · Payer & co-pay

Payer: INAMI-RIZIV, coordinated via the health-insurance funds (mutualités/ziekenfondsen); Co-pay: the general statutory co-payment (ticket modérateur/remgeld) may apply depending on the care pathway — no product-specific rate is published for M3 digital applications

04 · Regulatory approval

Level M1: CE mark; GDPR compliance; registration

05 · Data-protection certification

Level M2 explicitly checks interoperability; security; GDPR compliance

06 · Clinical evidence — RCT & real-world data

Level M3 requires proof of both clinical and socio-economic benefit — a mix of RCT and real-world data gathered during the M1/M2 phases

07 · Health-economic assessment

Formally required — proof of „socio-economic benefit" is an explicit precondition for M3 funding; INAMI-RIZIV publishes the assessment criteria publicly

08 · Access / prescription

Tied to specific pathways (e.g. the heart-failure hospital convention since Jan 2025; oncology since Jan 2026)

09 · Eligible user

The monitored patient themselves, within the relevant pathway indication

10 · Reimbursement / pricing model

INAMI-RIZIV funds products once they reach Level M3; the tariff is set separately per pathway (e.g. heart failure, oncology)

11 · Application / listing process

M1: CE, GDPR, registration; M2: interoperability and security; M3: proof of benefit (clinical and socio-economic)

12 · Trial / provisional listing

Partially — Level M3 itself splits into M3– (provisional funding while socio-economic benefit is still being demonstrated) and M3+ (definitive funding once proven); there is no fixed overall end date as with DiGA, but M3– effectively functions as a time-limited trial phase

13 · Time limit / re-evaluation

New pathways (e.g. oncology 2026) can be added to the tier model at any time
🇳🇱 Netherlands RPM Zvw basic insurance Special case

No dedicated code — rides along with an already-reimbursable service.

01 · Legal basis

No dedicated law — runs under the general Health Insurance Act (Zvw)

02 · Competent authority

Zorginstituut Nederland (basic-package interpretation) alongside the NZa (Dutch Healthcare Authority), which sets the dedicated telemonitoring tariff code; individual health insurers (zorgverzekeraars) still decide on coverage case by case

03 · Payer & co-pay

Payer: Zorgverzekeraars (private health insurers under the Zvw); Co-pay: generally counts toward the mandatory annual deductible of the basic package (eigen risico, €385 in 2026), like other non-exempt care

04 · Regulatory approval

CE mark

05 · Data-protection certification

AVG (Dutch GDPR); industry-standard NEN 7510 (healthcare information security); often a de-facto procurement requirement for hospitals in practice, even without a statutory mandate

06 · Clinical evidence — RCT & real-world data

No formal evidence dossier; strong everyday adoption by individual vendors (e.g. Luscii states ~94 % of insurers reimburse its telemonitoring concept — not an official nationwide figure) effectively serves as real-world proof instead of an RCT gate

07 · Health-economic assessment

No dedicated economic evaluation, since there’s no standalone reimbursement decision

08 · Access / prescription

Delivered alongside an accompanying clinical service (heart failure, COPD, hypertension, and others)

09 · Eligible user

The monitored patient themselves

10 · Reimbursement / pricing model

Since 2023 its own NZa tariff code Prestatie 039133 ("overig zorgproduct", capped tariff, billable max. once per 120 days); individual vendor concepts (e.g. Luscii) are, per the vendor, reimbursed by ~94 % of insurers — not an official aggregate figure

11 · Application / listing process

No formal listing process — runs on a substitution principle; the service replaces an already-reimbursable in-person visit

12 · Trial / provisional listing

No — no dedicated trial phase

13 · Time limit / re-evaluation

No standalone legal status, since it is tied to existing Zvw services
🇺🇸 USA RPM RPM/RTM CPT codes Established

Billed under the CMS fee schedule — no listing process required.

01 · Legal basis

Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (CPT codes updated annually)

02 · Competent authority

CMS (payment rate); AMA CPT Editorial Panel (defines the codes)

03 · Payer & co-pay

Payer: Medicare (CMS) or, depending on coverage, a private payer; Co-pay: the standard Medicare Part B coinsurance of 20% applies (e.g. for CPT 99453–99458) unless covered by supplemental insurance or Medicaid

04 · Regulatory approval

FDA clearance of the device/software used is required

05 · Data-protection certification

HIPAA compliance

06 · Clinical evidence — RCT & real-world data

FDA clearance of the device requires clinical evidence (RCT or predicate comparison); CMS reimbursement itself requires no additional trial evidence

07 · Health-economic assessment

No formal cost-effectiveness threshold — RVU methodology, no HTA; pricing follows the general Medicare fee schedule rather than a product-specific assessment

08 · Access / prescription

Enrolled by a physician; two threshold tiers: the classic tier requires ≥16 days of data per 30 days + ≥20 min of review per month (standard codes, see Reimbursement, row 10); since CY2026 a lower entry tier also exists with just 2–15 days of data (new device codes 98984/98985/98986 RTM or 99445 RPM) + 10 min of contact per month (new, lower-paying codes)

09 · Eligible user

The monitored patient themselves

10 · Reimbursement / pricing model

Billed via CPT codes by the enrolling practice (e.g. CPT 98980 ≈ $53.77, varies by locality)

11 · Application / listing process

No listing process — billing is possible directly once the device/software is cleared; no BfArM-style pre-review

12 · Trial / provisional listing

No classic trial model, but not fully open-ended either — the RTM codes formally carry CPT "New Technology" status, to be reviewed from April 2030 (after 3 years of data)

13 · Time limit / re-evaluation

CPT codes are updated annually as part of the Physician Fee Schedule review
🇩🇪 Germany DiPA DiPA · §40a SGB XI No product listed yet

DVPMG since 06/2021, DiPAV since 10/2022 — as of Jan 2026 no product had been fully listed yet.

01 · Legal basis

DVPMG (Digital Care and Nursing Modernisation Act) since 06/2021, adopted into long-term-care insurance law (§ 40a SGB XI); DiPAV (ordinance) since 10/2022

02 · Competent authority

BfArM (Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices) maintains a separate DiPA directory, mirroring the DiGA process

03 · Payer & co-pay

Payer: Long-term care insurance fund (Pflegekasse); Co-pay: not documented

04 · Regulatory approval

No mandatory medical-device proof as for DiGA — DiPAV instead requires proof of care-related effectiveness (§§ 9–11 DiPAV, comparative studies); data protection (§ 78a(8) SGB XI); technical, syntactic & semantic interoperability (§ 6 DiPAV)

05 · Data-protection certification

GDPR + BfArM data-protection criteria (legal basis § 78a(8) SGB XI) — BfArM explicitly treats DiPA the same as DiGA here and applies the identical criteria catalogue, not a separate DiPA-specific one; BSI TR-03161 on every code change, BSI TR-03185 for the recurring-update lifecycle — the exact same requirements as for DiGA, including the requirement (effective since 2024) to connect to the ePA and to authenticate primarily via the GesundheitsID (alternatively username & password with two-factor authentication).

06 · Clinical evidence — RCT & real-world data

Lower evidence bar than DiGA — care-related rather than medical benefit; from the BEEP-Gesetz (§ 78a(4) SGB XI n. F., in force from 01/07/2026), proof of a measurable reduction in the burden on family caregivers is also accepted as an alternative, without a direct effectiveness proof for the care-dependent person themselves; a guideline update (v1.2, 10/2023) clarified requirements

07 · Health-economic assessment

No formal cost-benefit assessment like IQWiG/AMNOG; instead GKV-Spitzenverband negotiates the reimbursement amount individually with each manufacturer (§ 78a(4) SGB XI) within 3 months of listing; the framework agreement (since 06/2023) only sets the negotiation standards for that process

08 · Access / prescription

Access via a recognised care level (Pflegegrad 1–5) and application to the long-term-care fund — no physician prescription as with DiGA

09 · Eligible user

The care-dependent person themselves and, from the BEEP-Gesetz (§ 40a(1a) SGB XI n. F., in force from 01/07/2026), family caregivers too

10 · Reimbursement / pricing model

Framework agreement incl. pricing since 06/2023, originally a uniform cap of €50/month; raised by the BEEP-Gesetz (01/2026) to up to €70/month (€40 app + €30 support services)

11 · Application / listing process

Application process open via the BfArM DiGA/DiPA portal since 12/2022; guideline updated to v1.2 in 10/2023; as of Jan 2026 no product had been fully listed yet

12 · Trial / provisional listing

Yes — the BEEP-Gesetz introduces a simplified pilot listing with a time-limited trial year from 01/07/2026 (§ 78a(6a) SGB XI n. F., extendable by a further 12 months)

13 · Time limit / re-evaluation

No data available — the regular re-evaluation cycle after the pilot trial year ends has not yet been established
🇩🇪 Germany Prevention Prevention course · §20 SGB V (ZPP) Established

ZPP certification instead of medical-device approval — no clinical trial required.

01 · Legal basis

§ 20(4) No. 1 in conjunction with (5) SGB V (behaviour-based prevention benefits); uniform action areas, criteria and the certification procedure are set by GKV-Spitzenverband under § 20(2) SGB V — implemented via the Leitfaden Prävention guideline

02 · Competent authority

The Zentrale Prüfstelle Prävention (ZPP) — certifies on behalf of a cooperative of statutory health insurers (practically all Ersatzkassen, AOK regional funds, IKK funds, BKK funds, Knappschaft, SVLFG); operated day-to-day by Team Gesundheit GmbH, Essen; BfArM plays no role here

03 · Payer & co-pay

Payer: Statutory health insurance fund (GKV), per each fund’s own bylaws (Satzung); Co-pay: the law sets no fixed reimbursement rate — common practice (varies by fund) is 80–100% of the course fee, usually capped (often around €75–150/course) and limited to typically 1–2 courses per calendar year; the insured person almost always pays upfront — the provider is paid directly, and reimbursement follows only after the certificate of attendance is submitted to the insurer

04 · Regulatory approval

Not a medical device — no CE mark, no MDR classification required; the only gate is ZPP certification of the course content, the course leader’s qualifications, and (where used) the underlying course concept, per the Leitfaden Prävention

05 · Data-protection certification

General GDPR obligations apply, but there is no dedicated BfArM-style data-protection criteria catalogue as for DiGA/DiPA; no BSI TR technical guidelines apply, and there is no requirement to connect to the ePA; exception: for digital offerings certified under Chapter 7 of the Leitfaden Prävention, an additional ISO 27001 certification of the information security management system (ISMS) is required — non-delegable to a hosting platform, it must cover the responsible organisation itself

06 · Clinical evidence — RCT & real-world data

No clinical trial (RCT) or real-world evidence is required for courses certified under Chapter 5 of the guideline (fixed course structure, e.g. 8–12 weekly sessions) — certification here only checks course content, structure and quality against the Leitfaden Prävention guideline, not medical effectiveness in the DiGA sense; exception: flexible, app-based digital offerings certified under Chapter 7 require their own scientific efficacy proof (typically a longitudinal study) and, after that, an efficacy evaluation to extend beyond the initial (1-year-only) certification year (see row 13)

07 · Health-economic assessment

None — neither an IQWiG-/AMNOG-style cost-benefit assessment nor outcome-linked pricing elements as introduced for DiGA from 2026

08 · Access / prescription

No physician prescription needed — the insured person books directly with a certified course provider (online or in person); some funds additionally take a physician-issued prevention recommendation under § 25 or § 26 SGB V into account, but it is not a mandatory access requirement

09 · Eligible user

Any statutorily insured person entitled to prevention benefits — unlike DiGA, not tied to a specific diagnosed condition, but to the relevant action area (e.g. exercise, nutrition, stress management, substance-use prevention)

10 · Reimbursement / pricing model

The provider sets the course price freely — there is no central price negotiation with GKV-Spitzenverband as for DiGA; typical course fees run around €75–250 for a full course (usually 8 sessions); the fund reimburses after course completion based on the submitted certificate of attendance, typically 80–100% up to a fund-specific cap

11 · Application / listing process

Fully online via the ZPP’s quality portal — the provider submits session-by-session lesson plans, participant materials and proof of the course leader’s qualifications; the review is centralised, free of charge and nationwide, typically completed within 10 working days; unlike DiGA there is no separate per-fund listing step — a positive result is automatically recognised by every participating fund

12 · Trial / provisional listing

No provisional/permanent listing model as with DiGA for courses certified under Chapter 5 — every certification is fully valid from the outset; exception: prevention offerings certified under Chapter 7 of the Leitfaden Prävention initially receive only a provisional certification — proof of scientific efficacy must be submitted within the first year (see row 13)

13 · Time limit / re-evaluation

Certification is generally valid for 3 years from the date it’s granted, after which free re-certification for a further 3 years is available; online course concepts, as well as digital offerings certified under Chapter 7, instead receive only a 1-year initial certification, extendable by 2 years once an efficacy evaluation is submitted; any change to a certification-relevant course detail (e.g. a new course leader, an altered concept) automatically triggers a new review
Glossary — terms by country

General

DTx
Digital Therapeutics
RPM
Remote Patient Monitoring
RCT
Randomised Controlled Trial
RWE / RWD
Real-World Evidence / Real-World Data
HTA
Health Technology Assessment
QALY
Quality-Adjusted Life Year
GDPR / DSGVO
EU General Data Protection Regulation
SaMD
Software as a Medical Device
ITT
Intention-to-Treat — trial analysis including all randomised participants
MDR
EU Medical Device Regulation

Germany

DiGA
Digital health application (Germany)
DiPA
Digital care application (Germany)
ZPP
Zentrale Prüfstelle Prävention — certifies prevention courses under § 20 SGB V
Leitfaden Prävention
GKV-Spitzenverband’s guideline (under § 20(2) SGB V) setting the action areas, criteria and certification requirements
Kooperationsgemeinschaft
A cooperative of practically all statutory health insurers that funds and is responsible for the ZPP
EBM
Uniform physician fee schedule
G-BA
Federal Joint Committee
KBV
National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians
BfArM
Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices
GKV
Statutory health insurance
DiGAV
Digital Health Applications Ordinance
DiPAV
Digital Care Applications Ordinance
DVG
Digital Healthcare Act
DVPMG
Digital Care and Nursing Modernisation Act
DigiG
Digital Act
AbEM
Application-accompanying success measurement
BEEP-Gesetz
Act on expanding competencies and reducing bureaucracy in long-term care
SGB V / XI / VII
Social Code Book Five / Eleven / Seven
BSI TR-03161 / TR-03185
Technical guidelines from Germany’s Federal Office for Information Security
Berufsgenossenschaft
Statutory accident-insurance carrier
Pflegekasse
Long-term care insurance fund
SVDGV
German Digital Healthcare Association
AMNOG
Pharmaceutical Market Reorganisation Act — drug cost-benefit assessment framework
IQWiG
Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care

France

PECAN
Anticipated coverage scheme — time-limited early-access route
LPPR
List of reimbursable products and services
LATM
List of reimbursable telemonitoring activities
HAS
French National Authority for Health
CNEDiMTS
HAS commission evaluating medical devices and health technologies
CEPS
Economic Committee for Health Products
CEESP
HAS commission for health-economic and public-health evaluation
LFSS
Social Security Financing Act
HDS
Certified health-data hosting accreditation
RGPD
French term for GDPR
ETAPES
Precursor telemedicine pilot programme (2014–2022)
DMD
Digital medical device (prescription category)
Assurance Maladie
France’s statutory health insurance
DNS
Délégation du Numérique en Santé — France’s digital-health strategy delegation

Switzerland

MiGeL
List of means and appliances (reimbursable devices)
BAG / FOPH
Federal Office of Public Health
OKP
Mandatory basic health insurance
revDSG
Switzerland’s revised Federal Act on Data Protection

Japan

PMDA
Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency
Chuikyo
Central Social Insurance Medical Council
NHI
National Health Insurance
MHLW
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
APPI
Act on the Protection of Personal Information — Japan’s data-protection law

USA

CMS
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
HCPCS
Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System
CPT
Current Procedural Terminology billing codes
FDA
Food and Drug Administration
HIPAA
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
RVU
Relative Value Unit (basis for fee calculation)
DMHT
Digital Mental Health Treatment (FDA device category)
510(k) / De Novo / PMA
FDA medical-device clearance/approval pathways
AMA
American Medical Association
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations — e.g. 21 CFR for FDA device rules
MAC
Medicare Administrative Contractor — processes regional Medicare claims

UK

NICE
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
MHRA
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
NHS
National Health Service
EVA
Early Value Assessment (NICE)
DTAC
Digital Technology Assessment Criteria (NHS)
HTE / HTG
Health Technology Evaluation / Guidance (NICE)
ICB
Integrated Care Board (regional NHS commissioner)
UKCA
UK Conformity Assessed marking
DET
Digitally Enabled Therapy — NHS assessment route for digitally enabled therapies

Latvia

NVD
National Health Service, Latvia

Belgium

INAMI / RIZIV
Belgium’s national sickness and disability insurance institute

Netherlands

Zvw
Health Insurance Act
NEN 7510
Dutch standard for healthcare information security
Zorginstituut Nederland
Dutch National Health Care Institute
NZa
Dutch Healthcare Authority — regulates healthcare markets and tariffs