Modeling Market Shares of Competing (e)Care Providers J. Van Ooteghem, T. Tesch, S. Verbrugge, A. Ackaert, D. Colle, M. Pickavet, P. Demeester eHealth2009,

Modeling Market Shares of Competing (e)Care Providers

J. Van Ooteghem, T. Tesch, S. Verbrugge, A. Ackaert, D. Colle, M. Pickavet, P. Demeester

eHealth2009, Istanbul

September 24th 2009

IBBT TranseCare project

Transparant ICT platforms for eCare

Project duration 2007 - 2010Project website http://projects.ibbt.be/TranseCare

2

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND MODEL MECHANISMS


3

Competing (e)Care model

4

CHURN

INF

LO

W

CHURN

Dea

th

HomeCare

HomeCare & eCarePlatform

ServiceFlats

RetirementHomes

Dea

th

ServiceFlats

Retirement Homes

CHANGE IN DEPENDENCY


Dea

th

Dea

th

Retirement Homes


TIER 0 TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3

SelfSustained

eCarePlatform

WaitingListWaitingList



Tier 3

Characteristics Elderly requiring near constant (medical) attention

Competing care providers Retirement Homes (RH)

Multi-residence housing facilities intended for highest-level dependency elderly

WaitingList (WL) High-dependent elderly not able to receive adequate

care at the time of need, due to capacity limitations

5

CHURN

INF

LO

W

CHURN

Dea

th

HomeCare


ServiceFlats

RetirementHomes

Dea

th

ServiceFlats

Retirement Homes



Dea

th

Dea

th

Retirement Homes



SelfSustained

eCarePlatform




Tier 2

Characteristics Elderly requiring extended external attention Staying in their private homes is therefore impossible

Competing care providers Service Flats (SF)

Assisted living facilities for elderly already needing a certain level of continued care

Retirement Homes (RH) WaitingList (WL)

6

CHURN

INF

LO

W

CHURN

Dea

th

HomeCare


ServiceFlats

RetirementHomes

Dea

th

ServiceFlats

Retirement Homes



Dea

th

Dea

th

Retirement Homes



SelfSustained

eCarePlatform




Tier 1

Characteristics Elderly requiring (some) external attention and care They can stay in their own homes

Competing care providers HomeCare (HC)

On-demand supportive care provided in the patient's home by professionals

HomeCare augmented with eCarePlatform (HC+eCP) Professional homecare facilitated by an eCarePlatform

7

CHURN

INF

LO

W

CHURN

Dea

th

HomeCare


ServiceFlats

RetirementHomes

Dea

th

ServiceFlats

Retirement Homes



Dea

th

Dea

th

Retirement Homes



SelfSustained

eCarePlatform




Tier 0

Characteristics Elderly still living in their private homes No need for (professional) homecare

Competing care providers SelfSustained (SS)

Independent living eCarePlatform (eCP)

Own initiative for subscribing to an eCarePlatform

8

CHURN

INF

LO

W

CHURN

Dea

th

HomeCare


ServiceFlats

RetirementHomes

Dea

th

ServiceFlats

Retirement Homes



Dea

th

Dea

th

Retirement Homes



SelfSustained

eCarePlatform




Model mechanisms

Vertically Inflow (Tier 0) Outflow (Death) Churn between services

Horizontally Increased level of care Tier 0 Tier 1

9

CHURN

INF

LO

W

CHURN

Dea

th

HomeCare


ServiceFlats

RetirementHomes

Dea

th

ServiceFlats

Retirement Homes



Dea

th

Dea

th

Retirement Homes



SelfSustained

eCarePlatform




SIMULATION RESULTSModeling Market Shares of Competing (e)Care Providers

10

Case study

Flemish situation 10 year period: 2010 – 2020

Data Obtained from public sources Model refined and assessed by professionals

Goal To indicate the trend in how competition between care

providers in the sector will evolve

11

Capacity

12

85%

90%

95%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Tota

l cap

acity

Time (Y)

Accepted capacity Waitinglist (WL)

Capacity is limited for service flats and retirement homes Uptake of eCarePlatform services has a positive effect on the

length of the waiting list

Market shares of competing care providers

13

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Tota

l cap

acity

Time (Y)

RH WL

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Tota

l cap

acity

Time (Y)

SF RH WL

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Tota

l cap

acity

Time (Y)

HC HC+eCP SF RH

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Tota

l cap

acity

Time (Y)

SS eCP

Tier 3

Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 0

CHURN

INF

LO

W

CHURN

Dea

th

HomeCare


ServiceFlats

RetirementHomes

Dea

th

ServiceFlats

Retirement Homes



Dea

th

Dea

th

Retirement Homes



SelfSustained

eCarePlatform




CONCLUSIONSFUTURE WORK


14

Conclusions

Conceptual framework Allows forecasting evolution of market shares of

competing care providers Market mechanisms

Based on the dependency level of the elderly Competition within tiers (churn)

Capacity Tier 3 capacity always needs to be guaranteed Waiting list problem situated in Tier 2

Market shares eCarePlatform will gain market share as soon as

efficiency and added value has been proved.

15

Future work

Techno-economic analysis of eCare platform business cases

Input from the presented model eCare value network models Quantitative cost/benefit model Multi-actor analysis

16

CTTE 2010

17

Ghent, BelgiumJune 16-18, 2010

Conference of Telecommunication, Media and Internet Techno-Economics

Call for papers:•user and service adoption•pricing strategies for new services•value network analysis and competition opportunities•regulatory impacts on industry structure and competition•OPEX and CAPEX models for network and service providers•direct and indirect revenue modeling•comparison of novel versus classic investment decision techniques•sensitivity studies, risk analysis and real options •multi-actor analysis•game theoretic analysis http://www.ctte-conference.org/

Thank you for your attention

Questions ?

Jan Van [email protected]/teINTEC Broadband Communication Networks (IBCN)Department of Information Technology (INTEC)Ghent University - IBBT

Documents

Modeling Market Shares of Competing (e)Care Providers J. Van Ooteghem, T. Tesch, S. Verbrugge, A. Ackaert, D. Colle, M. Pickavet, P. Demeester eHealth2009,