Abstract：
BACKGROUND: At a time when welfare contracts are in crisis, it is timely to discuss different forms of disruptive innovation and responses of medical finance and economic systems, especially adjusting with new instruments for recovery and innovative solutions for health reforms.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to propose some ways to develop a framework for policy changes affecting life science sectors and healthcare. It aims to analyze the types of relationships between health or medical systems and the economic systems.
METHODS: Medical systems used to be generally closed systems, but the new forms of delivery, especially with increase of telehealth and Mobile health (Mhealth) solutions (boosted by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as online consultations), have open traditional boundaries and generate more interactions with economic systems. It also led to new institutional arrangements at federal, national, or local levels, with different power games according to the history of institutions and cultural differences between countries.
RESULTS: Which system dynamics prevail will also depend on the political systems in place, for instance very innovative open innovation systems dominated by private players such as the USA empower individuals and favor intuitive and entrepreneurial states. On the other hand, systems historically dominated by socialized insurance or former communist countries, have investigated \"attunements\" or adaptation mechanisms in system intelligence. However, systemic changes are not only implemented by traditional rulers (government agencies, federal reserve banks) but also face the emergence of systemic platforms dominated by Big Tech players. The new agendas expressed for instance in the United Nation (UN) framework and the set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for climate change and sustainable growth, also require global adjustment of supply and demand, in a context where the traditional drug/vaccine split is challenged by the new technologies (e.g., mRNA technologies). Investment for drug research led to the development of COVID-19 vaccines, but also potential cancer vaccines. Finally, welfare economics is increasingly criticized among economist circles; it requires new design for global value assessment framework, facing growing inequalities and inter-generational challenges in aging populations.
CONCLUSIONS: This paper contributes to new models of developments and different frameworks for multiple stakeholders with major technological changes.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to propose some ways to develop a framework for policy changes affecting life science sectors and healthcare. It aims to analyze the types of relationships between health or medical systems and the economic systems.
METHODS: Medical systems used to be generally closed systems, but the new forms of delivery, especially with increase of telehealth and Mobile health (Mhealth) solutions (boosted by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as online consultations), have open traditional boundaries and generate more interactions with economic systems. It also led to new institutional arrangements at federal, national, or local levels, with different power games according to the history of institutions and cultural differences between countries.
RESULTS: Which system dynamics prevail will also depend on the political systems in place, for instance very innovative open innovation systems dominated by private players such as the USA empower individuals and favor intuitive and entrepreneurial states. On the other hand, systems historically dominated by socialized insurance or former communist countries, have investigated \"attunements\" or adaptation mechanisms in system intelligence. However, systemic changes are not only implemented by traditional rulers (government agencies, federal reserve banks) but also face the emergence of systemic platforms dominated by Big Tech players. The new agendas expressed for instance in the United Nation (UN) framework and the set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for climate change and sustainable growth, also require global adjustment of supply and demand, in a context where the traditional drug/vaccine split is challenged by the new technologies (e.g., mRNA technologies). Investment for drug research led to the development of COVID-19 vaccines, but also potential cancer vaccines. Finally, welfare economics is increasingly criticized among economist circles; it requires new design for global value assessment framework, facing growing inequalities and inter-generational challenges in aging populations.
CONCLUSIONS: This paper contributes to new models of developments and different frameworks for multiple stakeholders with major technological changes.
摘要：
背景：在福利合同陷入危机的时候，及时讨论医疗金融和经济系统的不同形式的破坏性创新和对策，特别是适应新的恢复工具和创新的卫生改革解决方案。
目的：本文的目的是提出一些方法，以制定影响生命科学部门和医疗保健的政策变化框架。它旨在分析卫生或医疗系统与经济系统之间的关系类型。
方法：医疗系统过去通常是封闭系统，但是新的交付形式，特别是随着远程医疗和移动医疗(Mhealth)解决方案的增加(受COVID-19大流行的推动，如在线咨询)，具有开放的传统边界，并与经济系统产生更多互动。这也导致了联邦政府的新制度安排，国家,或地方层面，根据国家之间的历史制度和文化差异，进行不同的权力博弈。
结果：哪些系统动力学占上风还取决于现有的政治系统，例如，由美国等私人参与者主导的非常创新的开放式创新系统赋予个人权力，并偏爱直觉和创业状态。另一方面,历史上由社会化保险或前共产主义国家主导的系统，已经研究了系统智能中的“协调”或适应机制。然而,系统性变革不仅由传统统治者(政府机构，联邦储备银行），但也面临着由大型科技公司主导的系统性平台的出现。例如，在联合国（UN）框架和气候变化和可持续增长的可持续发展目标（SDGs）中表达的新议程，还需要全球调整供需，在传统药物/疫苗分割受到新技术挑战的情况下(例如，mRNA技术)。对药物研究的投资导致了COVID-19疫苗的开发，还有潜在的癌症疫苗。最后,福利经济学越来越受到经济学界的批评；它需要对全球价值评估框架进行新的设计，面临人口老龄化日益加剧的不平等和代际挑战。
结论：本文为具有重大技术变革的多个利益相关者提供了新的开发模型和不同的框架。
目的：本文的目的是提出一些方法，以制定影响生命科学部门和医疗保健的政策变化框架。
方法：医疗系统过去通常是封闭系统，
结果：哪些系统动力学占上风还取决于现有的政治系统，
结论：本文为具有重大技术变革的多个利益相关者提供了新的开发模型和不同的框架。
