Guidance To Industry Classification of Digital Health Technologies 2023jun05

GUIDANCE TO INDUSTRY:
Classification of Digital Health Technologies

June 2023
Brandon Wade
Health Advances, LLC
Jeff Abraham Megan Coder
Classification of Digital Health Technologies
Contacts
June 2023 Vice President Vice President Chief PolicyPage Officer
|1
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
PREFACE: PROJECT CONTEXT, OVERVIEW, AND METHODOLOGY
The digital transformation of healthcare is in full swing. With this rapid pace of innovation comes a
complicated and overlapping array of digital technologies that is difficult for patients, clinicians, payers,
and policymakers to differentiate, evaluate, and ultimately benefit from. As the leading international
organization on digital therapeutic thought leadership and education, the Digital Therapeutics Alliance
(DTA) has partnered with Health Advances, a life sciences strategy consulting firm, to assist in defining
and classifying the full spectrum of digital health technologies (DHTs). By offering robust categorizations
and precise definitions, this guidance aims to foster a unified and consistent understanding of the digital
landscape for all stakeholders interacting with and hoping to benefit from digital products.
We performed comprehensive external benchmarking of how DHTs are currently defined and classified.
Our research was informed by the latest publications from regulatory bodies (e.g., the United States
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Consumer Education
(NICE)), trade organizations (e.g., DTA, Digital Medicine Society (DiME)), analysts and investors (e.g.,
Rock Health), as well as the global landscape of innovative digital health companies crafting their own
definitions and messaging (Figure A). By identifying key points of differentiation across DHTs, we revised
the DTA’s classification framework to better reflect the landscape of DHTs today and one that better
services where the industry is headed. We then pressure tested the revised classifications with US
physicians, US commercial and government payers, and DTA member companies to arrive at this
guidance for industry (Figure B).
Given the rapid development of digital products and pioneering companies in this space, we aim to
consistently revisit and update this guidance to consider novel technologies and incorporate feedback
from the broader healthcare industry.
Figure A: Health Advances Secondary Research Program
Health Advances, LLC Classification of Digital Health Technologies

June 2023 Page | 2
Figure B: Health Advances Secondary Research Program

June 2023 Page | 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE: PROJECT CONTEXT, OVERVIEW, AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................................... 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................................................. 4
TABLE OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................. 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 6
GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................................................................. 8
CHAPTER ONE: DIGITAL HEALTH TECHNOLOGY CATEGORIZATION ......................................................................... 9
SECTION 1.1 – WHAT ARE DIGITAL HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES? ...................................................................................9
SECTION 1.2 – DHT CATEGORIZATION .......................................................................................................................9
SECTION 1.3 – PATIENT-FACING DHTS .....................................................................................................................10
SECTION 1.4 – NON-PATIENT-FACING DHTS ............................................................................................................12
SECTION 1.5 – BLURINESS OF MULTI-FEATURE DHTS ..............................................................................................13
CHAPTER TWO: DIGITAL HEALTH TECHNOLOGY DEEP DIVES................................................................................ 15
SECTION 2.1 – HEALTH & WELLNESS........................................................................................................................15
SECTION 2.2 – PATIENT MONITORING ...................................................................................................................168
SECTION 2.3 – CARE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................22
SECTION 2.4 – DIGITAL DIAGNOSTICS ...................................................................................................................... 25
SECTION 2.5 – DIGITAL THERAPEUTICS ....................................................................................................................29
SECTION 2.6 – HEALTH SYSTEM CLINICAL SOFTWARE .............................................................................................33
SECTION 2.7 – HEALTH SYSTEM OPERATIONAL SOFTWARE ....................................................................................35
SECTION 2.8 – NON-HEALTH SYSTEM SOFTWARE / DH SOLUTIONS ........................................................................37
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................................................... 40
ABOUT THE AUTHORS.......................................................................................................................................... 41

June 2023 Page | 4
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure A – Health Advances Primary Research Program 2

Figure B – Health Advances Secondary Research Program 3
Figure 1.1 – Digital Health Technology Categorization 10

Figure 1.2 – Patient-Facing DHT Differentiation 11
Figure 1.3 – Multi-Feature DHTs and Corresponding Categories 14
Figure 2.1 – Health & Wellness Definition 15

Figure 2.2.1 – Patient Monitoring Definition 18
Figure 2.2.2 – IMDRF SaMD Risk Categorization Framework 20
Figure 2.3.1 – Care Support Definition 22
Figure 2.3.2 – Care Support versus Patient Monitoring 23
Figure 2.4.1 – Digital Diagnostics Definition 25
Figure 2.4.2 – Evidence for Digital Diagnostics, CDS, and Patient Monitoring 26
Figure 2.4.3 – Digital Diagnostic Applications 28
Figure 2.5.1 – Digital Therapeutics Definition 29
Figure 2.5.2 – DTx Intended Uses 31
Figure 2.5.3 – DTx Mechanisms 32
Figure 2.6.1 – Health System Clinical Software Definition 33
Figure 2.6.2 – Health System Clinical Software Categorization (part 1) 34
Figure 2.6.3 – Health System Clinical Software Categorization (part 2) 34
Figure 2.7.1 – Health System Operational Software Definition 35
Figure 2.7.2 – Health System Operational Software Categorization (part 1) 36
Figure 2.7.3 – Health System Operational Software Categorization (part 2) 36
Figure 2.8.1 – Non-Health System Software / DH Solutions Definition 37
Figure 2.8.2 – Non-Health System Software Categorization (part 1) 38
Figure 2.8.3 – Non-Health System Software Categorization (part 2) 39

June 2023 Page | 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Digital Health Technologies (DHTs) represent an exciting and wide array of products used across the
healthcare ecosystem. From patient-facing wearables to electronic medical record (EMR) software and
digital clinical trial (DCT) tools, DHTs are either directly used by or impact nearly every stakeholder in
healthcare, including patients, healthcare professionals (HCPs), administrators, payers, regulators, and
industry professionals. It is more important than ever to ensure there is a consistent understanding of
these significantly impactful technologies. To achieve this goal, the combined efforts of the Digital
Therapeutics Alliance and Health Advances have sought to classify DHTs into clearly defined and
actionable categories.
While several categorizations have been attempted in the past, none have sought to broadly categorize
technologies across what we believe are the most important criteria. A deep understanding of how the
technologies will be used, what benefits they claim to make, the rigor by which they support their
claims, and how they ultimately deliver value are paramount to implementing digital products and
realizing their clinical and economic potential. As such, we have developed our categorization based on
the following segmentation criteria:
 End User / Beneficiary

 Intended Benefits / Claims
 Regulatory Scrutiny
 Strength of Evidence
 Product / Intervention Type
Such criteria have led us to structure our classification around eight major categories, ranging from
patient-facing Digital Therapeutics (DTx) to a host of software products for hospitals, health systems,
payers, industry players (e.g., pharmaceutical and medical device companies), and other stakeholders in
the healthcare industry. This classification includes:
1. Digital Therapeutics
2. Digital Diagnostics
3. Care Support
4. Patient Monitoring
5. Health & Wellness
6. Health System Clinical
7. Health System Operational
8. Non-Health System Solutions
The goal of this report is to provide stakeholders with a better understanding of DHTs and create
actionable categories that will accelerate the awareness, assessment, and ultimate adoption of various
digital products. We intend for this guidance to be used by the variety of stakeholders in the ecosystem
who are currently evaluating, buying, using, and benefiting from DHTs. While they may vary in practice,
some potential use cases may be to:
1. Patients / Caregivers
o Discover and adopt new DHTs that can be used for self-management of various diseases
and/or general health and wellness
o Better understand the role of DHTs they may already be using

June 2023 Page | 6
o Better support a loved one and their use of DHTs to manage their health
2. Healthcare Providers and Health Systems
o Identify gaps in the DHT ecosystem and find new products to fill them, both to meet
clinical and operational / financial goals
o Assess DHT offerings for overlaps or potential consolidation
3. Payers
o Refine or develop internal coverage requirements and policies specific to DHT categories
to accelerate the review of technologies and allow industry to understand the
requirements needed for coverage
o Evaluate DHTs for coverage against the intended value proposition and best practices of
their category
4. Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) / Digital Health Companies / Biopharma
o Identify gaps in the DHT ecosystem and find new products to fill them to support clinical,
operational, and financial goals
o Self-identify DHTs in portfolio to clarify body of evidence, claims, and competitors
o Develop more comprehensive DHT ecosystems through business development and
partnerships in categories not covered
As new technologies and products are developed, we hope to evolve our understanding of these
categories to fit the ever-changing landscape. Additionally, we encourage an open dialogue with all
stakeholders regarding the defining criteria of these DHT categories. By doing so, we aim to foster a
more comprehensive understanding of the field and promote widespread adoption of digital products.

June 2023 Page | 7
GLOSSARY
BioMeTs Biometric measuring technologies

CDMO Contract development and manufacturing organization
CRO Contract research organization
DCT Digital clinical trial
DHT Digital health technology
DH Digital health
DiME Digital Medicine Society
DTA Digital Therapeutics Alliance
DTx Digital Therapeutics
EMA European Medicines Agency
EMR Electronic medical record
ePRO Electronic patient reported outcomes
FDA United States Food and Drug Administration
FTC United States Federal Trade Commission
GDPR General Data Protection Regulation
HCP Healthcare professional
HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
HIT Health information technology
IMDRF International Medical Device Regulators Forum
IT Information technology
mHealth Mobile health
NICE United Kingdom National Institute for Consumer Education
OEM Original equipment manufacturer
PHI Protected health information
PMA Premarket Approval
RCT Randomized clinical trials
rPCT Randomized pragmatic clinical trial
RWE Real-world evidence
SaMD Software as a medical device

June 2023 Page | 8
CHAPTER ONE: DIGITAL HEALTH TECHNOLOGY CATEGORIZATION
SECTION 1.1 – WHAT ARE DIGITAL HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES?

Digital Health Technologies (DHTs) are defined by the US FDA as “computing platforms, connectivity,
software, and sensors [used] for health care and related uses.”1 The definition is broad and can include
technologies that serve a variety of purposes including facilitating low-acuity patient wellness,
operationalizing patient data, and even delivering a standalone intervention. Early categorizations of
DHTs took various approaches, though none sought to fully characterize the broad spectrum of DHTs
across the most meaningful criteria healthcare stakeholders and users care about. For example, the FDA
organizes DHTs based on format: mobile health (mHealth), health information technology (IT), wearable
devices, and telehealth / telemedicine.2 Ultimately, however, categorizing by format is unhelpful in
understanding the purpose of each DHT and how they should be used or evaluated. Meanwhile, other
categorizations, such as ‘Digital Health’ versus ‘Digital Medicine’ versus ‘Digital Therapeutics’ are at such
a high level they cannot be actionable for stakeholders.
SECTION 1.2 – DHT CATEGORIZATION

As a first step to defining DHT categories, we developed a set of DHT differentiation criteria. By doing so,
we believe the resulting categories are broad enough to encompass the vast array of products on the
market today as well as descriptive enough to enable the categories to be actionable (e.g., consistent
coverage and review policies applied to specific categories).
 End User / Beneficiary

 Intended Benefits / Claims
 Regulatory Scrutiny
 Strength of Evidence
 Product / Intervention Type
The first factor considered in our classification is the end user of the DHT. The end user is of primary
importance as there is a significant gulf in adoption, validation, and regulation between DHTs intended
for patients and those intended to be used by other healthcare stakeholders to impact clinical,
operational, and/or financial outcomes. The next three classification factors are inherently linked to the
claims a DHT is making (be it clinical or non-clinical) that directly result in the level of regulatory scrutiny
to which a product is subject, and the resulting strength of evidence required to meet regulatory
requirements. These three criteria are extremely important for all stakeholders to understand given the
massive impacts on what a product can and cannot do when utilized in the real world. Lastly, the final
classification factor focuses on the unique mechanisms by which products can directly provide or impact
the delivery of care.
1
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “What Is Digital Health?,” September 22, 2020,
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/digital-health-center-excellence/what-digital-health.
2
U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

June 2023 Page | 9
Accounting for the most important criteria differentiating products and based on our review of the DHT
landscape, industry definitions, government guidance, and numerous other inputs, we have identified
eight categories by which to classify DHTs (Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1: Digital Health Technology Categorization
On the left side of Figure 1.1, we have identified three additional categories that primarily service non-
patient stakeholders, including healthcare providers, health system and hospital administration, and
other stakeholders in the healthcare industry (e.g., original equipment manufacturers,
biopharmaceutical companies, employers, and payers). While these solutions may also contain patient-
facing elements (e.g., Electronic Medical Record (EMR) patient portals like Epic’s myChart), the majority
are more akin to enterprise software since they are often centrally adopted and indirectly impact
patient care.
On the right side of Figure 1.1, we have identified five categories of patient-facing DHTs. These are
products that are primarily intended for a patient to use and will have patient-facing features (e.g.,
mobile app, computer software, wearable), even though these products can also incorporate features
that are physician-, payer-, or health system-facing. This subset of products is presented from left to
right in order of increasing impact on clinical management, which is a core orienting principle for how
patient0facing DHTs are evaluated, regulated, and paid for. Along with increased impact on clinical
management comes a higher bar for evidence required for adoption, greater regulatory scrutiny, and
increased stakeholder willingness to pay—all of which are secondary concepts examined in this report.
SECTION 1.3 – PATIENT-FACING DHTs

Figure 1.2 describes how patient-facing DHTs are differentiated based on four key aspects: Label Claims,
Intervention Delivery, Evidence Requirements, and Regulatory Implications.

June 2023 Page | 10
1. Label Claims: The product’s intended use and claimed benefits, including what the product can
and cannot do
2. Intervention Delivery: The means by which a product delivers on its label claims, either through
direct medical diagnosis or intervention or impact on other interventions
3. Evidence Requirements: The rigor and type of evidence a product needs for regulatory approval
or authorization
4. Regulatory Implications: The extent to which the product is subject to regulatory oversight
DHT Health & Patient Care Digital Digital

Category Wellness Monitoring Support Diagnostics Therapeutics
• Disease-agnostic • Health software intended to
• Digital solutions intended • Digital solutions intended to • Validated digital tools and
digital health solutions treat or alleviate a specific
to monitor specific health help patients better manage software that deliver a
that primarily capture disease or medical
Overview and store general
data, which may be their care of a specific diagnosis or prognosis of
condition by generating and
interpreted by physician disease or medical a specific disease or
health data and delivering a medical
for clinical management condition medical condition
promote healthy living intervention
No claims to treat,
improve, or diagnose a
̴ May make non-clinical
claims to assess patient
̴ May make non-clinical
claims to improving health-
Make a clinical claim to Make a clinical claim to
diagnose or assess a treat or alleviate a specific
Claims medical condition data adjacent measures (e.g., specific disease or disease or medical
adherence) medical condition condition
Does not deliver a
medical intervention
̴ Collects health data to
inform HCP decision
̴ May recommend actions for
patients to better manage
Software drives medical  Software itself generates
intervention through a and delivers a medical
Intervention
making around medical care or inform HCPs but formal diagnosis or intervention
Delivery intervention does not deliver medical assessment
intervention
Not required ̴ Non-clinical claims to
assess patient data, must
̴ Any non-clinical claims
(e.g., adherence) must be
Diagnostic accuracy
must be validated and
Efficacy claims must meet
a regulatory agency’s
Evidence
be validated and meet a validated and meet a meet a regulatory quality requirements
Requirements regulatory agency’s regulatory agency’s quality agency’s quality
quality requriements requirements requirements
Regulatory No regulatory oversight ̴ May require regulatory ̴ May require regulatory Regulated solution with Regulated solution with
approval and labeling approval and labeling label for indication, usage, label for indication, usage,
Implications evidence, warnings, etc. evidence, warnings, etc.
Figure 1.2: Patient Facing DHT Differentiation
Patient-facing DHTs are primarily differentiated by their proximity to the patient and their potential to
directly impact clinical outcomes. Patient-facing technologies, through marketing and/or labeling, will
state a variety of claims on their impacts on outcomes and other measures. It is the presence of these
claims, and their specific language, that directly confers a product’s potential value and also the various
regulations they had to meet to legally make such statements. Across patient-facing DHTs, we see three
dimensions of claims: those with clinical claims, those with non-clinical claims, and those without any
specific clinical or non-clinical claims at all (Figure 1.2).
 DHTs with clinical claims are intended to be used in the context of patient care, are regulated,
and are more likely to seek reimbursement by payers or health systems due to the value they
offer to the patient. Clinical benefits covered in the product claims are directly attributable to
the DHT itself.
 DHTs with non-clinical claims may still be used in the context of patient care and reimbursed by
payers or health systems as these claims can still provide value to these stakeholders (e.g.,
improved medication adherence, enable monitoring of key health measures like blood
pressure). Since these products do not make explicit claims of clinical improvement, any
outcomes are considered indirect and not attributable to the DHT.
 DHTs without claims are largely consumer-based products. While these products may promote
general wellness or patient experience, any clinical outcomes are not attributable to the DHT
itself.
The method by which DHTs influence care or the delivery of care to generate value directly ties to claims
(Figure 1.2). This not only determines where stakeholders should look to evaluate causality of outcomes,

June 2023 Page | 11
but also where OEMs can refine their approaches to improve outcomes. Only two categories of products
deliver medical interventions – Digital Therapeutics and Digital Diagnostics, which respectively generate
interventions and diagnoses directly through their software. While Care Support tools can make clinical
recommendations, they do not serve as interventions themselves. Likewise, while Patient Monitoring
and Health & Wellness DHTs can provide patients and/or HCPs with information that can indirectly
improve health and well-being, these products do not deliver medical diagnoses or interventions on
their own.
 DHTs that do not impact medical interventions are largely used in a consumer context and do
not aim to deliver health outcomes, but instead aim to arm patients with information about
their health and general wellbeing to promote healthier living.
 DHTs that indirectly impact medical interventions may be used in the context of patient care to
monitor patients or make standard of care recommendations for patients to take, but improved
outcomes are delivered indirectly and are dependent on integration with an HCP’s clinical
practice model and/or a patient taking step to better manage their care.
 DHTs that serve as medical interventions inherently improve outcomes through the efficacy of
the intervention delivered – Digital Therapeutics are the only category that deliver a medical
intervention directly by the software / product.
 DHTs that drive medical interventions are a subset of Digital Therapeutics that directly impact
and drive a medical intervention (e.g., real-time diabetes monitoring product impacting the
amount and timing of insulin delivery).
In order to make the claim that DHTs are directly responsible for their outcomes, OEMs must provide
evidence in the form of either randomized-controlled clinical trials (RCTs), randomized pragmatic clinical
trials (PCT), real-world evidence (RWE), or a combination of the three. Evidence requirements are
regional and set by local regulatory bodies based on the claims made by a DHT. The International
Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF) lays out a framework for regulation based on claims and
disease severity that has, to date, been in line with the approaches of regulatory bodies across the
world. As the evidence requirements directly stem from the claims made by a DHT, those that make no
claims require no evidence relating to regulatory, while those that make non-clinical and clinical claims
must provide evidence to support those claims (Figure 1.2).3 It is also important to note that, while
evidence requirements for DHTs represent a floor for validation, physicians and payers may impose
higher evidence requirements to garner adoption and reimbursement, respectively. Accordingly, OEMs
may collect additional layers of evidence to strengthen the value of their DHTs.
SECTION 1.4 – NON-PATIENT-FACING DHTs

Since the advent of the internet, hospitals, health systems, and other players across the healthcare
industry have explored ways for digital technologies to improve care, efficiency, and costs. Spurred on
by legislation, the rapid adoption of electronic medical records created an ever-expanding amount of
data and potential for insights. While not primarily patient facing, the subset of DHTs used by hospital,
3
International Medical Device Regulators Forum, “‘Software as a Medical Device’: Possible Framework for Risk
Categorization and Corresponding Considerations,” September 14, 2014,
https://www.imdrf.org/sites/default/files/docs/imdrf/final/technical/imdrf-tech-140918-samd-framework-risk-
categorization-141013.pdf.

June 2023 Page | 12
health system, and industry stakeholders can still significantly impact care for entire populations of
patients, as well as individuals.
In hospitals and health systems, digital technologies can be divided into Clinical and Operational buckets
based on the expected outcomes each type of product aims to achieve.
Health System Clinical Software (e.g., EMR, clinical decision support, telehealth platforms) is primarily
used by physicians and other healthcare professionals to assist in the delivery of clinical care. To date,
less regulation has been applied to hospital- and health system-adopted clinical software as their impact
on care is typically filtered through the guidance of a licensed healthcare provider. Solutions that arm
healthcare providers with enhanced views of their patients, supported by data, to enable better clinical
decision-making stop short of making specific care decisions on their own. However, these solutions still
go through rigorous screening and validation processes by health systems to ensure they perform
appropriately in practice.
Health System Operational Software is less likely to directly impact patient care and less likely to be
used day-to-day by physicians but are essential for hospitals and health systems to operate efficiently
and minimize costs of delivering care. Operational solutions include Integration/Interoperability Engines,
Security/Data Management, Business Analytics, Data Management, and Revenue Cycle Management.
The stakeholders involved in evaluating and using operational solutions include non-clinical
administrators (e.g., Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Information Officer, Chief
Technology Officer) who evaluate solutions based on a variety of criteria, including the ability to return
financial value to the organization.
Finally, a last subset of technologies in this category exists that supports non-hospital stakeholders
involved in the healthcare ecosystem, such as payers, employers, and industry – Non-Health System
Solutions. These DHTs can include real-world data aggregation and analytics for pharma companies and
payers, stakeholder engagement and support for medical device companies, population health
technologies for employers, digital clinical trial solutions for contract research organizations (CROs) and
pharmaceutical companies, and many other tech-enabled services and solutions.
SECTION 1.5 – BLURINESS OF MULTI-FEATURE DHTs

Figure 1.2 depicts five clearly differentiated product categories: Health & Wellness, Patient Monitoring,
Care Support, Digital Diagnostics, and Digital Therapeutics. However, given the complexity of DHTs and
market demand for end-to-end products, a growing number of DHTs contain multiple features that, if
they stood on their own, would fit within different DHT categories.
While it is possible for standalone DHT products to have only one component and function, DHT
products are increasingly incorporating multiple components and functions into a single solution. It is
therefore important for end users, policymakers, and payers to clearly understand which components
are embedded in multi-feature DHTs.
Figure 1.3 depicts six hypothetical products and the components that each one contains. As
demonstrated below, the highest risk component in each product determines the product’s level of risk
and hence, the level of review that is needed to ensure it is safe and effective. Manufacturers should
therefore acknowledge the multi-feature nature of their DHTs. This will enable regulators to understand

June 2023 Page | 13
which features a DHT contains and regulate according to those features, and for other stakeholders to
evaluate, disseminate, and utilize multi-feature DHTs more appropriately.
Further work is necessary to standardize the list of potential components that may be incorporated into
multi-feature DHTs and the respective standards and expectations affiliated with each component.
Digital Components
Product #1 Product #2 Product #3 Product #4 Product #5 Product #6
(Not Exhaustive)
Higher Therapeutic X
Regulatory
Scrutiny Diagnostic X
Decision Support X
Clinical Analytics X X X
Patient Health Data

X X X X
Storage
Patient Monitoring X X X
Clinical / Standard of
X X
Care Recommendations
Clinical Education X X
Non-Clinical Analytics X
Operational X
Lower
Scrutiny Communication
X
(real-time)
Communication
X X
(asynchronous)
Guided Wellness
X
Exercises
DHT Health System Health & Patient Care Digital Digital

Clinical Wellness Monitoring Support Diagnostics Therapeutics
Category Software
Figure 1.3: Multi-Feature DHTs and Corresponding Categories

June 2023 Page | 14
CHAPTER TWO: DIGITAL HEALTH TECHNOLOGY DEEP DIVES
SECTION 2.1 – HEALTH & WELLNESS

Health & Wellness products provide non-clinical guidance and education on overall well-being rather
than any specific disease states. As such, these DHTs are generally not regulated and have the lowest
bar for validation of all DHTs on the market. Although these tools do not make specific medical claims or
contain medical records, many of these products still capture, store, and transmit patient data like
weight or heart rate that users may consider sensitive or health related. As a result, many companies
work to ensure their technology is secure and in some cases Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA) or General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) compliant, though this is not
guaranteed. Overall, the lack of regulation has provided these tools with a rapid path to market as free
or low-cost services, facilitating broader adoption when compared to other DHTs today. Notable
entrants such as Calm, MyFitnessPal, Samsung Health, and Apple Health have acquired particularly large
user bases.
2.1.1: Definition
Solution user base also includes
healthy individuals looking to better
manage their general health
Patient-facing digital health solutions that capture, store, and

Data transmission sometimes transmit general health data, agnostic of a specific
should be for non-
medical purposes disease, and that offer non-clinical guidance on well-being
(e.g., social media)
and healthy living. This health information is
not directly protected by
HIPAA, but companies
Such guidance is not intended to may work to ensure
treat a medical condition but to HIPAA compliance.
promote general healthy living
Figure 2.1: Health & Wellness Definition
2.1.2: Defining Characteristics

Points of Differentiation
 Health & Wellness vs. Care Support: Unlike Care Support tools, Health & Wellness products are
not intended to relate to a specific diagnosed medical condition as they make no medical claims
and should be disease-agnostic. It should be noted that many wellness solutions on the market
do indirectly or loosely align with various disease states, though it is still true that they make no
medical claims to treating said disease state. Health & Wellness products may offer educational
content that helps users achieve a healthier lifestyle but any benefit that this content has on a
patient’s specific medical condition is considered indirect.
 Health & Wellness vs. Patient Monitoring: While some Health & Wellness products may collect
biometrics such as heart rate, total daily steps, or hours of sleep, the methods of collection are
not validated, the biometrics are not intended for use in disease management, and data
generated by the solution are not considered to be protected health information (PHI) under

June 2023 Page | 15
HIPAA. Patient Monitoring tools typically collect a wider variety of biometrics related to specific
disease states, are validated to accurately capture biometrics, and may be required to manage
data in a HIPAA-complaint manner.
 Health & Wellness vs. Digital Therapeutics: Health & Wellness tools are not themselves an
intervention. Further, even though Health & Wellness tools may choose to generate evidence to
support their health-rated functions, they fall short of making specific-medical claims. Indeed,
Digital Therapeutics generate evidence and also make disease and/or disorder-specific medical
claims. Digital Therapeutics also inherently are an intervention in and of themselves.
Evidence Requirements
Health & Wellness DHTs have no evidence requirements since they do not make specific medical claims.
Some companies may choose to develop supporting evidence to showcase their product’s potential
health benefits and build towards making medical claims, but this is not a requirement, and these
studies may lack the rigor of randomized clinical trials or formal real-world evidence studies.
Regulatory
Because Health & Wellness products do not make medical claims or cover specific diseases, they are not
considered to be medical devices and do not require regulation. The FDA’s Wellness Guidance indicates
that Health & Wellness products are intended for only general wellness use and present a low risk to
safety of users and other – as such, does not intend to examine low risk general wellness products to
determine whether they are medical devices. Even though users may consider some data captured,
stored, or transmitted to be health data, it is not considered protected health information under HIPAA
in the United States as the applications are not intended for use in a medical context and the data is not
being collected on behalf of a covered entity such as a healthcare provider or insurer. 4 As such, these
products only incorporate basic consumer privacy and security features as mandated by the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC), and though some companies work to ensure HIPAA compliance, this is
ultimately not required. 5
2.1.3: Examples: Features & Common Themes

Health & Wellness products typically leverage at least one or several of the features outlined below to
provide various levels of guidance, education, and feedback for their target population.
Educational Materials
Educational content highlights best practices for healthy living agnostic to specific clinical conditions.
These materials may be shared with patients through different mediums, such as articles, audio, or
video and contain content such as healthy recipes or recommendations to sleep better.
Health Diaries
Health diaries store and capture patient-reported information on physical fitness, mood, diet, and sleep
patterns. For example, the wellness app MyFitnessPal allows users to track their physical activity during
the day and provides a diary to log what a user has eaten in a day.
4
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, “Health App Use Scenarios & HIPAA,” February 1, 2016,
https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocr-health-app-developer-scenarios-2-2016.pdf.
5
U.S. Federal Trade Commission, “Mobile Health App Interactive Tool,” December 1, 2022,
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/mobile-health-apps-interactive-tool.

June 2023 Page | 16
Activity and Event Trackers
As opposed to Health Diaries, Activity and Event Trackers operate in the background, passively collecting
data via smartphone or wearable sensors. This may include metrics such as daily step count or number
of times a user stood up, providing insights into a user’s daily movement. The Apple Health and Samsung
Health apps provide this feature when paired with their smartwatches and smartphones.
Motivational Tools
Motivational Tools include automatically generated reminders or notifications that prompt a user to
engage with the DHT, such as to review educational materials or input data in the health diary.
Health Coaching
Health Coaching is a variation on educational materials that are intended to be interactive, enabling
users to provide feedback on the content they are consuming and for the content to direct their health
and wellness behaviors. The app Down Dog, for example, provides customizable guided yoga sessions.
Community and Social Networking

Community and Social Networking allows for non-clinical communication between users and their peers
often via social media to create a community amongst those leveraging the tool. This often looks like
sharing workouts with friends or progress towards health goals.

June 2023 Page | 17
SECTION 2.2 – PATIENT MONITORING
Patient Monitoring products represent an important building block for DHTs, opening a window into a
patient’s health between formal healthcare visits. These products are intended to monitor patient data
to inform management of a specific disease, treatment regiment, medical condition, or health outcome
(Figure 2.2.1). In many cases, these products may be used as an adjunct monitoring tool to help
healthcare professionals make clinical decisions. Unlike Digital Diagnostics, Patient Monitoring products
do not interpret data in the context of a patient’s disease or health status to make definitive diagnoses
or prognoses. They instead collect highly valuable data (e.g., patient reported, biometrics) and make
said data available to patients and HCPs to inform patient self-management and HCP clinical decision-
making. Additionally, Patient Monitoring products do not provide any recommendations to the patient,
caregiver, or healthcare provider regarding the management of the disease or medical condition.
2.2.1: Definition
The data must be collected by a patient-facing Monitoring may either be continuous
device that does not require the supervision of a (e.g., continuous glucose monitor) or recorded
healthcare provider supervision intermittently at the patient’s discretion
(e.g. genomic or medical imaging data)
Patient-facing digital health solutions are intended to monitor

patient health data that may be used to inform management of a
specific disease, medical condition, or health outcome with the
interpretation of a healthcare professional
Encompasses any data related to the Patient monitoring solutions may provide data
patient, including physiological data, to inform clinical management but do not
patient reported outcomes, medication interpret that data in the context of a health
adherence, and patient environment condition to drive management
Figure 2.2.1: Patient Monitoring Definition

 Patient Monitoring vs. Health & Wellness: Patient Monitoring tools collect disease-specific
data for the purpose of informing clinical management by healthcare professionals. While
Health & Wellness apps may also collect health data, the data is generally not disease-specific
and these tools have not been validated to inform clinical management like Patient Monitoring
products have.
 Patient Monitoring vs. Care Support: Patient Monitoring tools measure biometrics and PROs to
inform the management of a disease or medical condition, however they do not provide a
closed-loop translating measured data to specific educational resources, recommendations,
and/or self-management tools to act on the data that characterize Care Support tools.
 Patient Monitoring vs. Digital Diagnostics: A Digital Diagnostic is a validated tool for detecting
disease and/or characterizing disease status, response, progression, or recurrence based on
inputted biometrics. A Patient Monitoring tool, on the other hand, deals with the underlying
health data but the tool itself does not offer any interpretation – rather, the data must be
transmitted to a healthcare professional for analysis and any potential diagnoses.

June 2023 Page | 18
 Patient Monitoring vs. Digital Therapeutics: While a Patient Monitoring product may inform a
healthcare professional’s management of a disease, medical condition, or health outcome, the
product itself does not deliver a medical intervention to treat or alleviate that condition like a
Digital Therapeutic does.
Intended Benefits & Claims

Patient Monitoring products are intended to accurately monitor patient data related to a diagnosed
medical condition and may be used to relay this data to healthcare providers to inform clinical decision-
making.
Patient Monitoring products collect a wide variety of data but do not interpret this data in the context of
disease, which means that evidence requirements focus on the accuracy and precision of the product.
For products that collect patient reported outcomes, this can look like basic usability and analytical
validation of the software; however, for sensor-based biometric measuring technologies (BioMeTs),
Goldsack et al. (2020) have proposed a more robust three-component “V3” validation framework. The
framework is comprised of (1) verification, (2) analytical validation, and (3) clinical validation. As Patient
Monitoring products do not interpret biometrics in the context of disease, the requirement for clinical
validation is reduced, with (1) verification and (2) analytical validation being the most important
standards to achieve.6
(1) Verification refers to the ability of a Patient Monitoring product to demonstrate it can capture
sample-level data with reasonable accuracy, precision, consistency, and uniformity, which is especially
critical for sensor-based Patient Monitoring products.7 The verified sample-level data eventually serves
as the foundation for algorithms that can process the raw sensor signal into behaviorally or
physiologically meaningful biometrics, such as heart rate variability or movement during sleep. The
performance of such algorithms is then subject to (2) analytical validation, or the process of discerning
whether an algorithm can accurately and precisely measure the biomarker in the clinical population of
interest. The final component of the V3 framework Patient Monitoring tools are not subject to, (3)
clinical validation, consists of determining whether the biometric collected by a digital tool is clinically
meaningful in a specified patient population and context of use.8
Regulation of Patient Monitoring products varies depending on potential role in providing patient care.
Those that “collect, analyze, or display medical information to diagnose, monitor, or treat medical
conditions” are considered software as a medical device (SaMD) and are subject to regulation, while
those intended for patient self-monitoring are typically exempt from regulation.9
6
Jennifer C. Goldsack et al., “Verification, Analytical Validation, and Clinical Validation (V3): The Foundation of
Determining Fit-for-Purpose for Biometric Monitoring Technologies (BioMeTs),” Npj Digital Medicine 3, no. 1 (April
14, 2020): 55, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-020-0260-4.
7
Note: While the V3 framework from Goldsack et al. (2020) was designed to evaluate evidence from biometric
monitoring tools, verification and analytical validation can be used to evaluate evidence for sensor-based Other
Data Monitoring products as well.
8
Goldsack et al., “Verification, Analytical Validation, and Clinical Validation (V3).”
9
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Software as a Medical Device (SaMD),” December 4, 2018,
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/digital-health-center-excellence/software-medical-device-
samd#:~:text=Software%20as%20a%20Medical%20Device%20(SaMD),-Your%20Clinical%20Decision.

June 2023 Page | 19
Figure 2.2.2: IMDRF SaMD Risk Categorization Framework10
Note: Reproduced from IMDRF Final Document “Software as a Medical Device”: Possible Framework for Risk
Categorization and Corresponding Considerations.
To ensure that SaMD are reviewed with the same rigor worldwide regardless of the regulatory body, the
International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF) established a framework to further categorize
potential risk (Figure 2.2.2). Depending on the severity of the underlying condition and whether the
Patient Monitoring product is used to drive or inform clinical management, these products may be
considered anywhere from Category I to III, with higher ranking products likely to encounter a greater
degree of regulatory scrutiny. Currently, the regulatory burden for certain Category I SaMD is reduced in
the US under FDA enforcement discretion for lower-risk SaMD.11
Patient Monitoring tools are also often used for clinical development where they are colloquially
referred to as digital biomarkers. Within the context of clinical development, regulatory requirements
vary based on whether the collected data is intended as an exploratory, secondary, or primary endpoint.
There are no explicit rulings as to whether Patient Monitoring products used as exploratory endpoints
require regulatory clearance. Thus, while many studies use FDA-cleared products such as ActiGraph’s
CentrePoint Insight Watch or iRhythm’s ZioPatch, others use devices that hold a CE-mark but are not
FDA-cleared such as the Oura Ring. For secondary and primary endpoints, such as 95 th percentile stride
velocity in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has stated that a
‘suitable device’ should be CE-marked.12 To date, the only FDA-endorsed primary endpoint, Moderate-
to-Vigorous Physical activity in Pulmonary Hypertension and Interstitial Lung Disease, is assessed via an
FDA-cleared device, but no explicit recommendations have been made by the FDA. 13
10
Categorization and Corresponding Considerations.”
11
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Examples of Software Functions for Which the FDA Will Exercise
Enforcement Discretion,” September 29, 2022, https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/device-software-functions-
including-mobile-medical-applications/examples-software-functions-which-fda-will-exercise-enforcement-
discretion.
12
European Medicines Agency, “Draft Qualification Opinion for Stride Velocity 95th Centile as Primary Endpoint in
Studies in Ambulatory Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Studies,” February 20, 2023,
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/regulatory-procedural-guideline/draft-qualification-opinion-stride-
velocity-95th-centile-primary-endpoint-studies-ambulatory_en.pdf.
13
ActiGraph. “Case Study: Digital Outcome Measures of Physical Activity Approved as Primary Endpoint in Pivotal
Cardiopulmonary Study,” May 10, 2023, https://landing.theactigraph.com/promos/case-study/mvpa.

June 2023 Page | 20
2.2.3: Examples: Categories & Common Themes
The Patient Monitoring category may be divided into three subcategories based on the type of data a
product captures: Physiologic Monitoring, Patient Reported Outcomes Monitoring, and Other Data
Monitoring.
Physiologic Monitoring
Physiologic Monitoring tools constitute perhaps the most recognizable class of Patient Monitoring
products, consistent with the American Medical Association’s definition of remote Patient Monitoring
digital products.14 Such tools are used to capture physiologic data related to a diagnosed medical
condition that may or may not be actively managed by a healthcare professional. This subcategory does
not include data collected from tools that are not patient facing, such as those used in genomics, in vitro
diagnostics, or medical imaging. Physiologic data collection may either be continuous (e.g., continuous
glucose monitor, actigraphy for sleep monitoring), through which multiple data points are automatically
collected for an extended duration, or intermittent, through which data points are collected on an ad
hoc basis at the patient, caregiver, or healthcare provider’s discretion (e.g., connected blood pressure
cuff or a connected scale). Physiologic monitoring data may be automatically transmitted to the
patient’s healthcare provider to support the clinical management of a disease, medical condition, or
health outcome.
Patient Reported Outcomes Monitoring

The Patient Reported Outcomes Monitoring subcategory consists of tools that enable monitoring via
electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs), or health outcomes that are directly reported by the
patient and/or caregiver. Examples of ePROs include presence of symptoms, functionality, health-
related quality of life, and self-reported medication adherence. Cankado PRO-React-Onco, for example,
enables breast cancer patients to record their symptoms and observations via mobile and web
applications. The app allows patients to export their ePRO documentation for physician review.
Other Data Monitoring

As the name suggests, Other Data Monitoring encompasses other types of data monitoring that are not
physiologic in nature nor reported by the patient in the form of an ePRO, yet still provide context that
may be used to inform clinical management of a disease, medical condition, or health outcome. Smart
inhaler systems such as Teva’s Digihaler, for example, have built-in sensors that record how often a
patient uses an inhaler. While the Digihaler also measures inhalation airflow, a method of Physiologic
Monitoring, the built-in sensors measuring medication adherence principally qualify as Other Data
Monitoring since such data is not strictly physiologic in nature nor reported by the patient. Smart pill
dispensers similarly use sensors to track pill-based medication adherence. Lastly, tools that monitor the
environment around the patient, such as weather, also represent Other Data Monitoring. Such tools are
particularly relevant for helping allergy patients and their healthcare providers identify potential triggers
for flares.
14
American Medical Association, “Remote Patient Monitoring Playbook,” 2022, https://www.ama-
assn.org/system/files/ama-remote-patient-monitoring-playbook.pdf.

June 2023 Page | 21
SECTION 2.3 – CARE SUPPORT
Care Support products include some of the lowest-acuity disease-specific tools to help patients better
manage their care. One of the more diverse categories of DHT, Care Support products can include
disease education, care coordination, as well as strategies for patient self-management of symptoms.
Unlike Health & Wellness products, these products often combine elements of patients monitoring,
analytics, and the ability to close the loop and provide disease specific guidance. These products do not
go so far to make disease-specific treatment claims, and thus have more limited validation to produce
health outcomes, which can lead to potential challenges in traditional fee-for-service reimbursement.
Existing products such as Livongo, Biogen’s Aby/Cleo, and others have harnessed alternative business
models such as use in population health management and multidisciplinary care centers to drive
broader adoption.
Can include self-management of logistics Does not include claims to improve primary
(e.g., care coordination and appointment health outcomes but may improve
scheduling) and/or disease management metrics such as patient
(e.g., techniques for symptom management) experience and medication adherence
Patient-facing digital health solutions intended to support patient

self-management of a specific diagnosed medical condition through
educational resources, recommendations, and/or reminders
Content can be tailored to the end-user based on Recommendations may be delivered by (1) the
patient-specific inputs and should be based on software itself as interactive (guided exercises,
standard of care and/or peer-reviewed literature alerts) and non-interactive material (articles, videos)
or (2) a medical or non-medical professional
Figure 2.3.1: Care Support Definition

 Care Support vs. Digital Therapeutics: Unlike Digital Therapeutics products, Care Support tools
make no claims to directly treat or alleviate a disease or medical condition. They can make
claims to improve various factors important in the management of a disease (e.g., improved
adherence), but any benefits on disease outcomes are considered indirect. Even though Care
Support tools do not make claims of disease treatment, they can have a compelling body of
evidence demonstrating improvements in care and care delivery that should indirectly help a
patient better self-manage their disease.
 Care Support vs. Patient Monitoring: As seen in Figure 2.3.2, Patient Monitoring tools measure
biometrics to inform the management of a disease or medical condition, but do not provide the
educational resources, recommendations, or self-management tools that are core to Care
Support tools. Care support has closed feedback with a user to provide actionable
recommendations as opposed to patient monitoring which simply presents users with data.

June 2023 Page | 22
Figure 2.3.2: Care Support versus Patient Monitoring
* Digital therapeutics may contain some of these aspects of care support programs.
Intended Benefits and Claims

Care Support tools aim to help patients, caregivers, and/or providers manage a medical disorder or
disease but make no specific claims of clinical efficacy. These tools may make claims to improve non-
clinical outcomes such as medication adherence.
While the Care Support tool itself does not make any product-specific claims, any educational resources
or self-management techniques provided must have a foundation in peer-reviewed literature. Biogen’s
Aby application for multiple sclerosis (MS), for example, does not have any evidence supporting the
efficacy of the app itself. However, Aby includes exercise and wellness programs that incorporate
techniques that are part of an evidence-based protocol for MS patients.
While a company may conduct studies to validate the basic accuracy of a Care Support tool’s data
collection or the functionality of its algorithm, such evidence generation is not a prerequisite for a
product to be part of the Care Support category.
On the other hand, as soon as a product begins to make claims about the efficacy of the product itself,
then it will be subject to additional regulatory scrutiny. For instance, if a Care Support tool claims to
improve adherence to medication or adherence to a rehab program, the product will have to produce
robust data demonstrating said improvement. If a Care Support tool wanted to make disease-specific
treatment claims, it would enter Digital Therapeutics territory (see Digital Therapeutics section) and
could be classified as such should it meet DTx requirements.
Regulatory
Like Patient Monitoring products, regulation of Care Support products varies depending on the potential
role in patient care. Many Care Support products such as educational apps or patient self-management
tools are not intended to collect, analyze, or display medical information to diagnose, monitor, or treat
medical conditions and are thus not considered medical devices. Those that directly play a role in care
decisions (e.g., diagnosing, monitoring, or treating medical conditions) such as a symptom tracker that
can escalate to a healthcare provider are considered SaMD and are subject to regulation by local

June 2023 Page | 23
regulatory bodies based on their placement in the IMDRF framework.15 Depending on the severity of the
underlying condition and whether Care Support software drives or informs clinical management these
products are considered Category I – III, with higher ranking products likely to encounter a greater
degree of regulatory scrutiny. Currently, many Category I Care Support SaMD devices carry reduced
regulatory burden in the US under FDA enforcement discretion for lower-risk SaMD. 16
2.3.3: Examples: Features & Common Themes

With highly varying form factors, levels of acuity, and features, Care Support tools constitute one of the
most diverse DHT categories. Broadly, Care Support features can be divided into two primary
subcategories depending on the type of information that forms the basis for the DHT's
recommendations: Static Care Support and Responsive Care Support.
Static Care Support Features

Static Care Support features offer patient educational resources and/or recommendations that are
exclusively based on standard of care procedures. Static Care Support features are disease-specific,
which differentiates them from Health & Wellness solutions. Static features are static – there is no
patient-specific data informing any recommendations or informing which resources are displayed to a
patient and when. As a result, static Care Support resources are not personalized or tailored . For
example, AbbVie’s Complete – Medication Tracker application provides medication reminders to
HUMIRA, SKYRIZI, and RINVOQ patients based on standardized dosing protocols. Likewise, Biogen’s Aby
app provides general resources for MS patients.
Dynamic Care Support Features

Dynamic Care Support features, on the other hand, analyze patient-specific data to tailor self-
management resources and recommendations to the end user. The patient-specific data can come in a
variety of forms, such as passively collected physiologic data (e.g., Ava fertility tracker), actively
transmitted physiologic data (e.g., Livongo, Hinge Health), questionnaire-based patient reported
outcomes, and medication utilization (e.g., via smart hardware such as CapMedic). Personalization of
Dynamic Care Support products using these data sources is typically driven by an algorithm. Some
products may trigger virtual care through a 1:1 connection at opportune times with a non-medical
professional (e.g., Livongo) or medical professional (e.g., Hinge Health).
Dynamic Care Support tools have more ability to impact care and patient’s ability to better self-manage
their disease. Many products in this category aim to make claims of improvement across non-clinical
outcomes.
15
16
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Examples of Software Functions for Which the FDA Will Exercise
Enforcement Discretion.”

June 2023 Page | 24
SECTION 2.4 – DIGITAL DIAGNOSTICS
Digital Diagnostics are clinically validated diagnostics for measuring disease presence, grading, status,
response, progression, or recurrence. Similar to in-vitro diagnostics, Digital Diagnostics will have clear
sensitivities and specificities that inform how HCPs can interpret and message the findings to patients.
Digital Diagnostics can make three primary categories of claims: screening or diagnostic claims,
monitoring or treatment response claims, or prognostic claims (Figure 2.4.3). Digital Diagnostics’
software algorithms can include a variety of digital inputs, as discussed in Patient Monitoring, to make
diagnostic and prognostic determinations that will impact clinical care directly. Said solutions may also
incorporate inputs from traditional in-vitro diagnostics or imaging to make a conclusion about a
patient’s health status and/or disease progression. Like traditional in-vitro diagnostics, these products
are likely categorized as medical devices as their intent is to be used in driving clinical management of
patients. To date there are few marketed Digital Diagnostics, however given that these products are
validated to drive clinical decision making, payers are more likely to cover use of these products should
they demonstrate strong evidence and utility.
2.4.1: Definition
Algorithmic analysis of data, often from Inform, drive, or deliver screening
wearables or connected devices, but or diagnostic results by
may also include patient-reported data, autonomously detecting disease
imaging, and/or molecular tests early signs and/or symptoms
Validated digital tools for detecting and

characterizing disease, measuring disease status, response,
progression, or recurrence
Help segment or stratify patients Evaluation based on comparison of patient

based on disease type, prognosis, data to historical data and/or relevant
or predicted response to different population averages with validated and
courses of treatment clearly defined thresholds for change
Digital biomarkers* can form the basis of digital diagnostics and assessment tools
Figure 2.4.1: Digital Diagnostics Definition

* Physiological and behavioral measures passively collected through sensors via wearables, smartphone, or other
connected devices in a natural setting.

 Digital Diagnostics vs. Patient Monitoring and Clinical Decision Support: Unlike Patient
Monitoring or clinical decision support technologies, Digital Diagnostics are validated to provide
a standalone conclusion about a patient’s health status that does not require an HCP to further
interpret the result. While the other product categories can inform clinical decision-making, a
digital diagnostic is able to drive clinical decision-making by making a diagnoses with clear

June 2023 Page | 25
thresholds for sensitivity and specificity. As such, the evidence and regulatory requirements for
Digital Diagnostics are far higher, requiring clinical validation and regulatory clearance (Figure
2.4.2).
 Digital Diagnostics vs. Digital Therapeutics and Care Support: Unlike Care Support or Digital
Therapeutics, Digital Diagnostics do not offer any actionable recommendations to follow-up on
the results presented. Digital Therapeutics may include a Digital Diagnostic that allows for
‘closed loop’ functionality, where the Digital Therapeutic independently evaluates a patient’s
prognosis and customizes the intervention based on the result.
Figure 2.4.2: Evidence for Digital Diagnostics, Clinical Decision Support, and Patient Monitoring
Intended Benefits and Claims

Digital Diagnostics can make three primary categories of claims: screening or diagnostic claims,
monitoring or treatment response claims, or prognostic claims (Figure 2.4.3). DHTs with screening or
diagnostic claims identify disease-specific signals to make a disease diagnosis. Monitoring or
pharmacological response claims include tools that monitor patient disease status and can be used to
indicate whether a patient’s disease is controlled or requires additional intervention, or if a therapy is
effective and should be continued. Prognostic claims include tools that provide insight into a patient’s
future course of disease, such as response to a specific type of therapy, or risk of disease flare or
recurrence.
Given the variety of claims made by Digital Diagnostics, these tools must have a body of supporting
evidence specific to the claims being made prior to marketing. As discussed within the Patient
Monitoring section, the “V3” validation framework for biometric monitoring technologies also applies to
Digital Diagnostics, with these products requiring clinical validation in addition to verification and
analytical validation of all input measures.17 The general experimental design of satisfactory clinical
validation for each claim is outlined in Figure 2.4.3; however, given the wide range of input data and use
cases possible for Digital Diagnostics satisfactory evidence is likely to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
In addition to common diagnostic statistics such as sensitivity and specificity, the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality outlines four additional domains across which diagnostics should provide evidence
17
Goldsack et al., “Verification, Analytical Validation, and Clinical Validation (V3).”

June 2023 Page | 26
for: risk of bias, consistency, directness, and precision.18 Of these domains, risk of bias and directness are
of particular interest for Digital Diagnostics based on the behavioral and/or novel aspects of biometrics
used in many potential diagnostics. For example, assessments of Alzheimer’s disease based on speech
should be validated across a broad sample of languages to avoid this potential for bias. Additionally,
with the expanded variety of biometrics accessible through technology, novel measures such as finger
rigidity in Parkinson’s Disease may require more extensive clinical validation against health outcomes
rather than surrogate outcomes like change in physician rating scales. 19
These additional validation requirements pose a significant set of challenges to bringing Digital
Diagnostics to market and to date most Digital Diagnostics contain a disclaimer that they are not
intended to be used as the primary factor in medical therapy decision making or for stand-alone
monitoring.
Regulatory
Digital Diagnostics are used to drive clinical decision making and therefore are considered SaMD subject
to regulation by most national regulatory bodies. The degree of regulatory scrutiny is guided by the
digital diagnostic’s categorization in the IMDRF framework, which would be Categories II - IV depending
on (1) the severity of relevant disease and (2) whether the diagnostic directly indicates diagnosis or
treatment or if it is used to drive clinical management.20
2.4.3: Examples: Categories & Common Themes

Digital Diagnostics are primarily segmented by type of claim being made, whether they be for Diagnosis
or Screening, Monitoring or Pharmacological Response, or Prognosis. Given the significant validation
barrier to develop and market Digital Diagnostics, we have also included some DHTs as examples that
currently lack proper validation as Digital Diagnostics and are intended for research use only.
18
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, “Chapter 7: Grading a Body of Evidence on Diagnostic Tests,” in
Products, 2012, https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/methods-guidance-tests-grading/methods.
19
Andrea Park, “Verily Loses FDA Bid to Add Parkinson’s Assessments to Clinical Research Smartwatch,” Fierce
Biotech (blog), June 8, 2021, https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/verily-loses-fda-bid-to-add-parkinson-s-
motor-function-assessment-to-clinical-research.
20

June 2023 Page | 27
Digital Diagnostic Applications
Monitoring /
Screening/Diagnosis Pharmacological Prognosis
Response
Determines the nature of
Quantifies an individual’s Predicts an individual's future
a disease or disorder and
disease status such as response disease course (i.e., risk of
Claims distinguishes it from other
to therapy or worsening of recurrence, response to
possible conditions in
disease therapy)
symptomatic individuals
A hypothetical algorithm that A hypothetical algorithm that

LumineticsCore, an AI software
returns a measure of predicts response to a novel
to autonomously diagnoses
Example Alzheimer’s disease severity antidepressant based on a
diabetic retinopathy based on
based on recordings of a patient’s EEG signal and
fundus images
patient’s speech cognitive test results
Prospective longitudinal
Prospective studies validating Prospective longitudinal studies
studies validating ability of
ability of diagnostic to validating ability of diagnostic to
diagnostic to predict future
Evidence distinguish between healthy correlate with changes in other
course of disease as
controls and patients with generally accepted measures of
measured by generally
disease disease
accepted measures of disease
Figure 2.4.3: Digital Diagnostic Applications
Diagnosis or Screening
Diagnosis or Screening tools primarily work to reduce the burden of identifying relevant patients for
treatment. As such development of these tools to date have focused on large indications presenting in
primary care such as Digital Diagnostics’ LumineticsCore diagnostic for diabetic retinopathy.
Monitoring or Pharmacological Response

Monitoring or Pharmacological Response tools are intended to provide more continuous insight into
patient health across the course of disease. Many of these tools are intended for patients with chronic
illness that may flare or progress such as Empatica’s Embrace2 seizure monitoring watch or Winterlight
Labs’ Alzheimer’s speech assessment (research use only).
Prognosis
Prognostic tools provide insight into a patient’s future disease course, whether that be response to
therapy or rate of progression. These tools are most useful for diseases with significant heterogeneity
and are some of the most difficult to validate due to the need for long-term health outcomes data.
Hypothetical examples could include a diagnostic to predict the severity of major depressive disorder in
response to a prescribed monoamine antidepressant regiment or a diagnostic that predicted rate of
disability progression in ALS patients.

June 2023 Page | 28
SECTION 2.5 – DIGITAL THERAPEUTICS
Digital Therapeutics (DTx) are among the most clinically validated and regulated DHTs today. Specifically,
DTx are health software intended to treat or alleviate a disease, disorder, condition, or injury by
generating and delivering a medical intervention that has demonstrable positive therapeutic impact on a
patient’s health. These products can function independently or integrate with ancillary software and
medical intervention components to form a DTx ecosystem. Since DTx make disease-specific medical
claims, the evidence and regulation requirements for these products is stringent. DTx must be clinically
validated either through a randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT), real world evidence (RWE), or
ideally a combination of the two, to demonstrate product efficacy. Furthermore, DTx are regulated as
medical devices in the US and abroad.
2.5.1: Definition
Figure 2.5.1: Digital Therapeutics Definition

 DTx vs. Care Support: DTx are differentiated from Care Support tools by their evidence-backed
claims to function independently of the patient’s care team (inclusive of patient self-
management) as a standalone medical intervention.
 DTx vs. Digital Diagnostics: While DTx products are intended to deliver an intervention that
treats or alleviates a disease or medical condition, Digital Diagnostics are intended to provide a
diagnosis or assessment of a disease or medical condition.
DTx are required to have clinical evidence to support their efficacy claims. However, unlike conventional
therapeutics, there is a greater variety of acceptable evidence given the lower-risk nature of digital
interventions, specifically in their safety profiles. While randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have long been
the gold standard of clinical evidence for pharmacotherapies, real-world evidence (RWE) is also highly
valuable for DTx given the potential impact of culture, language, socioeconomic class, and method of

June 2023 Page | 29
DTx implementation on real-world effectiveness. Many companies developing DTx pursue a
combination of RCT and RWE, an approach which is generally regarded as best practice.
Ultimately, the safety, efficacy, and value of a DTx will be judged first by regulators and next, externally
validated by the variety of users and buyers/payers benefiting from DTx; thus, the evidence presented
must support the chosen regulatory pathway and claims. Evidence that establishes safety, efficacy, and
value should be published in peer-reviewed journals and analyzed on an ongoing basis as DTx products
reach a broader audience. Furthermore, many DTx products will collect, analyze, and apply RWE and/or
product performance data to bolster its medical claims.
Regulatory
DTx must adhere to guidelines put forward by regulatory bodies to support their product claims. Since
DTx are health software that deliver medical interventions, the majority are considered SaMD and
regulated according to their place in the IMDRF framework. Certain DTx may also be regulated as
software in a medical device (SiMD). As DTx are intended as interventions to actively treat patients, they
are considered Category II – IV based on the severity of the relevant disease. 21
Regulatory bodies leverage the IMDRF categorization to understand how to regulate DTx within their
own country.
US
In the US, the FDA classifies DTx as medical devices in line with the IMDRF’s SaMD framework. Certain
DTx may also go through the SiMD pathway. However, the nuances of the FDA’s classification are
continually shifting. Recent years have seen certain DTx categories benefit from enforcement discretion
and reduced regulatory burden, particularly those that are considered lower-risk DTx (i.e., for non-
serious conditions).22 DTx for mental health conditions were also given special consideration during the
COVID-19 public health emergency from 2020 to 2023.23 Despite these exceptions, DTx primarily
leverage one of the three paths for approval/clearance:
1. Class II SaMD, De Novo: Namely for novel devices of low to moderate risk that do not have
a valid predicate device. The clinical evidence presented is more closely examined with this
path.
2. Class II SaMD, 510k: Must demonstrate that the DTx is marked as safe and effective,
substantially equivalent, to a legally marketed device that is not subject to a Premarket
Approval (PMA). This is typically regarded as the most straightforward path even though it
requires a predicate device to build evidence against.
3. Class III SaMD, PMA: Most stringent market submission application to demonstrate safety
and effectiveness for DTx, making it the least used. A prospective clinical trial is generally
required.
21
International Medical Device Regulators Forum.
22
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Policy for Device Software Functions and Mobile Medical Applications:
Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff,” September 28, 2022,
https://www.fda.gov/media/80958/download.
23
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Enforcement Policy for Digital Health Devices For Treating Psychiatric
Disorders During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Public Health Emergency,” April 1, 2020,
https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/enforcement-policy-digital-health-
devices-treating-psychiatric-disorders-during-coronavirus-disease.

June 2023 Page | 30
EU + UK
In the EU and UK, DTx are regulated as medical devices and thus must be CE marked (UKCA in the UK
beginning in 2025). In most countries, DTx manufacturers must complete a self-assessment risk
classification to determine which level of CE Mark is necessary and will eventually be reviewed by
country-specific regulatory bodies. In the UK, this is largely done by the Medicines and Healthcare
products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), in Germany, the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices
(BfArM), and in France, the National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Product (ANSM).
There is no EU-equivalent of enforcement discretion as we have seen in the US.
APAC
Japan, South Korea, and Australia have formal DTx regulatory processes where DTx are classified as
SaMD. In Japan, DTx are subject to regulatory oversight by the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices
Agency (PMDA) and Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare (MHLW), in South Korea, the Ministry of
Food and Drug Safety (MFDS), and in Australia, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). In China,
no formal processes exist yet for DTx, though they are considered medical devices and are evaluated by
the National Medical Products Association (NMPA).24
DTx Intended Uses Description Impact Example Product
• Cognitive-behavioral therapy
• Digital product that employs • Changes in
delivered via a patient app
DTx designed to produce various mechanisms by behavior impact or
1 behavioral change which to change or alter a are themselves a
designed to improve patient
attention, a key outcome for ADHD
patient’s behavior clinical outcome
patients
• Digital product that employs • Changes in • Video and audio stimuli directly
DTx designed to produce various mechanisms by physiology impact alter brain chemistry and serotonin
2 physiologic change which to directly change a or are themselves production to reduce depressive
patient’s physiology a clinical outcome symptoms
• Changes in self- • Connected device and app

DTx designed to help with • Digital product that helps
management designed to support patients and
3 disease and/or condition patients self-manage their
disease
impact clinical their self-management of diabetes
management outcomes and lower A1c levels
Figure 2.5.2: DTx Intended Uses

Note: Digital Therapeutics may have more than one intended use.
2.5.3: Examples: Mechanism Types & Delivery Routes

DTx can employ a range of mechanisms and intervention types to deliver medical intervention and
therapeutic benefits to patients. The mechanisms outlined below are some of the most popular types
leveraged by DTx.
Digital Therapeutics’ intended use can be classified broadly into the following categories based on the
outcome they intend to achieve:
24
Digital Therapeutics Alliance, “Understanding DTx / DTx By Country,” 2023.
https://dtxalliance.org/understanding-dtx/dtx-by-country/.

June 2023 Page | 31
Mechanisms that digital therapeutics utilize to achieve intended uses include, but are not limited to:
DTx Mechanisms Description Example Products
• Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) delivered via

• Clinically validated behavioral therapy
an app
1 Behavioral therapy delivered digitally as opposed to in
• Immersive bio-psycho-social approach delivered
person
via app
• Breathing pattern recognition via connected

• Direct sensing of and feedback on
device
2 Biofeedback patient biometrics via connected device
• Psychophysiological feedback via connected
or app
device
• Sensory stimuli and simultaneous motor

• Clinically validated mental exercises
challenges designed to target neural systems in
3 Cognitive training delivered digitally as opposed to in
the brain via connected device
person
• Pattern recognition and response via app
• Direct neurostimulation tailored via • Non-invasive neuromodulation via connected

Neurological
4 stimulation
digital solution in response to patient, device
patient state, biometric, etc. • Auditory-motor entrainment via connected device
• Direct physiological stimulation tailored • Audio stimulation via connected device

Physiologic
5 stimulation
via digital solution in response to • Visual stimulation via connected device
patient, patient state, biometric, etc. • Vibrotactile feedback via connected device
• Insulin dose recommendations via connected

Software-determined • Software-based solution that provides
device and app
6 medication dose prompts on or directly adjusts to a
• Trigger-initiated inhaler recommendations via
modification recommended dose of medication
connected device and app
• Software-based solution that provides

• Cancer treatment symptom management
prompts, reminders, and
Software-directed recommendations via app
7 disease management
recommendations to support patients in
• Respiratory disease trigger management
self-management of their disease
recommendations via connected device and app
and/or condition
Software-led, • Physical therapy rehabilitation via software-

• Software-based solution that guides
program and connected device
disease-specific patients through clinically-validated
8 clinical coaching / exercises and techniques digitally as
• Optometry rehabilitation via software-program
• Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) via software-
rehabilitation opposed to in person
program
Figure 2.5.3: DTx Mechanisms.

Note: Digital Therapeutics may incorporate one or more mechanisms to achieve their intended use(s).

June 2023 Page | 32
SECTION 2.6 – HEALTH SYSTEM CLINICAL SOFTWARE
Health System Clinical Software are clinician-facing health information technology (HIT) and digital
health enterprise solutions intended to provide clinicians with support managing their patient
populations. These solutions can range from platforms that capture and visualize data to solutions that
support clinical decision-making. While patients may interact with these solutions to an extent, health
facilities (e.g., health systems, hospitals) and clinicians are the primary beneficiaries, users, and buyers
as these tools are designed to optimize clinical care. Furthermore, these solutions can have various
degrees of direct patient impact, ranging from the minimal impact of Clinical Documentation & Image
Archiving and Communication Support to the more substantial impact of Clinical Decision Support and
Telehealth tools.
2.6.1: Definition
Primary users are clinicians although
other stakeholders such as hospital
administrators or patients may also Main objective is to
interact with solutions support and ease
the provision of
patient care
Clinician-facing HIT and digital health platforms and other
software intended to provide clinicians with support managing
their patient populations, ranging from platforms that
capture and visualize data to clinical decision support solutions.
Includes software that provides Inclusive of solutions that

a platform for displaying images facilitate treatment planning to
to data-collection tools with predictive tools that proactively
analytical capabilities guide clinical decisions
Figure 2.6.1: Health System Clinical Software Definition

 Health System Clinical Software vs. Operational Software: While Clinical Software is clinician-
facing and intended to have a clinical function or outcome, Operational Software manages non-
clinical functions from a hospital of health system business perspective.
 Health System Clinical Software vs. Non-Health System Software/DH Solutions: Clinical
Software is differentiated from Non-Health System Software because its primary users are
clinicians within hospitals and health systems. Non-Health System Software solutions are for a
wider range of stakeholders such as Biopharma, Medtech, and Payors.

June 2023 Page | 33
Figure 2.6.2: Health System Clinical Software Categorization (part 1)
Note: Not an exhaustive list.
2.6.3: Subcategories
Health System Clinical Software can be segmented into four key buckets that each possess their own
capabilities: Clinical Documentation & Image Archiving, Communication Support, Clinical Decisions
Support, and Telehealth (Figures 2.6.2 and 2.6.3). These buckets and their features are defined below
and ordered by the level of impact on patients.
Clinical Documentation & Imaging Clinical Decision Support

• Electronic Medical Records: Clinical software that provides • CDS Care Plans & Order Sets: Solutions that help create
functionality for charting, order entry, prescription orders/refills, treatment plans and physician order sets to guide care delivery
and more • Point of Care CDS: Solutions that provide clinicians with insights
• Picture Archiving and Communication System: Software that on drugs or disease conditions at point of care
archives digital images and provides a platform for displaying and • Proactive/Predictive CDS Tools: Software solutions that
transmitting images for physician review provide information and alerts that proactively guide clinical
• Digital Rounding: Tools that help measure, track, and improve decisions
the patient experience and that are typically used as clinicians
make their rounds in inpatient settings
• Clinical Documentation Integrity/Improvement: Services or
software that implement or optimize clinical documentation
improvement processes by providing training and/or tools and
workflows
Telehealth
• Video Conferencing Platforms: Video platforms that offer basic
Communication Support healthcare workflows; typically used to enable video conferencing
• Clinical Communications: HIPAA-compliant communication • Virtual Care Platforms: Healthcare-focused solutions that enable
platforms that support workflows of physicians and patient care multiple visit types and offer multiple healthcare workflows, such
teams as virtual waiting rooms, patient check-in and scheduling
• Alert and Alarm Management: Middleware that electronically
exchanges patient alarms and patient data among multiple
sources and routes the data to a communication medium
Figure 2.6.3: Health System Clinical Software Categories (part 2)


June 2023 Page | 34
SECTION 2.7 – HEALTH SYSTEM OPERATIONAL SOFTWARE
Health System Operational Software solutions manage non-clinical but critical operational functions.
Operational tools often ingest sets of clinical and non-clinical data to improve Operations at healthcare
facilities, primarily to drive workflow, efficiency, and economic benefits. While these solutions do not
directly interact with patients and often not with clinicians, they do follow similar design principles of
security and validation, similarly to Health System Clinical Software.
2.7.1: Definition
Software-forward solutions with minimal hardware
involved that impact all hospital departments
Hospital or health system-wide HIT solutions to manage

non-clinical but critical operational functions ranging from
integration/interoperability to revenue cycle management.
Solutions are not clinician/patient-facing and Solutions to ensure operational functionality

do not have a clinical function/outcome for the hospital from a business perspective
requiring passive or active user interaction
Figure 2.7.1: Health System Operation Software Definition

 Health System Operational vs. Health System Clinical Software: Whereas Health System Clinical
Software is clinician facing and intended to provide support in managing patients, Health System
Operational Software solutions do not have clinical functions or outcomes. Rather, these
solutions are intended to ensure operational functionality from a hospital or health system
business perspective.
 Health System Operational Software vs. Non-Health System Software/DH Solutions: The key
difference between Non-Health System Software and Health System Clinical Software is the
intended end user. Whereas the former is intended to be used by organizations and
corporations that are not directly involved in clinically managing patients, the latter is intended
to be used by those who are directly involved in patient care.

June 2023 Page | 35
Figure 2.7.2: Health System Operational Software Categories (part 1)
Health System Operational solutions span the gamut of passive back-end integration engines to active
use in revenue cycle management. Five key buckets help define the range of operational software
capabilities: Integration/interoperability, Security/Data Management, Business Analytics, Resource
Management, and Revenue Cycle Management (Figures 2.7.2 and 2.7.3).
Resource Management Business Analytics

• Credentialing: Streamline, automate, and track the credentialing • Data & Analytics Platforms: Enterprise analytics and reporting on
and re-credentialing process clinical, operational, and financial data
• Talent Management: Manage business objectives related to • Data Visualization & Reporting: Provide front-end graphical, visual,
workers and their skills, such as hiring, learning/training, goal and tabular displays of different kinds of data
management, compensation, and career planning • Business Decision Support: Financial decision support and budgeting
• Patient Bed Management: Monitor bed/room status and facilitate tools. Customer Relationship Management: Software used to improve
patient throughput patient access, strength patient engagement, and enhance care delivery
• Transfer Center Software: Manage patient transfers • RWE/Data Aggregator: Combine RWE from multiple sources into one
within/between hospitals place to derive new insights that inform care delivery
• Hospital Pharmacy Solutions: Software to track medication
inventory, drug diversion, and IV pump workflow within the hospital
• Real-Time Location Systems: Locate/track assets and people in Security/Data Management
real time • Patient Privacy: Monitor and detect privacy breach events that occur as
a result of hospital employees or others inappropriately accessing patient
records
• Healthcare IoT Security: Detect, identify, classify, segment, secure, and
Revenue Cycle Management
visualize the activity of IoT
• Patient Accounting: Track patient care episodes from pre-
• Identity & Access: Products enable the right individuals to access the
registration to final payment/claims based on services rendered
right resources at the right times for the right reasons.
• Consent: Service involving release or disclosure of patient record
information and all associated tasks such as obtaining patient consent
Integration/Interoperability • Master Data Management: Ongoing data management including
• Integration Engine: Products used to interface systems between cleansing, rationalizing, standardizing and integrating healthcare data to
vendors inform business activities
Figure 2.7.3: Health System Operational Software Categories (part 2)


June 2023 Page | 36
SECTION 2.8 – NON-HEALTH SYSTEM SOFTWARE / DH SOLUTIONS
Non-Health System Software solutions encompass a large variety of tools intended for use by non-
health system stakeholders such as OEMs, contract development and manufacturing organizations
CDMOs, biopharmaceutical companies, payers, employers, pharmacies and more. Such software can be
offered as a standalone product or as part of a suite of tools combined into one system. This category
includes tools that aim to help users streamline operations, analyze real-world data, optimize sales and
marketing efforts, ensure quality and compliance, and facilitate customer engagement.
2.8.1: Definition
Several operational tools are often combined
into one system for each player
Includes enterprise
resource planning Systems of tools for OEMs, CDMOs, biopharma, MedTech,
and inventory
management payers, employers, pharmacies, and similar players to manage
operations, data analysis, sales & finances, quality &
compliance, and customer engagement.
Includes tools for analysis of Includes hub services for patient and HCP
internally-collected data and engagement, remote data collection platforms,
third-party RWD / RWE and patient-facing self-service portals
Figure 2.8.1: Non-Health System Software / DH Solutions Definition

 Non-Health System Software vs. Health System Clinical Software: The key difference between
Non-Health System Software and Health System Clinical Software is the intended end user.
Whereas the former is intended to be used by organizations and corporations that are not
directly involved in clinically managing patients, the latter is intended to be used by those who
are directly involved in patient care.

June 2023 Page | 37
OEM and Biopharma Solutions
Data Management Third-Party RWE / RWD

Data Analytics Data Aggregation
Software or web portal used to identify, characterize, and quantify patient
Tools used to combine data from
Tools used to develop and perform populations to design efficient trials based on third-party RWE/RWD
multiple sources (e.g., patients,
analytical processes and track KPIs
facilities, departments)
Digital Clinical Trial Support Operations

Patient Recruitment Remote Data Collection Participant Interface Manufacturing Execution Quality Compliance
Tools for participant Collection of data via Platform to guide
Product lifecycle management and Documentation, deviation, and
identification and trial ePRO and/or parameter patients through trial
production analysis compliance management
marketing tracking (reminders, diary)
Digital Hub Services Finance & Resource Planning

Patient Support & Engagement HCP Support & Engagement Enterprise Resource Planning Sales & CRM
Tech-enabled services that guides Tech-enabled services that facilitate
Supply chain, inventory, and human Sales process optimization and
patients throughout journey and connections with HCPs and manage
resource management order history tracking
improves patients access to treatment their contracts & payment
Figure 2.8.2: Non-Health System Software Categorization (part 1)

Note: Not an exhaustive list. KPI = key performance indicator. ePRO = electronic patient reported outcomes.
HCP = healthcare provider. RWE / RWD = real world evidence / data. CRM = customer relationship manager.
Given the large range of solutions encompassed under Non-Health System Software, the category is
most efficiently subcategorized by the intended end user. Software for OEMs (medical device and
biopharmaceutical companies), for example, includes solutions that support stakeholder engagement,
data aggregation and analytics, digital clinical trial logistics, enterprise resource planning, and so on
(Figure 2.8.2).
Software systems for traditional payers and employers are used to promote population health, manage
patient policies, automate billing, and offer member self-service platforms (Figure 2.8.3). Retail
pharmacy solutions, on the other hand, use various digital tools to organize, control, and monitor
medication expensing; scan prescriptions; manage inventory; support point of sales; and facilitate tech-
enabled care.

June 2023 Page | 38
Traditional Payer and Employer Solutions Retail Pharmacy Solutions
Solutions used to track Tools used to perform Patient Manage automatic refills and
Care & Policy and manage patient Data & value, pricing, and risk Management e-prescriptions from provider
Management policies, inform care, and Analytics analyses and/or manage
improve patient outcomes value-based contracts
Products used to organize,
Pharmacy
control, and monitor
Consolidates financial
Automation medication dispensing
transactions across Self-service platform for
Patient
Accounting multiple departments and patients to view benefits
Rx Image Scan, read, and store hard
facilities and automates Portal and access claims copies of prescriptions
billing Scanning electronically
Inventory Optimize and manage

Inform utilization Management inventory levels based on
Software used to manage customer behavior
CRM RWE / RWD management and & Analytics
potential partnerships
cost/value analysis
Allows cashiers to charge,
Point of Sales adjust inventory, print receipts;
Documentation tools to may be augmented by AI
ensure compliance with Electronically streamline
Claims Tech-Enabled Allows cashiers to charge,
Compliance patient privacy claims and remittance
(e.g., HIPAA) or other Management process and appeals Enhanced adjust inventory, print receipts;
regulations Care may be augmented by AI
Figure 2.8.3: Non-Health System Software Categorization (part 2)

Note: Not an exhaustive list. RWE / RWD = real world evidence / data. CRM = customer relationship manager.
Source: Health Advances interviews and analysis, KLAS Research, ARI MS..

June 2023 Page | 39
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ActiGraph. “Case Study: Digital Outcome Measures of Physical Activity Approved as Primary Endpoint in
Pivotal Cardiopulmonary Study,” May 10, 2023, https://landing.theactigraph.com/promos/case-
study/mvpa.
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. “Chapter 7: Grading a Body of Evidence on Diagnostic
Tests.” In Products, 2012. https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/methods-guidance-tests-
grading/methods.
- American Medical Association. “Remote Patient Monitoring Playbook,” 2022. https://www.ama-
assn.org/system/files/ama-remote-patient-monitoring-playbook.pdf.
- Digital Therapeutics Alliance, “Understanding DTx / DTx By Country,” 2023.
https://dtxalliance.org/understanding-dtx/dtx-by-country/.
- European Medicines Agency. “Draft Qualification Opinion for Stride Velocity 95th Centile as Primary
Endpoint in Studies in Ambulatory Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Studies,” February 20, 2023.
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/regulatory-procedural-guideline/draft-qualification-
opinion-stride-velocity-95th-centile-primary-endpoint-studies-ambulatory_en.pdf.
- Goldsack, Jennifer C., Andrea Coravos, Jessie P. Bakker, Brinnae Bent, Ariel V. Dowling, Cheryl Fitzer-
Attas, Alan Godfrey, et al. “Verification, Analytical Validation, and Clinical Validation (V3): The
Foundation of Determining Fit-for-Purpose for Biometric Monitoring Technologies (BioMeTs).” Npj
Digital Medicine 3, no. 1 (April 14, 2020): 55. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-020-0260-4.
- International Medical Device Regulators Forum. “‘Software as a Medical Device’: Possible Framework for
Risk Categorization and Corresponding Considerations,” September 14, 2014.
https://www.imdrf.org/sites/default/files/docs/imdrf/final/technical/imdrf-tech-140918-samd-
framework-risk-categorization-141013.pdf.
- Park, Andrea. “Verily Loses FDA Bid to Add Parkinson’s Assessments to Clinical Research Smartwatch.”
Fierce Biotech (blog), June 8, 2021. https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/verily-loses-fda-bid-to-
add-parkinson-s-motor-function-assessment-to-clinical-research.
- U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. “Health App Use Scenarios & HIPAA,” February 1, 2016.
https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocr-health-app-developer-scenarios-2-2016.pdf.
- U.S. Federal Trade Commission. “Mobile Health App Interactive Tool,” December 1, 2022.
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/mobile-health-apps-interactive-tool.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “Enforcement Policy for Digital Health Devices For Treating
Psychiatric Disorders During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Public Health Emergency,” April
1, 2020. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/enforcement-
policy-digital-health-devices-treating-psychiatric-disorders-during-coronavirus-disease.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “Examples of Software Functions for Which the FDA Will Exercise
Enforcement Discretion,” September 29, 2022. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/device-software-
functions-including-mobile-medical-applications/examples-software-functions-which-fda-will-exercise-
enforcement-discretion.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “Policy for Device Software Functions and Mobile Medical
Applications: Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff,” September 28, 2022.
https://www.fda.gov/media/80958/download.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “Software as a Medical Device (SaMD),” December 4, 2018.
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/digital-health-center-excellence/software-medical-device-
samd#:~:text=Software%20as%20a%20Medical%20Device%20(SaMD),-Your%20Clinical%20Decision.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “What Is Digital Health?,” September 22, 2020.
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/digital-health-center-excellence/what-digital-health.

June 2023 Page | 40
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Brandon Wade works in the intersections between the Health IT and Digital Health,
Biopharma, and MedTech practices with a specific focus on cross-sector healthtech
strategy. Brandon co-leads the Health IT and Digital Health practice along with the
Musculoskeletal practice at Health Advances.
Brandon has built a robust breadth and depth of expertise across sectors based on
more than a decade of consulting at Health Advances where he has completed
hundreds of client engagements.
Brandon works with digital, biopharma, and medtech clients to develop transformative corporate,
franchise, and product growth strategy that is able to meet the needs of stakeholders in the evolving
marketplace. Understanding the challenges from all angles and the needs of clients across sectors,
Brandon is well-positioned to work with clients to develop innovative commercial and growth strategies
as well as evaluate specific investment opportunities. His clients range from small digital start-ups to
some of the largest biopharmaceutical companies and private equity firms in the world. While
knowledge across multiple therapeutic areas, Brandon has targeted clinical expertise in cardiovascular,
metabolic, renal, oncologic, respiratory, mental health, and orthopedic diseases.
Brandon holds a BS in Biochemistry and a BA in Biology from the University of Virginia (Go Hoos!).
Jeff Abraham co-leads the Digital Health and Health IT Practice at Health Advances.
His 15-year career in healthcare spans digital health and therapeutics, medtech,
biopharma, and healthcare services. He holds extensive expertise related to
commercialization, global market access, product development, and evidence
generation.
Prior to joining Health Advances, Jeff held executive roles in market access, trade, and
commercial functions at Akili Interactive, an industry leading digital therapeutics
company. During his time at Akili Interactive, Jeff focused on payer strategy,
reimbursement, pricing, strategic partnerships, evidence generation, distribution, launch planning and
execution.
In addition to his work at Akili, he has served as a Digital Therapeutics task group co-lead for the
National Council of Prescription Drug Programs and a Scientific Leadership Board Member for the Digital
Medicine Society.
Prior to his time at Akili Interactive, Jeff served as Senior Director for the Medicines Company in their
Value Development department. He supported commercialization and global launch of novel drug
device combo and the development of additional perioperative and cardiovascular products. Prior to
The Medicines Company, Jeff served as a consultant for GfK working in global market access and
commercialization. His work spanned numerous therapeutic areas across drug, devices, and diagnostics.
Jeff holds a Master of Science in Physical Therapy and an MBA with a specialization in Health Sector
Management from Boston University.

June 2023 Page | 41
Megan Coder, PharmD, MBA, is Chief Policy Officer of the Digital Therapeutics Alliance
(DTA), an international non-profit trade association of industry leaders and stakeholders
dedicated to improving clinical and health economic outcomes through the use of high
quality, evidence-based digital therapeutics (DTx).
Megan founded DTA in 2017 and remains instrumental in developing the foundations
for this quickly evolving industry. She leads DTA’s efforts related to thought leadership,
global policy, international standard development, and the Alliance’s DTx Value
Assessment & Integration Guide.
Trained as a pharmacist, Megan graduated from the University of Wisconsin—Madison and completed
an Executive Residency in Association Management & Leadership with the American Pharmacists
Association Foundation. Prior to DTA, Megan worked with Voluntis, Iodine, the Pharmaceutical Care
Management Association, and the Pharmacy Technician Certification Board.
Viren Makhijani, PhD, is an Engagement Manager working at the intersection of the

Digital Health and Health IT and Biopharma practices at Health Advances. He has
significant experience with product and therapeutic area-level growth and commercial
strategy, landscape assessment, commercial due diligence, and forecasting.
Prior to joining Health Advances, Viren worked in a business development role for brain
stimulation startup Pulvinar Neuro targeting Major Depressive Disorder and chronic pain
where he supported research-use-only commercial strategy and US and EU regulatory
strategy. Viren also worked in the neuroscience drug discovery group at Janssen Pharmaceuticals where
he conducted hit-to-lead studies for novel psychiatric medications.
Viren holds a PhD in Neuroscience from UNC Chapel Hill with a focus in behavioral pharmacology, and a
BS in Neuroscience from UCLA.
Shay Pezzulo is an Analyst at Health Advances with experience in opportunity

assessment, evidence generation strategy, and commercialization across the company’s
Digital Health, MedTech, and Biopharma sectors. Prior to working at Health Advances,
she researched the lateralization of association tracts using diffusion tensor imaging at
the Harvard University Evolutionary Neuroscience Lab. Shay holds a BA in Human
Evolution Biology with a focus in Evolutionary Neuroscience from Harvard University.
Caroline Conforti was a Senior Analyst at Health Advances at the time of authorship and
a member of the Digital Health practice. Prior to joining Health Advances, Caroline
worked as a Senior Commercial Analyst at Pear Therapeutics. She holds a BA in
Economics and Political Science from Williams College.
Additional support from: Andy Molnar (CEO, DTA), Jessica Hauflaire (COO, DTA), Omar Osman, PhD
(Senior Analyst, Health Advances), Shaheen Madraswala (Senior Analyst, Health Advances), Carla Achcar
(Analyst, Health Advances), Xiang Yu (Summer Intern, Health Advances)

June 2023 Page | 42

Guidance To Industry Classification of Digital Health Technologies 2023jun05

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guidance To Industry Classification of Digital Health Technologies 2023jun05

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guidance To Industry Classification of Digital Health Technologies 2023jun05

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GUIDANCE TO INDUSTRY:

Classification of Digital Health Technologies

Figure A: Health Advances Secondary Research Program

Health Advances, LLC Classification of Digital Health Technologies

Health Advances, LLC Classification of Digital Health Technologies

PREFACE: PROJECT CONTEXT, OVERVIEW, AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................................... 2

Health Advances, LLC Classification of Digital Health Technologies

Figure A – Health Advances Primary Research Program 2

Figure 1.1 – Digital Health Technology Categorization 10

Figure 2.1 – Health & Wellness Definition 15

Health Advances, LLC Classification of Digital Health Technologies

 End User / Beneficiary

Health Advances, LLC Classification of Digital Health Technologies

Health Advances, LLC Classification of Digital Health Technologies

BioMeTs Biometric measuring technologies

Health Advances, LLC Classification of Digital Health Technologies

SECTION 1.1 – WHAT ARE DIGITAL HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES?

SECTION 1.2 – DHT CATEGORIZATION

 End User / Beneficiary

Health Advances, LLC Classification of Digital Health Technologies

Figure 1.1: Digital Health Technology Categorization

SECTION 1.3 – PATIENT-FACING DHTs

Health Advances, LLC Classification of Digital Health Technologies

DHT Health & Patient Care Digital Digital

Figure 1.2: Patient Facing DHT Differentiation

Health Advances, LLC Classification of Digital Health Technologies

SECTION 1.4 – NON-PATIENT-FACING DHTs

Health Advances, LLC Classification of Digital Health Technologies

SECTION 1.5 – BLURINESS OF MULTI-FEATURE DHTs

Health Advances, LLC Classification of Digital Health Technologies

Patient Health Data

DHT Health System Health & Patient Care Digital Digital

Figure 1.3: Multi-Feature DHTs and Corresponding Categories

Health Advances, LLC Classification of Digital Health Technologies

SECTION 2.1 – HEALTH & WELLNESS

Patient-facing digital health solutions that capture, store, and

Figure 2.1: Health & Wellness Definition

2.1.2: Defining Characteristics

Health Advances, LLC Classification of Digital Health Technologies

2.1.3: Examples: Features & Common Themes

Health Advances, LLC Classification of Digital Health Technologies

Community and Social Networking

Health Advances, LLC Classification of Digital Health Technologies

Patient-facing digital health solutions are intended to monitor

Figure 2.2.1: Patient Monitoring Definition

2.2.2: Defining Characteristics

Health Advances, LLC Classification of Digital Health Technologies

Intended Benefits & Claims

Health Advances, LLC Classification of Digital Health Technologies

Health Advances, LLC Classification of Digital Health Technologies

Patient Reported Outcomes Monitoring

Other Data Monitoring

Health Advances, LLC Classification of Digital Health Technologies

Patient-facing digital health solutions intended to support patient

Figure 2.3.1: Care Support Definition

2.3.2: Defining Characteristics

Health Advances, LLC Classification of Digital Health Technologies

Intended Benefits and Claims