Because European Health Data Space (EHDS) is a walking dead

Who hasn’t faced the struggle of switching from an Android phone to an iPhone or vice versa, dealing with the drama of transferring data like names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses? In the past, this process was challenging because the two platforms used different systems. You needed special software or had to visit a store with specific tools, and it was anything but straightforward. Today, things are much easier: data can be exported using standard formats like .csv files, which are readable with programs like Excel. You simply tell the new device to import the contact list from the .csv file.

The process became even more seamless with the advent of Google accounts. By saving your contact list in Google, you can access it on any device—Android or iPhone. Setting up your new phone with your Google account automatically syncs the contact list.

This example illustrates a technical principle: data like names, email addresses, or phone numbers are not inherently incompatible. The problem arises from the lack of a shared, standardized protocol—not from the data itself. When formatted in a standard way, such as in a .csv file, the data can be universally interpreted by any system.

In healthcare, the issue of data interoperability is not technical; it’s economic and political. It’s a “war” between corporations vying to impose their systems and “seals” to gain financial advantage. This is reminiscent of past technology battles, such as VHS versus Betamax or CD versus Minidisc, where the best system didn’t always win.

Healthcare, dominated by large private players rather than the public sector, is particularly susceptible to such competition. Major companies, through lobbying, push to establish their proprietary protocols, which often conflict with differing national interests. This conflict slows down the adoption of shared solutions.

Take the European Union, for example: with its 27 member states, it could have as many as 54 “champions” (two per country) competing to have their system adopted. This makes it nearly impossible to establish a unified protocol. Smaller nations risk exclusion, and the result is fragmentation that obstructs progress.

Focusing on health data: the digital medical record, while important, is just a static snapshot of a patient’s health. The digital twin, on the other hand, is a far more advanced concept. It continuously collects and analyzes data such as blood pressure, weight, sleep quality, and more, updating in real time. This dynamic approach produces curves and patterns that help doctors better understand a patient’s condition and respond with precision.

Unfortunately, the healthcare sector remains stuck with the static vision of medical records, far from the potential of the digital twin. This stagnation stems from fragmentation and battles over control of protocols, which continue to delay progress in a field that urgently needs shared standards and innovative technologies.

Sergio d’Arpa