Halfway through an interview with Thierry Zylberberg, executive vice president in charge of Orange’s healthcare business, I ask him whether remote monitoring of patients with chronic diseases will be the most important health service for mobile operators. Remote monitoring is frequently cited as key to the future of mobile health. Zylberberg, who I spoke with shortly before Mobile World Congress, surprised me with his ambivalence.

“Yes and no. It was our initial vision and I still believe that this technology is the one which has more transformational potential for the health system in general,” he explained.  So what’s the problem? Zylberberg explains that today there is “no stable business model” for remote monitoring.

“The technology is ready but who’s paying for it? The patient is not paying, the hospital is not really paying because they are not the ones dealing with that service and the doctors are not paying. Someone has to pay for it.” A similar point was recently made by our regular blogger Chris Crockford recently.

The only viable candidate is the insurer, concludes Zlyberberg.  The insurer has the most to gain from a process that might see an improvement in a patient’s condition, or at least prevents a deterioration. But the numbers are hard to crunch. “It involves a very complex calculation that very few have done so far.”

In the absence (so far) of insurance companies willing to pay for remote monitoring, another opportunity exists for mobile operators. They can offer their mobile connectivity to a third party who has already developed their own business model. Call it B2B2C, says Zylberberg. An example is the wirelessly-enabled heart implant Orange is to launch with medical vendor Sorin later this year.

Orange has a three-part model analysis of the available markets in the mobile health market. They are: 1) selling services to healthcare providers in what is essentially an enterprize market 2) health management services like the one with Sorin or SMS-based patient reminders for patients 3) Consumer-focused market in wellness, for instance smarpthone apps. Zylberberg only sees 1) and 2) as viable, revenue-generating markets at present.

Back on remote monitoring, Zylberberg goes further with his thoughts: “What if everyone in London was equipped with wonderful heart implants happily transmitting data on a daily basis.” The risk of course is data overload for doctors but actually it could be worse than that. “Not only are they overloaded but they need to look at the data, they need to act on it and they need to be paid for it.”

Worse of all is a doctor holding that data and not acting on it because he or she is overwhelmed with information. That constitutes a professional risk.

“It’s more than a burden, it’s a liability because now if I have an implant actively giving information and in it there are signs I might have a heart attack and the doctor does not see then who’s responsible?” The doctor of course. Now that is a cause for thought.

The editorial views expressed in this article are solely those of the author(s) and will not necessarily reflect the views of the GSMA, its Members or Associate Members.