DMEA relocation: "We want to grow and integrate new topics"

The DMEA will no longer take place in Berlin from 2027 onwards, but in Munich. Messe Berlin is planning its event in parallel – precisely on the same date. In an interview, Matthias Meierhofer talks about the DMEA's change of location and other topics such as the electronic patient record and further plans of the organizers.

The DMEA is leaving Berlin and moving to Munich. There has also been talk of an end. How do you see that?

Neither anything is being torn down, nor is the DMEA being bid farewell. The DMEA is changing its location in 2027. Therefore, neither the world in Berlin is collapsing, nor will everything only be in Munich in the future. One must keep a sense of proportion. The DMEA remains the DMEA. We want to develop it further as an association, grow and integrate new topics. For this, we have found a partner in Messe München who offers us this perspective.

At the same time, Messe Berlin is announcing its event – on the identical date. How do you assess that?

I can't say much about the other trade fair because it is being organized without us. We were informed about it through the press. We were not consulted about it. This is remarkable in that we have organized the DMEA together with Messe Berlin for many years. That a separate, competing event is now being created on the same date, we knew nothing about. We would have wished that they had spoken with us before making such plans.

Messe Berlin speaks of wanting to close a “gap”. What gap do they mean?

You'll have to ask Messe Berlin. From our perspective, there is no gap. The DMEA covers the entire spectrum of digitalization in healthcare: hospital IT, outpatient care, nursing, telemedicine, AI, data analysis, and regulatory frameworks – increasingly with an international perspective. We have experienced steady growth in recent years, both in terms of visitors and exhibitors. This shows that the concept works. If Messe Berlin feels the need to supplement something here, then fine, but why on the same date?

Why was Munich chosen?

There were several reasons. On the one hand, the international connectivity. Munich is more easily accessible for many European partners – especially for Austria and Switzerland. On the other hand, the modern infrastructure. The Munich trade fair grounds are newer and technically better equipped than those in Berlin. This allows us to try out new formats – for example, in the area of networking or hybrid events. In addition, we have already received new cooperation requests from countries that were previously less represented.

Berlin is considered politically closer. Is that a disadvantage?

No, that's not a disadvantage. Berlin is the seat of government, that's true. But Bavaria also plays an important role in health policy. And in the end, political presence doesn't just depend on the location, but on the relevance of the topics. When we talk about telematics infrastructure, AI, or digital sovereignty, these are topics that are discussed nationwide and across Europe. What's important isn't whether the event takes place in Berlin or Munich. What's crucial is that we bring together the right topics and players.

Telematics infrastructure is a central topic. What is the status there?

The TI is the backbone of digital healthcare. Without it, neither the electronic patient record nor the TI messenger or e-prescription works. But it's not finished yet. There are still technical, organizational, and regulatory challenges. We have a long way to go here, and there is still much to do in stabilizing and further developing the infrastructure.

Will the TI ever be “finished”?

The TI is not a static system, but an ongoing process. Technology is constantly evolving – for example, through AI, cloud solutions, or new security standards. This means that the infrastructure must be continuously adapted. There will always be something to do. It is important that we adhere to realistic timelines for testing specifications and functions in real healthcare practice. The position paper “Digital Healthcare and Health Data in Germany: Stability, Innovation, Implementation” by the bvitg from March 2026 rightly emphasizes that we need more common sense here.

Where are the biggest problems?

In interoperability. The different systems must communicate with each other – between hospitals, doctor's offices, pharmacies, and health insurance companies. This is technically complex because there are different standards. In addition, not all service providers are fully connected to the TI yet. There are also regulatory requirements. Gematik has provided clear specifications, but implementation is slow. At the same time, there is political pressure because the digitalization of healthcare is progressing too slowly. Financing is also an issue and has not yet been satisfactorily resolved for practices and hospitals.

Would the industry need to cooperate better to implement the specifications?

The industry needs to cooperate more closely – between software providers, service providers, and Gematik. Even though this has intensified significantly in recent years, there is still room for improvement. What we urgently need are realistic timelines for testing and implementing specifications and functions in real healthcare practice. Too often, requirements are defined without sufficient consideration of practical feasibility. Processes need to be rethought. This costs all parties involved time, money, and trust.

How could a reduction in technical complexity look in concrete terms?

We need a focus on basic technologies with fewer and simpler hardware components. The high-frequency introduction of new technologies such as Zero Trust or Health Confidential Computing in parallel with the implementation of new applications causes enormous complexity and high costs. We need to reduce dependencies in digital process chains to decrease susceptibility to errors. At the same time, service providers must be able to use TI services on the go, for example, during house calls or in outpatient care.

What will be the topics of the current DMEA?

AI is no longer a future topic, but a reality that has arrived in healthcare. There are already numerous applications – for example, in image analysis, therapy planning, or early disease detection. However, implementation is slower than in other industries. This has several reasons: regulatory hurdles, liability issues, financing, and partly also a lack of acceptance among doctors.

At the same time, the DMEA is of course about much more than just AI. Topics such as interoperability, which makes networked and seamless care possible in the first place, are particularly important. Sovereign cloud solutions and IT security are also in focus – both are central prerequisites for digital innovations to be used reliably, scalably, and trustworthily.

The electronic patient record is a central project. Why didn't the opt-in model work?

With voluntary models, we made hardly any progress over the years. Usage was less than 1 percent. Only with the opt-out model – i.e., the automatic creation of an ePA for every insured person – did that change. Now we have over 70 million records created. Voluntariness is not enough in this area.

But is the ePA really the central element?

That's an interesting question. Maybe it isn't. Perhaps it's much more about cross-sector communication. The ePA is one tool, but not the only one. When we talk about digital healthcare, it's about much more: about the exchange of information between doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, and patients. The ePA is part of it, but not the only building block. Perhaps we need to ask ourselves: What do we actually want to achieve? Is it about the record itself – or about the flow of information? Perhaps the ePA is just a means to an end. So far, clinical processes in particular have been inadequately considered.

Critics say the ePA is not yet mature. What do you say to that?

The ePA is not a finished product, but a process. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of practices, 2,000 hospitals, and 70 million insured people. Such a thing cannot be implemented overnight. But the foundations have been laid. Now it's about increasing usage and removing technical hurdles.

Will the ePA eventually be mandatory?

That's a political question. From a technical perspective, mandatory use would be sensible – for example, for medication plans or emergency data. But whether it will be socially accepted is another question. We have to wait and see how the discussion develops. The position paper calls for the ePA to also be available to patients without active use – for example, for electronic referrals.

Gematik is expected to play a stronger role in the future. Why?

We need an entity that sets cross-sector standards. So far, there are too many different systems – for example, in billing, documentation, or communication. Gematik is supposed to set clear rules so that all parties can communicate with each other. This is urgently needed to advance digitalization. The position paper rightly calls for Gematik to focus on its core tasks: the development and maintenance of the TI reference architecture, transparent approval procedures, and monitoring of the TI.

Should Gematik also regulate self-administration?

Yes. So far, statutory health insurance physician associations, health insurance funds, and hospitals have developed their own technical standards. This leads to incompatibilities and duplicate structures. A strong Gematik could ensure more uniformity here. This doesn't mean that self-administration will no longer play a role – but it must adhere to common standards. The position paper emphasizes that Gematik should act as a framework setter, not as a market player.

Doesn't that mean more centralization and less competition?

Not necessarily. Gematik is not intended to have a monopoly, but to set clear framework conditions. Within these framework conditions, there can still be competition – for example, in the development of software solutions. Competition is important, but it needs clear rules. Otherwise, a patchwork will emerge that benefits no one. The position paper rightly calls for Gematik to set technology-open guardrails, but not to act as a developer itself.

You are a proponent of competition. Why?

Competition drives innovation. When multiple providers compete for the best solution, it leads to better products, lower prices, and more choice. Our market is more diverse than many think. Besides large corporations, there are many medium-sized companies – sometimes with only 40 or 50 employees. This diversity is important because it leads to different solutions. Monopolies rarely lead to innovation. The position paper rightly emphasizes that we need more competition – but with clear framework conditions.

But the healthcare market is highly regulated.

Yes, and that has advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are safety, quality, and financing. The disadvantages are slowed innovation, high market entry barriers, and limited price competition. We need more flexibility – for example, faster approval processes for AI systems, without neglecting safety. The market is too heavily regulated, but we can't just deregulate everything. It's about the right balance. The position paper rightly calls for us to reduce bureaucratic hurdles – for example, in the regulation of medical AI.

Industry associations are often suspected of lobbying. How do you see that?

Industry is industry – that's true, but we are not a pharmaceutical lobby. The pharmaceutical industry has completely different financial and political capabilities. Our task is to bring together technical realities and political frameworks. This is sometimes uncomfortable, but necessary. We represent the interests of our members – that is legitimate. But we must be transparent. The position paper is a good example of this: we present our positions openly and justify them technically.

Where are the boundaries between representation of interests and influence?

The line is fluid. But transparency is the best way to build trust. When we say: “We represent the interests of the IT industry,” that is more honest than if we present ourselves as neutral consultants. We are not a neutral player – we represent our members. But we try to do that within the framework of democratic rules. The position paper shows: We contribute technical expertise and make concrete proposals – for example, on the use of health data or the further development of the TI.

Cyberattacks on hospitals are increasing. How secure is digital healthcare?

Health data is an attractive target for hackers because it is particularly sensitive. At the same time, many facilities are not adequately protected. Cybersecurity is not a one-time project, but an ongoing process. Many practices and hospitals do not have the resources to protect themselves adequately. We need more support here – for example, through central security standards and financial funding. The position paper rightly emphasizes that we need to reduce the technical complexity of the TI to increase security.

What needs to happen?

More support is needed – for example, through central security standards, financial funding, and awareness-raising. Gematik could play a stronger role here. But in the end, every institution must take responsibility itself. Cybersecurity is not a luxury – it is a necessity. The position paper rightly calls for service providers to be able to use TI services on the go – for example, during house calls.

What would you wish for digital healthcare?

More speed in implementation. The digitalization of healthcare cannot wait. We need faster decisions, clearer rules, and more investment. In addition, more acceptance among doctors and patients. Digital solutions are only useful if they are also used. This requires information, training, and incentives. And I wish for more competition and innovation so that new, better solutions reach healthcare faster.

(mack)