Why, despite the rapid growth of the MedTech and HealthTech sectors, do so few new technologies make their way into Polish hospitals? The problem is not merely a lack of funding or available solutions. In this August edition of “The 12th at 12 PM” series, Weronika Kolczyńska presents the findings of a study showing that the greatest obstacle lies not in individual barriers, but in the way they interact with one another.
The HealthTech and MedTech market is growing at a pace that, in many industries, could be described as a boom. More than five hundred identified companies, an increasing number of AI-based solutions, and daily media reports of new technological breakthroughs all point to a thriving ecosystem. Yet data from Poland’s Centre for e-Health (Centrum e-Zdrowia) indicate that only 13% of hospitals providing inpatient services have implemented AI tools that support diagnostics and clinical decision-making.
Is this simply a matter of slow digital transformation? A diploma thesis based on an original survey conducted among 20 representatives of hospital management, IT departments, and innovation units from three public healthcare institutions sought to answer a more fundamental question: what really prevents innovation from being implemented in Polish hospitals?
Funding that is theoretically available, but practically out of reach
Seventy percent of respondents identified financial barriers as the most significant challenge. In itself, this is hardly surprising. In healthcare systems, financial constraints consistently rank among the greatest difficulties. What is surprising is what exactly respondents found most problematic.
The issue is not that hospitals lack funding altogether. Rather, there is no dedicated place for innovation within hospital budgets. Hospital finances are allocated almost entirely to National Health Fund (NFZ) contracts, service delivery, and day-to-day operations. Innovation has no designated budget line through which it can be financed. Respondents assigned this issue the highest score among all financial factors: 4.00 out of 5, with seven participants rating it as a critical barrier.
Difficulty in estimating return on investment (ROI), which had initially seemed likely to be a major issue during the survey design phase, received the lowest score among the five financial factors, averaging just 2.63. It is as if respondents were saying: we do not calculate ROI because investments rarely even reach that stage. If no investment decision is made, questions regarding profitability become purely theoretical.
The heart of the system that refuses to synchronize
One of the most significant findings of the study concerned technical barriers. Surprisingly, the most pressing issues were not outdated infrastructure or inadequate hardware quality. Instead, the highest-rated challenge was the lack of interoperability between systems and the difficulty of integrating new solutions with existing hospital information systems (HIS), receiving an average score of 4.05. Six respondents identified this factor as a major implementation blocker. This is not merely an IT issue. The inability to integrate can eliminate a solution long before the pilot stage. Two-thirds of respondents with implementation experience indicated that lack of interoperability was one of the reasons technologies were rejected during preliminary evaluation, just as frequently as excessive implementation costs. Even clinically and technologically mature solutions cannot be utilized if they are unable to work with systems already operating in hospitals.
Startups that understand medicine better than administration
Analysis of respondents’ implementation experiences also revealed a significant gap on the technology providers’ side. Startups were assessed in four areas, including compliance with MDR certification requirements, quality of technical support, and alignment of business models with the realities of public healthcare providers.
While regulatory compliance and technical support were rated highly (an average of 3.80 in both categories), alignment of startup business models with the financial capabilities of public healthcare institutions received a considerably lower score, averaging just 2.80.
The findings suggest that many solutions are technologically and regulatorily sound but fail to adequately account for the realities of public hospitals. Procurement procedures, multi-stage decision-making processes, and budget constraints mean that business models commonly used in the private sector often do not translate directly into public healthcare settings.
Regulations that exist but do not provide certainty
Thirty-five percent of respondents gave the lowest possible rating to the clarity of regulations governing AI implementation. The challenge does not stem from a complete absence of regulations. The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act classifies medical AI solutions as high-risk systems. The real difficulty lies in the practical application of these regulations and the uncertainty they create for decision-makers responsible for implementation.
Uncertainty regarding liability for errors involving AI algorithms received an average score of 3.41. This lack of clarity around accountability may foster decision-making caution, even when the clinical value of a solution is not in question. At the same time, ethical concerns, although discussed within 60% of the surveyed institutions, were not identified by any respondent as the primary barrier to implementation. This suggests that ethical issues remain part of the broader debate but are less likely to directly influence investment decisions.
What remains after the data analysis?
The most important conclusion of the study does not emerge from any single factor, but rather from the relationships between all the barriers examined. Financial, organizational, technical, and regulatory challenges reinforce one another.
The absence of dedicated funding limits the ability to create long-term innovation implementation strategies. A lack of strategy, in turn, results in the absence of formal procedures. Ninety percent of respondents stated that no formal innovation implementation pathway exists within their organizations, despite acknowledging the need for one.
The most frequently proposed systemic recommendation, also supported by 90% of respondents, was the creation of dedicated innovation funds covering not only pilot projects but also the long-term maintenance of implemented solutions. Without sustainable financing after project completion, even valuable technologies may become yet another system that gradually falls into disuse.
***
This article is based on the findings of the diploma thesis “Barriers to the Implementation of HealthTech and MedTech Solutions in Public Healthcare Institutions: A Case Study of Selected Facilities,” completed in 2026 as part of the postgraduate programme Innovations in Medicine and Healthcare (IMiOZ) at the Medical University of Warsaw.
The thesis was authored by Weronika Kolczyńska, Emilia Mańka, and Marta Skonieczna-Herman, under the scientific supervision of Prof. Agnieszka Cudnoch-Jędrzejewska, MD, PhD. The study was conducted using a diagnostic survey methodology among 20 respondents representing management and administrative staff from three public healthcare institutions: the Medical University of Warsaw Clinical Centre, the Institute of Mother and Child, and the Holy Cross Cancer Centre. An original questionnaire consisting of 46 questions was used, and the survey was carried out in April 2026.
Weronika Kolczyńska is an Innovation Manager at the Institute of Mother and Child. She specializes in healthcare communication and digital transformation, combining experience in the public sector with expertise in MedTech and artificial intelligence applications in medicine. She has collaborated with, among others, the Medical Research Agency and the Centre for e-Health, supporting communication initiatives related to healthcare innovation. She is a graduate of the Innovations in Medicine and Healthcare programme at the Medical University of Warsaw.
See also:
Can AI read a patient’s lab results? A student project shows how to do it safely