The functioning of the healthcare system depends on decisions made by public institutions, healthcare facilities, funding bodies, physicians, companies that develop medicines and medical technologies, the IT sector, and numerous other stakeholders. For this very reason, the quality of public-private dialogue directly influences the quality of the solutions that ultimately reach the patient.
Following a presentation by Marijana Galić, Marijan Bilić (General Manager for the Balkans at Affidea) moderated a panel—featuring Dr. Adis Kandić (Medicana Hospital & Alea Dr. Kandić) and Dr. Natalija Kalandarishvili (Director of Operations at ASA Hospital)—focused on the role of public-private dialogue in the development of the healthcare system.
Dialogue, however, should not be an end in itself.
It only holds value when it results in better regulations, higher-quality processes, the faster introduction of solutions, and a clearer response to the needs of the healthcare system.
The private sector can contribute technology, data, international best practices, expertise, and models already tested in other markets. The public sector bears the responsibility of ensuring equitable access, clear rules, quality control, and the sustainability of the system.
The best outcomes are achieved when these two perspectives are brought together at an early stage.
This is particularly important in areas such as digitalization, the introduction of new therapies and medical technologies, the organization of healthcare services, public procurement, and long-term investment planning.
If companies are only involved after the rules have already been defined, valuable knowledge and data—which could help in making better decisions—remain untapped. Likewise, private solutions cannot have their full effect without understanding the needs, limitations and responsibilities of the public system.
That is why high-quality public-private dialogue must be continuous, professional and focused on specific issues.
Its result should not be measured by the number of meetings held, but by the changes that become visible in the health system after those meetings.
And the common criterion of both the public and private sectors must ultimately remain the same: what has changed for the patient as a result of this cooperation?
