A whole set of challengers are now dedicated to the ‘open banking’ mission, including Moneyhub, Yolt and Tink (which was recently bought by Visa for €1.8bn). These companies allow users to ‘open up’ and share their bank data with other parties, charging their clients for the privilege.
The conversation has also extended to ‘open finance’ — which extends data-sharing capabilities beyond just banks to include pension funds, saving accounts and other assets. But unlike open banking, access to open finance data is currently unregulated, prompting further questions about consumer protection.
Under current banking regulation, raw data must be provided for free to consumers via an official application programming interface (or API). As a result, the apps pick up the cost on behalf of their users.
(emphasis mine)
I am closely watching the fintech space because banking, like healthcare, has been cautious to adapt “new technologies”. I can’t discuss specifics of cryptocurrency, but I am interested in blockchains that form the basis of irrefutable data. However, they are unproven concepts and will require “roots of trust”. and operational expenses to keep them viable. The discussion isn’t the same. I got curious to explore the business models around raw data being provided by banks and legitimate businesses being built up.
I wondered if healthcare enterprises will be asked to build APi’s to share raw data around healthcare. While that may spur development of “applications” I wonder if this is a means to an end. It requires investments around keeping those APi’s open, and it will be a significant expense for the incumbent with a yet unproven model. In some jurisdictions, fintech has revolutionised “person-to-person” (P2P) payments. A viable model may be around demand forecasting, health services utilisation, and other ancillary services around the healthcare facility.
Technology has leapt far away from the regulation.
RadOncNotes 