Germany's hospital digitalisation story has changed materially.

The average DigitalRadar maturity score reached 55.0/100 in 2026.

That compares with:

33.3 in 2021

42.4 in 2024

and:

55.0 in 2026.

That is roughly a 65% increase in digital maturity in five years.

At the same time, Germany's new Hospital Transformation Fund can support up to €50 billion of structural hospital transformation between 2026 and 2035. Under the current framework, the federal government provides €29 billion through the infrastructure and climate-neutrality special fund, with state/co-financing requirements varying over the programme period.

And since 1 October 2025, the ePA has been mandatory in medical institutions where the insured person has not objected. Hospitals need the ePA embedded into actual clinical processes, not merely technically connected. gematik specifically points to primary/KIS integration, role and rights management, admission/discharge processes and auditable handling of relevant steps.

Those signals should make Germany exceptionally attractive for HealthTech.

But there is a second set of numbers founders should look at.

In Q2 2026:

58% of German hospitals described their economic situation as unsatisfactory.

Only 14% described it as good.

And 61% expected their situation to deteriorate further during the second half of 2026.

That is the real German HealthTech opportunity.

Not:

“Hospitals have money for digitalisation.”

But:

Hospitals are under pressure to modernise while becoming less tolerant of technology that cannot prove operational or financial value.

That distinction changes how I would enter the market.

First: do not call the €50B Transformation Fund a €50B digital-health fund

This is an important distinction.

Germany previously used the Krankenhauszukunftsfonds under the KHZG to fund hospital digitalisation and IT-security projects. That programme had a total potential volume of €4.3 billion and explicitly covered areas such as patient portals, digital documentation, medication management, IT security and telemedicine.

The €50 billion Hospital Transformation Fund running from 2026–2035 is different.

Its purpose is broader structural transformation of the hospital system.

It should therefore not be presented to prospects as:

“Germany now has €50B available for HealthTech.”

That would overstate the opportunity.

The commercially useful question is:

Does the hospital's transformation programme create a funded organisational problem that our technology helps solve?

Sometimes the answer will be yes.

Sometimes the technology will instead need to compete for:

ordinary investment budgets, operating budgets, IT budgets, departmental budgets or strategic-project budgets.

This distinction is particularly important because German hospitals already face significant investment pressure.

The DKG says the annual capital requirement to maintain hospital infrastructure is around €7 billion, while state funding continues to cover only roughly half of investment needs.

For founders, therefore:

Funding availability is not the same thing as vendor budget availability.

The opportunity is large enough to justify careful account selection

Germany had 1,841 hospitals and approximately 472,900 beds in 2024, treating about 17.5 million inpatient cases.

Hospital expenditure alone reached approximately €131.6 billion in 2024.

But those 1,841 hospitals are not commercially interchangeable.

The ownership structure alone illustrates why.

Germany had:

528 public hospitals

575 non-profit hospitals

and:

738 private hospitals.

However, public hospitals accounted for 46.8% of beds, meaning hospital count alone can badly distort addressable scale.

And the DigitalRadar data also shows that maturity varies by hospital type.

In the 2024 measurement, public hospitals averaged 46.5, compared with 39.7 for private hospitals, while larger, teaching and university hospitals generally showed greater maturity than smaller/non-university institutions.

The national average has since increased to 55.0, but the underlying lesson remains:

Germany should be segmented by hospital archetype before it is segmented by contact list.

I would start with four hospital archetypes

1. University and maximum-care hospitals

These can be attractive for:

clinical AI

complex interoperability

advanced decision support

research-linked technologies

and:

large-scale workflow transformation.

They may offer significant reference value.

But they also tend to create more stakeholders.

A technically impressive deployment can still need alignment across:

clinical department

central IT

medical informatics

data protection

information security

procurement

finance

and:

executive management.

The logo is attractive.

The buying committee is not simple.

2. Large regional and municipal hospitals

These may represent one of the more interesting commercial segments.

Why?

They can combine:

meaningful scale

acute workforce pressure

digitalisation requirements

and:

greater need to demonstrate operating economics.

For workflow technology, AI documentation, logistics and patient communication, this can produce a strong problem-to-budget relationship.

But the economic case needs to be much clearer than:

“Our technology improves efficiency.”

Hospitals need to understand:

how much efficiency, where, measured by whom, and whether implementation destroys part of that benefit.

3. Private hospital groups

Private groups can create another form of opportunity.

The strategic advantage is not necessarily easier procurement.

It is the potential for:

one validated solution → multiple facilities

if group-level decision-makers support it.

That makes the expansion question different.

Instead of asking:

“Can Hospital X buy this?”

ask:

“What does Hospital X have to prove before the group deploys this elsewhere?”

That should influence pilot design from day one.

4. Smaller and specialist hospitals

Smaller hospitals should not automatically be excluded.

The 2026 DigitalRadar findings specifically indicate continued digital-maturity improvements across hospital sizes.

But the buying proposition may need to change.

A smaller institution may care less about:

enterprise-wide architecture sophistication

and more about:

lower implementation burden

fast staff adoption

less IT maintenance

predictable costs

and:

clear short-term operational benefit.

For some startups, that can create a better initial reference site than fighting for a university hospital.

My seven-category Germany opportunity map

The matrix separates the market into seven commercially different problems.

They are not seven versions of “hospital software.”

Each needs a different buyer, proof package and ROI argument.

1. EHR / workflow infrastructure

Representative players

Avelios Medical

Dedalus

CompuGroup Medical

NEXUS

Meierhofer

This is one of the most strategically important parts of the German market because hospitals are simultaneously dealing with:

ePA integration

workflow digitisation

interoperability

hospital reform

and:

legacy-system decisions.

Another important trigger is the approaching end of SAP IS-H maintenance.

SAP states that IS-H maintenance ends in 2030, and German hospitals are already selecting replacement approaches for patient administration and billing. University Hospital Tübingen, for example, has already been working through this transition.

That means the EHR opportunity is not simply:

“Hospitals want newer software.”

It is:

Core architecture is being reconsidered while hospitals simultaneously have to support new national digital workflows.

What the buyer actually needs to know

Not:

How many features does your platform have?

But:

What legacy systems disappear?

What workflows improve?

What integrations remain?

How risky is migration?

Can the organisation change without disrupting billing or clinical operations?

What happens to historical data?

Best commercial proof

I would measure:

minutes removed per clinical/admin workflow

duplicate entry eliminated

time-to-discharge

documentation completeness

manual reconciliation removed

interface count reduced

system-maintenance burden

and:

migration risk.

The product winner may not be the platform with the longest feature list.

It may be the one that can make a complex migration feel less dangerous.

2. Cybersecurity

Representative players

secunet

Rohde & Schwarz Cybersecurity

LANCOM Systems

G DATA CyberDefense

Cybersecurity deserves to be treated differently from most HealthTech categories.

The ROI is partly:

value created

but substantially:

loss prevented.

Germany explicitly treats inpatient medical care as part of critical infrastructure under the relevant KRITIS framework, and the hospital-sector B3S security standard remains an important sector-specific mechanism. The current hospital B3S version was updated again in January 2026.

For a hospital board, the buyer case is not merely:

“We need better cyber tools.”

It is:

“What happens to clinical operations if this infrastructure becomes unavailable?”

That changes the ROI equation.

Cyber ROI should include

downtime avoided

clinical services protected

recovery time reduced

incident-response effort

business-continuity impact

compliance burden

data exposure

and:

patient-safety consequences.

For cybersecurity vendors, I would therefore avoid positioning the solution as another IT-security purchase.

Position it around:

clinical continuity + operational resilience + patient safety.

3. Interoperability

Representative players

x-tention

Famedly

vitagroup

Better

Interoperability may be the clearest example of technology that everyone agrees is necessary but which can still be difficult to commercialize.

Germany's ISiK framework establishes binding interoperability standards for hospital information systems using FHIR resources and REST APIs. ISiK Stage 5 is now progressing toward binding implementation requirements.

That creates opportunity.

But interoperability has one commercial weakness:

Hospitals rarely want to buy interoperability for the sake of interoperability.

They want:

fewer manual transfers

fewer duplicate data entries

faster information availability

working ePA processes

better discharge

fewer integration projects

or:

a new application that can actually operate inside their architecture.

So the commercial proposition should not stop at:

FHIR compliant.

The buyer question is:

“Which workflow becomes cheaper, faster or safer because the systems can now communicate?”

The interoperability asset founders should measure

One metric I particularly like is:

Integration Reuse Rate

Ask:

What percentage of the integration work built for hospital #1 can be reused at hospital #2?

If the answer is:

20%

the business may remain highly services-dependent.

If it becomes:

70–80%

the company may be creating a genuine deployment advantage.

That figure deserves attention from investors as much as ARR growth.

4. AI documentation

Representative players

voize

Corti

Tandem Health

Microsoft / Dragon Copilot

This category has one major advantage:

The value proposition can often be connected directly to an expensive hospital resource.

Clinician time.

That makes the ROI more tangible than many other AI categories.

But the correct metric is not:

“The AI writes notes 40% faster.”

The hospital needs to know:

How many minutes disappear from the clinician's actual day?

Does the clinician review everything anyway?

Does documentation quality change?

What happens with errors?

Does the tool understand specialist terminology?

How is data handled?

Does it integrate into the existing documentation workflow?

A more useful ROI structure

Clinician minutes saved per case
× cases per year
× loaded staff cost/minute
× real adoption rate

Then subtract:

licensing

integration

training

QA/review burden

and:

change-management cost.

That produces a far more defensible business case.

The hidden variable: adoption

Suppose a documentation tool theoretically saves:

10 minutes per consultation.

But only 40% of the intended clinicians use it consistently.

The theoretical ROI and realized ROI can be radically different.

So I would treat:

Usage rate as part of the financial model.

That is useful for both hospital executives and investors.

5. Patient portals

Representative players

m.Doc

samedi

Doctolib

Heartbeat Medical

Patient portals can look less exciting than clinical AI.

Commercially, they should not be underestimated.

The detailed 2024 DigitalRadar assessment found patient participation remained the weakest maturity dimension, even though it showed substantial improvement.

The ePA does not eliminate the need for good patient-facing hospital workflows.

A hospital still deals with:

appointments

pre-admission information

forms

consent

questions

preparation instructions

navigation

discharge information

PROMs

follow-up

and:

communication.

The most convincing portal pitch therefore should not be:

“Give patients a digital experience.”

It should be:

“Remove specific administrative work from the hospital while improving the patient's path through care.”

Metrics I would use

calls avoided

paper forms removed

registration time

staff minutes per admission

appointment administration

no-show reduction

digital form completion

discharge communication

and:

patient-reported outcome completion.

A patient portal becomes easier to fund when the CFO can see the operational consequence.

6. Hospital logistics

Representative players

INFORM

Swisslog Healthcare

TeleTracking

Hospital logistics can be commercially powerful because it sits close to operations.

But vendors need to avoid vague claims around:

“optimisation.”

The hospital buyer needs concrete units.

For example:

minutes between discharge and cleaned bed

patient transport turnaround

bed availability

theatre utilisation

medication transport

staff walking time

equipment utilisation

inventory availability

or:

time lost locating assets.

Germany treated around 17.5 million inpatient cases in 2024. Even small workflow improvements can therefore become meaningful when repeated across a large institution.

The commercial question becomes:

What repeated operational event happens often enough for a 2–5 minute improvement to become financially meaningful?

That is a strong way to build hospital ROI.

7. Decision support and clinical AI

Representative players

deepc

Vara

Aignostics

Ada Health

Infermedica

Clinical AI often has the most impressive technical story and one of the hardest commercialization stories.

Because there are at least four separate proofs.

Clinical proof

Does the model work?

Workflow proof

Will clinicians actually use it?

Integration proof

Can it work inside the hospital architecture?

Economic proof

Does using it create enough operational, clinical or financial value to justify procurement?

A startup can be excellent on the first and weak on the other three.

That is why I would not assess AI startups only on:

AUC

sensitivity

specificity

or:

regulatory clearance.

Those matter.

But hospital deployment requires additional questions.

The clinical-AI commercialization test

I would ask:

What decision changes because the AI exists?

Then:

What happens if that decision improves?

Perhaps:

fewer missed findings

earlier diagnosis

less radiologist time

faster prioritisation

lower unnecessary testing

greater throughput

or:

better resource allocation.

Then ask:

Which department economically benefits from that outcome?

That final question often identifies the real buyer.

Germany's most important HealthTech constraint may now be hospital economics

This is where the 2026 environment becomes especially interesting.

Digitisation is improving.

But hospital finances remain extraordinarily difficult.

The DKG's Q2 2026 barometer reported:

14% good financial situation

58% unsatisfactory

and:

61% expecting further deterioration.

That creates a paradox.

Financial pressure can delay technology purchasing.

But it can also increase demand for technology capable of proving:

labour productivity

capacity

cost avoidance

operational resilience

or:

better resource utilisation.

Therefore, the strongest German HealthTech pitches increasingly need two narratives.

Narrative 1: clinical / technical

Why does the technology work?

Narrative 2: economic / operational

Why should this hospital fund it despite everything else competing for capital?

Companies that can answer both have a major advantage.

I would use this Germany Hospital Buyer Equation

Not:

Technology + innovation = purchase

Instead:

Urgency × Economic Owner × Budget × Evidence × Integration × Procurement × Replication = Commercial Deployability

If one element is close to zero, the whole opportunity can stall.

Gate 1: Urgency

Ask:

Why now?

Examples:

ePA operationalisation

IS-H migration

cyber requirements

hospital restructuring

workforce pressure

new clinical pathway

expensive manual process

existing vendor contract ending

or:

board-level transformation programme.

A market trend is not enough.

There needs to be an account-level trigger.

Gate 2: Economic owner

A user is not necessarily a buyer.

Map:

User

Champion

Economic owner

Budget owner

CIO / technical gatekeeper

Information security / DPO

Procurement

Executive sponsor

A radiologist can love the technology.

The CFO can still reject it.

Gate 3: Budget source

This needs particular discipline in Germany.

Possible sources include:

departmental operating budget

central IT

strategic transformation budget

capital investment

group-level investment

eligible funding programme

or:

savings-funded business case.

Do not begin a hospital discussion by assuming the €50B fund pays for the solution.

Start with:

“Which budget would realistically own this project?”

Gate 4: Integration

Create an Integration Dependency Map before promising a three-month deployment.

I would document:

KIS

EHR

ePA

ISiK/FHIR

PACS

RIS

LIS

identity

authentication

data warehouse

cloud/on-prem requirements

security

and:

department systems.

Then separate:

Standard integration

Reusable.

Configurable integration

Repeatable with moderate changes.

Custom integration

Site-specific.

Investors should know those percentages.

Gate 5: Evidence

Do not present one evidence package to everyone.

Build three layers.

Clinical

Does it work?

Operational

Does it work here?

Economic

Does it create enough value to pay for itself?

That third layer is where many HealthTech decks are weakest.

Gate 6: Procurement

One of the most important questions should be agreed before starting a pilot:

What happens if the pilot succeeds?

Possible answer:

central procurement

tender

department budget

framework agreement

group approval

second evaluation

or:

no defined route yet.

If the answer is the last one, the pilot has commercial risk before it starts.

Gate 7: Replication

Finally:

What becomes easier when we move from hospital #1 to hospital #2?

Track:

sales-cycle reduction

integration reuse

implementation hours

evidence reuse

training effort

legal/security documentation reuse

and:

founder involvement.

That is how project revenue gradually becomes scalable software revenue.

A pilot should generate five reusable assets

This is one of the most useful ways I would structure a German hospital pilot.

At completion, do not aim only for:

“The pilot was successful.”

Aim to own:

1. Evidence Asset

Measured clinical and operational outcome.

2. ROI Asset

Conservative quantified business case.

3. Integration Asset

Reusable technical architecture.

4. Procurement Asset

Security, data-protection and vendor documentation already tested.

5. Reference Asset

A credible deployment story for the next hospital.

If you only leave with item one, too much commercial work may need to be repeated.

A better hospital-pilot scorecard

I would track:

This is much more informative than:

Number of pilots.

One German market signal founders should not ignore: SAP IS-H

The approaching 2030 maintenance end for SAP IS-H deserves a place in many German hospital GTM strategies.

Why?

A legacy-system transition can cause hospitals to revisit adjacent layers:

patient administration

billing

clinical workflows

interfaces

data architecture

ERP

and:

third-party applications.

That can create opportunities beyond core HIS replacement vendors.

But the positioning should be:

“We reduce risk or create value during this architecture change.”

Not:

“SAP IS-H is ending, buy our unrelated AI product.”

Timing signals only matter when they connect to product relevance.

ePA creates a similar distinction

Since ePA use became mandatory for medical institutions in October 2025, hospitals increasingly need operational integration rather than theoretical readiness.

gematik specifically identifies:

KIS/primary-system integration

role and rights management

admission and discharge processes

and:

document handling / traceability

as components of regular hospital operation.

That creates opportunities in:

workflow

interoperability

patient communication

identity

clinical decision support

and:

information management.

But again, ePA is a trigger.

It is not automatically a buyer budget.

Where the 29 players in the matrix fit

The ecosystem represented in the visual is:

These should be interpreted as representative active-market players, not an assertion that every company is German-headquartered or serves exactly the same buyer segment.

The commercial value of mapping them is not the logo count.

It is understanding:

what hospitals already buy

where competition is mature

which proof standards are increasing

where integration patterns are becoming established

and:

where whitespace may still exist.

What founders should do with the competitor map

Do not produce a table with:

features

funding

headcount

and:

pricing.

That is useful but incomplete.

I would create a Commercial Friction Map.

For every competitor ask:

Which buyer do they enter through?

Which clinical workflow?

Which integration layer?

Which hospital KPI?

How long does deployment appear to take?

What evidence do they publish?

What partner ecosystem do they use?

Do they win one department or enterprise-wide?

What makes renewal rational?

That tells you where the market is actually becoming defensible.

What hospital executives should take from the matrix

The matrix can also be used from the buyer side.

Hospitals do not need to select:

“the most innovative vendor.”

They need to compare:

Value ÷ Implementation Burden

A useful evaluation framework is:

1. Financial value

Does it reduce or protect measurable cost?

2. Workforce value

Does it release scarce staff capacity?

3. Clinical value

Does it improve a meaningful outcome?

4. Integration burden

How much internal IT capacity will implementation consume?

5. Change burden

How much workflow redesign and training?

6. Security / governance

Does it add manageable or unacceptable risk?

7. Strategic reuse

Will the architecture support future transformation?

That creates much stronger procurement conversations.

What investors should diligence

For an investor looking at Germany expansion, I would be sceptical of a slide that says:

“Germany has 1,800+ hospitals.”

That is TAM.

I would want:

Target account universe

How many hospitals genuinely fit?

Buying committee

Which roles approve the product?

Budget logic

Why can the account fund it?

Integration burden

How much work per deployment?

Reference portability

Does the first German hospital matter to the next?

Procurement cycle

How many months?

Implementation margin

Does gross margin improve after site #1?

Retention

Why does the buyer renew?

Scale

Can the company sell without the CEO?

Those questions tell you whether Germany is a revenue market or simply a large pipeline slide.

The most important commercial contradiction in Germany

This is the part I would put in front of every founder.

German hospitals are becoming more digitally capable while simultaneously becoming more financially constrained.

DigitalRadar:

33.3 → 42.4 → 55.0.

But Q2 2026:

58% rate their financial position unsatisfactory.

Those two curves produce the real buying environment.

Hospitals increasingly possess the infrastructure to deploy sophisticated technology.

But vendors increasingly need to prove:

why this particular technology deserves scarce budget.

That moves competitive advantage toward vendors capable of connecting:

Technology → Workflow → KPI → Economics → Procurement

My ROI model for German hospital buyers

The accompanying calculator handles the numbers interactively, so I would keep the conceptual model simple in the article:

Annual Hospital Value

=

Staff-time value

Capacity / throughput created

Cost or downtime avoided

Revenue / reimbursement protected where relevant

−

Annual software cost

−

Implementation

−

Integration

−

Change-management burden

The important word is:

measurable.

If the founder cannot obtain the baseline needed to calculate the value, that itself is useful information.

It means the ROI case is not yet buyer-ready.

Example: workflow technology

Suppose a solution genuinely removes:

80 staff hours per week

at a loaded labour value of:

€55/hour.

That produces an annual staff-time value of roughly:

80 × €55 × 52 = €228,800.

If it additionally creates:

€150K of annual capacity benefit

and:

€100K of avoided cost

the gross value case becomes:

€478,800/year

Then subtract:

license

implementation

and:

integration.

That produces a much stronger CFO conversation than:

“Our solution saves time.”

The free dashboard I built below allows founders to replace those assumptions with their own.

Do not oversell ROI either

The same calculation needs a realism check.

If the theoretical €228.8K of staff capacity is created but the hospital cannot:

reduce overtime

increase throughput

reduce agency staffing

reallocate staff

or:

solve a known shortage,

then €228.8K is not automatically cash savings.

It may instead be:

capacity value.

That distinction matters.

A credible founder should say so.

It increases rather than decreases buyer trust.

A useful three-layer ROI model

I therefore prefer:

HARD ROI

Direct measurable financial impact.

Examples:

cost removed

revenue generated

downtime avoided

external spending reduced.

CAPACITY ROI

Scarce staff/resources released.

Not necessarily direct cash.

STRATEGIC ROI

Risk, quality, interoperability, resilience or future-readiness.

All three can justify investment.

But they should not be presented as the same thing.

Where I can add value without replacing the sales team

This is where market intelligence can become useful.

I would not position my role as:

“I will sell Germany for you.”

The better use of external support is reducing uncertainty before expensive selling begins.

For a German HealthTech entry, that means helping answer:

Which hospital archetype should be first?

Which 25 accounts are genuinely high-fit?

What trigger makes each relevant now?

Who are the economic and technical decision-makers?

What evidence is missing?

Which integration issues are likely to emerge?

How should ROI be framed by buyer type?

Which account creates the strongest reference value?

What should happen after the pilot?

That gives the internal team a narrower and more defensible market to attack.

A practical 30-day market-intelligence sprint

If I were structuring the first month, I would use four phases.

Week 1: Market architecture

Select:

one category

one hospital archetype

and:

two or three likely buying triggers.

Reject low-priority market segments.

Week 2: Account intelligence

Build perhaps 70–100 potential organisations.

Then reduce that to:

25 high-fit buyers

based on:

hospital profile

trigger

digital maturity signals

technology environment

need

commercial timing

and:

reference value.

Week 3: Stakeholder architecture

Identify:

15 decision-makers / influencers

across the highest-priority accounts.

Not simply CEOs.

Potentially:

CIO

CMIO

CDO

medical director

department head

procurement

finance

operations

information security

or:

transformation leadership.

Which ones matter depends on the product.

Week 4: Buyer thesis

For each top account, document:

Why this hospital?

Why now?

What problem?

Who owns it?

What KPI?

What budget?

What integration?

What evidence?

What procurement risk?

What does winning it unlock?

That becomes the basis for personalised outreach.

Not:

“Hi, we are an innovative AI startup expanding to Germany.”

From 25 buyers to repeatable revenue

This is also the logic behind my HealthTech Buyer Pipeline Sprint: 25 Buyers + 15 Decision-Makers.

HealthTech Buyer Pipeline Sprint: 25 Buyers + 15 Decision-Makers

The objective is not to produce another hospital directory.

Germany already has public hospital directories.

The value is prioritisation:

25 accounts that fit the thesis

plus:

15 people capable of moving the buying process

with the commercial context behind why they matter.

That is the gap between:

lead generation

and:

buyer intelligence.

The final Germany framework

I would summarise the whole market in one sequence:

TRIGGER → BUYER → BUDGET → PROOF → INTEGRATION → PROCUREMENT → REPLICATION

Trigger

Why now?

Buyer

Who owns the problem?

Budget

Who can pay?

Proof

What must be demonstrated?

Integration

Can it work in Germany's hospital architecture?

Procurement

How does a successful evaluation become a contract?

Replication

Does hospital #1 make hospital #2 easier?

That is the commercial layer underneath the opportunity matrix.

The key conclusion

Germany's hospital-tech opportunity is getting stronger.

But not because there is simply more money.

The more interesting combination is:

digital maturity is increasing

ePA is operational

interoperability standards are tightening

legacy architectures are approaching replacement cycles

hospital structures are being reformed

and:

financial pressure is forcing sharper investment decisions.

Germany's current national hospital DigitalRadar score is now 55.0, up about 65% from 2021.

Up to €50B can flow through the Hospital Transformation Fund through 2035.

But 58% of hospitals currently describe their finances as unsatisfactory, and 61% expect further deterioration.

That means the winners are unlikely to be the vendors with the broadest claim:

“We digitise healthcare.”

They will more likely be the companies that can demonstrate:

one urgent problem + one accountable buyer + one credible budget + one measurable KPI + one manageable implementation + one repeatable deployment model.

That is the German commercialization opportunity I would focus on for 2026–27.