Earlier quoted context omitted.
John you make a very good point. Look for industries where the current market has not kept up with advances in technology due to the business structures of the incumbents. Even if they want to change they can't (e.g Kodak). Hearing aids might fall into this category, but unlike the others on your list you need to deal with the FDA. The FDA should really be called the IPA - Incumbent Protection Agency.
To be honest, I wish the FDA was tougher. They're so many drugs, we are currently taking, that are just slightly better than placebo--and that's with fuzzy statistics, and a bunch of questionable studies. I took so many pointless medications over the years. When I was younger, I just figured if the drug/devise was FDA approved; it must be efficient? I was wrong!
If the FDA was less strict then drug companies would develop drugs that actually worked, but also had side effects (basically we would tip the balance back in favor of effectiveness over safety). While it would always be ideal to have a drug that worked perfectly without side effects, it is always better to have a drug that works than one that doesn’t. You can always choose to not take a drug because of the side effects, but if the drug is not sold then you don’t have a choice.