This sounds like what the movie puncture was about. It doesn't end well.
Still worth seeing. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1582248/
How the medical supply industry blocks device startups from selling to hospitals
111–120 of 157 posts
Re: How the medical supply industry blocks device startups from selling to hospitals
#112When people complain about entrepreneurs building social networks instead of curing cancer, they need to understand that this is a big part of the reason. The internet attracts so much innovation in large part because it's very open to innovation. In more regulated/corrupt (the two are closely related) fields, such as health care, there are many barriers to competition that kill innovative new companies. Mobile was a…
No, the reason many entrepreneurs are building social networks is because many of those entrepreneurs don't have the technical chops to cure cancer or to solve more difficult problems. Solving difficult problems often requires either deep domain knowledge or solid technical expertise in areas more challenging than web/phone app development. There's a much higher barrier to entry. Mind you there's a fair number of ent…
People choose what to focus on based in part on the expected benefits.
I was very interested in biology in high school. Part of the reason that I ended up working with computers instead is that the feedback is much faster (compile and run) and the leverage much greater (e.g. Bill Gates got rich with a software company, not a life sciences company). Needless to say, I don't regret choosing software over biology.
Re: How the medical supply industry blocks device startups from selling to hospitals
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
People like to pretend like all government regulation is stifling to innovation, but it is pretty clear that some regulation is necessary for a properly functioning market. The trick is, how much is too much. There needs to be a very good reason to shield any company from anti-trust regulations and I can't think of a valid one that would apply to medical supply companies.
I think that saying that regulation is necessary (as opposed to desirable) might be too strong. In most cases things can still function without regulation, because people know things aren't regulated and can take that into account by being cautious. Now, this is often inefficient and causes some number of people to get screwed over, but it still works. I'm sure there could exist some golden system of regulation for h…
I disagree. Regulations are absolutely necessary for a functional market.
Corporate espionage, sabotage, outright lying about your products, financial fraud, tying, price fixing, collusion, bid rigging, geosplitting, ponzi schemes and dozens of other manifestations of bad corporate practices that regulations prevent (or try to) were put in place in the first place because they destroy markets. These aren't hypothetical problems either, there are many many instances of these practices happening over the last few centuries.
Hell, this article effectively says that medical providers are engaged in product tying and it is destroying the market!
Truly free markets are a myth. The best you get is mostly fair markets.
Re: How the medical supply industry blocks device startups from selling to hospitals
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
> people using keyboards Never thought about that before, though I do know that keyboards are filthy . Is there any evidence that the rate of infection increased since medical professionals began to use keyboards for data entry? But I guess that kind of data would be buried under a lot of other factors that emerged over the last 2-3 decades. Also, how would you go about fixing that? Tablets might be easier to clean,…
Some keyboards have silver in the keys. Some keyboards have a squishy membrane cover which can be sprayed and scrubbed. But, really, people need to wash their hands (soap and hot water) before they touch a patient.
The problem is the number of patients and the amount of data that has to be entered into different systems means you would spend 90% of your time washing your hands or taking gloves on and off.
Imagine programming where everytime your hand went between the keyboard and mouse you had to go and wash your hands!
The problem is that adding more computers is always a 'good thing' - how can more info about a patient be bad?
Re: How the medical supply industry blocks device startups from selling to hospitals
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you generically call "government meddling", I call (more precisely, imho) "corporation-funded, lobbyist-enabled legislative corruption". This is a very popular view generally promoted in the more liberal corners of the political ecosystem. Not being in either the liberal or conservative extremes I tend to see things differently. You have to ask a few questions to get to the bottom of it: Q: What are lobbyists? A…
You keep repeating the same thing (politicians are the the causing entities, corps. are the reacting entities) even in response to a challenge to rethink that assumption. That doesn't mean it's true. One can reasonably disagree with your simple-minded answers (imho). Notably wrt the third, fourth and fifth questions. Another possible answer is that corps. and bribers wanted a way to legally bribe politicians (to avoi…
Please don't call anyone simple-minded, particularly when you don't know them.
Nobody is saying that politicians are the root cause. We elect them. Ultimately it is our fault for allowing it. Then some of these folks appoint people to other positions. The appointments are probably worst than the already-challenged elected official.
When I hear someone carry the "corporate greed and corruption" flag I have a viscerally negative reaction to the statement. I don't know you, so I can't know where you are coming from. To be clear, what I am about to say has nothing to do with you and is not aimed or intended to represent you at all.
Whenever I've heard this from people in person that either I know or have an opportunity to learn more about the profile almost always falls within a certain range. Liberal, democrat, sometimes government worker or union member, no entrepreneurial experience, no understanding of the business process and no experience attempting to launch and run a business.
A lot changes once you've experienced the realities of business. I can't name one business driven purely by greed other than boundary examples such as the Madoff mess. Even the most maligned financial companies have to sell a product and cater to a customer base. Oil companies, for example, are a favorite punching bag. Are they driven by greed? Of course not! They sell a product. And they sell a product that requires huge investment. They are perfectly entitled to earn a profit and they are entitled to earn as much as the market will support. Supply and demand. If they take legally allowed action to enhance their standing or ability to compete, well, that's the law. Until it is changed they are doing nothing different than engaging in the "SEO" of their industry.
Somehow there's an automatic trigger point that says that large companies are driven by nothing but greed. Really? At what revenue level does greed become the underlying driving force? What where they driven by until they got to that level? I don't see anyone talking about companies such as Apple that way? Why? They are large. Very large. They don't do anything any other enterprise does not do. They manufacture in China. So do others, except that, when it is Ford that does it "they are greedy" is the first response.
Anyhow, let's agree to disagree. My world view probably does not intersect with yours in but a few places. And that's OK. I learn a little from everyone. Maybe one day I'll see things as they really are. Thanks.
Re: How the medical supply industry blocks device startups from selling to hospitals
#116This caught my eye: Kaiser spokesman Jim Anderson argues that if Shaw’s products didn’t make their way to hospitals it was because of “significant supply issues” on Retractable’s end. He also says they were prone to malfunction and that, in several cases, needles detached and were left “stuck in the arms of patients.” I'm doubtful that a Kaiser spokesman would fabricate these problems, which leads me to believe that…
"After months of trial and error, Shaw hit on the idea of surrounding the tip of the syringe with six petal-like flanges, which could flare open to make way for the catheter port. Unlike some of the solutions floated by big medical device makers, such as coating the ports with silver, Shaw’s innovation added only a few pennies to the cost of production. And it seemed to be remarkably effective: a 2007 clinical study…
When the Dyson was invented, the bag-vacuum incumbents wanted to licence his technnology and shelve it. He had to go solo to "bring his superior technology to market".
What's wrong with trying to get rich on a product? And using the profits as seed money to bring more useful things to market?
Re: How the medical supply industry blocks device startups from selling to hospitals
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. Read it again. Government rules is what changed the nature of these GPO's from hospital-funded to being funded by kickbacks from the various vendors. That one act alone seems to have triggered a massive shift in power. Businesses will adapt to the environment they operate within. If they can identify an advantage they will use it. I am not going to blame a business for moving within the existing framework any m…
'Nope' is not an argument. Government rules previously forbid kickbacks, a common commercial practice. the rules were changed to remove this restriction. If legislators are corrupt for changing the rules, who is corrupting them? why should they skate? This was clearly a reduction in government interference in the marketplace, and what we've got instead is a situation where the dominant market player uses its commerci…
"Your argument seems adrift from reality and increasingly resembles mere ranting."
I really have to thank you for that. I appreciate personal comments of this kind in the middle of an otherwise civil discussion. I apologize for not agreeing with you and moving on. Thanks.
Re: How the medical supply industry blocks device startups from selling to hospitals
#118This caught my eye: Kaiser spokesman Jim Anderson argues that if Shaw’s products didn’t make their way to hospitals it was because of “significant supply issues” on Retractable’s end. He also says they were prone to malfunction and that, in several cases, needles detached and were left “stuck in the arms of patients.” I'm doubtful that a Kaiser spokesman would fabricate these problems, which leads me to believe that…
On the other hand, here's another quote from the article: "Without a GPO contract, it doesn’t matter how good your product is. Even if I could wave this wand over your body and cure you from cancer, chances are I couldn’t sell it to hospitals" The core problem is, big manufacturers offer discounts (or bigger kickbacks) for bundling. A niche product is unlikely to succeed, even if it's obviously better. A product that…
You may be accepting the Kaiser rep's FUD. The quote doesn't say, "these needles break, and BD's don't", or even "these break more than regular needles".
Re: How the medical supply industry blocks device startups from selling to hospitals
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any evidence to support them being especially ethical, or is this just a gut reaction? The facts are that we don't have enough facts, we have an unsubstantiated accusation that should be treated as such.
Countering an unsubstantiated accusation with another unsubstantiated accusation isn't going to get us anywhere. It's not about being ethical. It's about exposing yourself to liability.
Where, exactly, did I make any accusation at all?
I said we don't have enough evidence to make meaningful claims, which I still hold to be true.
Re: How the medical supply industry blocks device startups from selling to hospitals
#120When people complain about entrepreneurs building social networks instead of curing cancer, they need to understand that this is a big part of the reason. The internet attracts so much innovation in large part because it's very open to innovation. In more regulated/corrupt (the two are closely related) fields, such as health care, there are many barriers to competition that kill innovative new companies. Mobile was a…
This is the kind of thing that's so disheartening. I work for a large medical device maker and on a daily basis I see the gross inefficiencies in the way we do business. It's been obvious to me for years that a much smaller company could build exactly the same things we do and do it better, but the enormous barriers to entry mean you need millions just to start playing the game.
The regulations are another hurdle, but I think they are easier to get through since everyone is on the same playing field in that regard. But getting your product into hospitals and labs? There's a battle I don't even know where to start fighting.
Maybe it's time to start looking exclusively at foreign markets.