How the medical supply industry blocks device startups from selling to hospitals • Hacker News Board

Re: How the medical supply industry blocks device startups from selling to hospitals

#151

Post by ktizo » Thu, Apr 26, 2012, 12:49 PM UTC

earbitscom wrote: post #130

paul wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, cancer definitely isn't the "low hanging fruit". Hospital errors and infections would be much easier to address, though as this article shows, even that is nearly impossible.

Fighting cancer is a $200B+ industry. It's not cured yet because 1 million people would suddenly be unemployed.

There's even more money spent on fighting idiocy, but despite the evident failure in your case I don't think that teachers have conspired in order to try and guarantee a future salary.

Re: How the medical supply industry blocks device startups from selling to hospitals

#152

Post by rsheridan6 » Thu, Apr 26, 2012, 12:50 PM UTC

johngalt wrote: post #21

bsenftner wrote: post #3

I experienced this somewhat when consulting for a medical device startup. They'd developed a modular system supporting Laparoscopic procedures, reducing hands during surgery, which equated to significant safety increases as well as cost reductions. However, their big issue continues to be navigating the procurement process at hospitals, which is akin to requiring a full time lobbyist per hospital for the duration of…

You're selling to the wrong party. Don't sell it to the hospitals, sell it to the insurance companies. Hospitals will be thinking 1. "will insurance claims be rejected for non-standard treatment?" 2. "If something goes wrong with my malpractice insurance cover it?" Even if everything goes correctly, and procedures are better/faster/cheaper the insurance companies will just lower the amount they pay. The hospital does…

I'm not so sure about the insurance companies. I am a pharmacist and I see insurance companies insist on paying for expensive things and declining to pay for cheap things all the time. For example, they won't pay for cheap Relion brand syringes, but they will pay for BD syringes (BD is the bad guy in the linked article), which cost much more. I'm not sure about the reasoning behind this, but I'll bet it's sordid and corrupt.

Re: How the medical supply industry blocks device startups from selling to hospitals

#153

Post by tripzilch » Thu, Apr 26, 2012, 12:54 PM UTC

This article definitely took its sweet time to get to the point. Sure it's interesting, but the first thing I want to know is, "what did they do this time?", so I can decide whether maybe I already know about it or not.

Certainly the story about developing new products for a failing healthcare industry is interesting, and I would love to have read about it, if I hadn't been skimming through "yeah yeah yeah and how did they prevent him from bringing it to market? skip skip skip, aha."--IMO, it's just wasting my time, though I would have gladly read the stories about the entrepeneurs if only they'd have gotten to the point first.

Even though I thankfully don't have anything to do with the US healthcare system, I'd love to pass this story on to some of my friends that unfortunately do. Except I don't want to waste their time either.

And that really is a missed opportunity to bring to light something rotten in the system, because of a badly written article.

Re: How the medical supply industry blocks device startups from selling to hospitals

#154

Post by saturdaysaint » Thu, Apr 26, 2012, 12:57 PM UTC

rsheridan6 wrote: post #150

jrockway wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't she take the generic drug? Also, $180/month is not really what people mean by "high healthcare costs". They mean something like a $50,000/day hospital stay. $180 is a lot if you don't have a lot of money, but it's hardly backbreaking.

The generic drug he's talking about was never approved in the US. It's not available here. You can get it in other countries.

Indeed, and there's been much discussion that the chemistry that makes Lunesta patentable is trivial, basically a patent for its own sake.

"a single isomer drug rarely offers a therapeutic advantage over the mixture of isomers from which it is derived. However, the single isomer is patentable distinct from its multiple-isomer origin. Thus, the drug company can get a monopoly."

http://insomnia-relief.com/information/?p=49

Re: How the medical supply industry blocks device startups from selling to hospitals

#155

Post by robomartin » Thu, Apr 26, 2012, 2:27 PM UTC

luser001 wrote: post #139

robomartin wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 viscerall…

I said your answers were simple-minded. You certainly don't come across as being such. I'm sorry if I offended you.

No problem. Sorry I took it the wrong way.

Of course every issue has a simple visible portion and then there's the 90% of the iceberg under the surface. I view simple ideas as fundamental to start the thought process going. A lot of them are not viable due to the details and real issues deep down inside. I realize that.

Re: How the medical supply industry blocks device startups from selling to hospitals

#156

Post by brc » Fri, Apr 27, 2012, 3:09 AM UTC

paul wrote: post #67

When 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 agrees with a personal belief I hold which is that no monopoly can exist for long without a government assisting it.

The worst monopolies always seem to me to be underwritten by government policies. The worst part is that, for the most part, the policies were created to try and do the right thing, but end up doing the opposite.

Re: How the medical supply industry blocks device startups from selling to hospitals

#157

Post by kylebrown » Mon, Apr 30, 2012, 10:04 PM UTC

chernevik wrote: post #98

rosser wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government setup the rules that enabled exactly that behavior. I see you making this argument over and over in this discussion, but you seem to be ignoring the flip-side of that fact: People exploited those government rules. Any calculus of culpability for the current state of affairs that ignores that fact, pointing fingers solely at the government, is myopic to the point of absurdity. No-one forced these medica…

First, I'm very sorry for your loss. Second, there is no more predictable rule of human behavior than the conscious, rational pursuit of self-interest. Adam Smith was very clear on this, businesses will seek to form cartels at every opportunity. We can legislate against explicit collusion, but these laws are very tough to enforce. It's very possible that the executives in these companies are deviating from legal stan…

i know the memo is late but thought you should get it anyway: market fundamentalism died in the '08-'09 superbubble implosion.