This was good. It's good to be reminded of the complexity of things we might overlook. However the answer to any question around why something is expensive or not is economics, specifically supply and demand, marketing and distribution channels, and barriers to entry. This is the technology sector. We have made a cottage industry out of taking things that used to be at the maximum level of complexity and turning them…
Why Are Medical Ultrasound Systems So Inexpensive?
21–30 of 72 posts
Re: Why Are Medical Ultrasound Systems So Inexpensive?
#22Especially with pet breeders, I could see a use for devices around a couple hundred Dollars, though there may not be enough demand to warrant commercial development, especially not from players interested in selling more expensive, over-engineered (for this purpose) devices to the same market.
It's clearly not easy to break into the market for USI, both at the low and the high end. But with patents expiring, and electronics becoming cheaper, more customizeable, more performant, the bigger players may have another think coming.
Re: Why Are Medical Ultrasound Systems So Inexpensive?
#23> If you can really build an effective ultrasound system that people want to buy for significantly less than the currently available price when you've no expertise in the field, then why hasn't someone else with vast experience in the field gone and done exactly that? If you just made a new effective ultrasound system that passes the FDA, why would you sell it for a lower price when you also can make more money?
You would sell it for a lower price to gain more customers than competition.
Hospitals, clinics and medical staff as well as the infrastructure required to support the machines are your limiting factor.
With portable devices that can hook into a laptop or a tablet it's not much of an issue but still there will be a hard limit for the market and it's considerably lower than you would think.
You also need to understand that the lifespan of some of these machines can be decades so in effect if you make it too cheap you either have to build in planned obsolescence or you'll sell yourself out of the market.
Re: Why Are Medical Ultrasound Systems So Inexpensive?
#24This was good. It's good to be reminded of the complexity of things we might overlook. However the answer to any question around why something is expensive or not is economics, specifically supply and demand, marketing and distribution channels, and barriers to entry. This is the technology sector. We have made a cottage industry out of taking things that used to be at the maximum level of complexity and turning them…
Why is it ok to scald patients in third world countries? What if the quirks lead to misdiagnosis etc? If there was a way to produce this technology safely and cheaply people would be doing so
Re: Why Are Medical Ultrasound Systems So Inexpensive?
#25With CT you have some large mechanical thing, pretty much straightforward X-ray source and image sensor, slight issue with interconnect between the stationary and rotating part (that only has to carry power and digital data) and bunch of software.
With MRI you have large superconducting magnet (which is expensive, but not that complex), few power amplifiers for various coils and relatively low bandwidth RF receiver and then bunch of software.
With ultrasound you have the transducer head, which is connected with specialist flexible multi core RF cable with the frontend. Frontend has to be able to both supply large (essentially RF) power to said transducer and listen back for reflected energy with as little dead time as possible and with as low SNR and wide dynamic range as possible (and typically using the same physical wire to the transducer for both Tx and Rx path), with this whole frontend being replicated few dozen times.
Re: Why Are Medical Ultrasound Systems So Inexpensive?
#26I'm a biomedical engineer and found both posts interesting.
There are really exciting things happening right now where the murky area between expensive, slow medtech and fast-moving, lower cost consumer products are being explored.
There have been some specatular implosions of approaches straying to far towards the consumer tech-startup approach.
Like most things, the best path is probably somewhere in between. Medicine and health is hard because the systems involved are complex and non-linear. There is a higher burden for doing things right than other industries. That said, people also suffer from innovation being slowed by red tape and leading to increased costs.
One great but unlikely solution would be for an improved market for used equipment, where the device loses its certification for medical use and obsolete software becomes open source. Little incentive for manufacturers to do this, but would be great for hobbiests, more 'wellness' rather than medical applications, and improved use in developing countries (where used medical devices like ultrasound machines often are donated but aren't used, because they can't be adapted to local needs).
Re: Why Are Medical Ultrasound Systems So Inexpensive?
#27> If you can really build an effective ultrasound system that people want to buy for significantly less than the currently available price when you've no expertise in the field, then why hasn't someone else with vast experience in the field gone and done exactly that? If you just made a new effective ultrasound system that passes the FDA, why would you sell it for a lower price when you also can make more money?
I don't buy the money argument, price is not cost. I'm fairly convinced that the medical market is inflated at every level, ending on a premium. Ultrasonic devices may be as complex as he says, the dude is a reference. But I've just seen firefighters portable EKG monitor that they say cost a fortune, and it's mostly crap. Very bad cell reception, couldn't send data to the doctor. Not as sophisticated as an US echographer, just 7 probes, a LCD in a sturdy/friendly case; still pricey.
I'd bet a few dollars that any electronic company today can make something affordable, with better connectivity. It's just that the market allow for such prices.
Re: Why Are Medical Ultrasound Systems So Inexpensive?
#28This was good. It's good to be reminded of the complexity of things we might overlook. However the answer to any question around why something is expensive or not is economics, specifically supply and demand, marketing and distribution channels, and barriers to entry. This is the technology sector. We have made a cottage industry out of taking things that used to be at the maximum level of complexity and turning them…
Why is it ok to scald patients in third world countries? What if the quirks lead to misdiagnosis etc? If there was a way to produce this technology safely and cheaply people would be doing so
Re: Why Are Medical Ultrasound Systems So Inexpensive?
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
I came here to make exactly the same argument. Or cars, if we pick something that also needs certifying (from a purely manufacturing perspective). I get that most people would rather have a car, so more cars get made, so they're cheaper. (Athough roughly comparable, and there's different models. To me, it seems a car is more complicated than an ultra-sound system). The author of the original article made a good point…
Cars, iphones and laptops are sold in quantities that are magnitudes larger than ultrasounds. Even if every school bought one for students to experiment with, you'd still only have all schools and doctors in the world as potential market. On top of that, medical devices are supposed to work in comparatively harsh environments (strong disinfectants etc.) for a long long time. Iphone lifetimes are measured in years, no…
With these ultrasounds, there is such a heavy regulatory framework at work -- from regulations impacting the device itself to regulations preventing hospitals from being built to regulations preventing hospitals from having as many of these as they want -- that they make the actual quantity demanded of these things artificially small. Your point about evolution of the technology also falls trap to this same fallacy: Again, if all of a sudden you are artificially making something much more expensive to produce, it should be no surprise to you that the refresh rate on the device would be smaller. Here you also have the added effect that since we rarely pay for our own medical care and instead rely on insurance, many of the incentives that would exist for companies to make cheaper, faster, better equipment also disappear. Lastly, I fully concede that it is quite possible that there is some basic, inherent quality of ultrasounds that make them more complicated than cars or any other pieces of tech. But that isn't important. The importance is realizing that the derivative of the state of these machines looks very different from other technology industries where competition and the free market are much more of a factor.
Re: Why Are Medical Ultrasound Systems So Inexpensive?
#30The one factor the author completely fails to engage in is the fact that the state-of-the-art of ultrasound production and the resources devoted to its development is entirely endogenous to the regulatory and market structure around it. He spends a great deal of time justifying the price based on the technical challenges involved in building the device, but this completely misses the point. The market doesn't reward innovators or companies because their product is "complex."
The matter-of-fact is that we have crazy regulations in the medical space that sharply distort both the demand and supply of these machines. On the demand side, there's bat-shit crazy things like the fact that in order to open up a new hospital, in certain regions the existing hospitals in the area have to all agree that they are okay with that. Imagine what the technology landscape would look like if every time Apple wanted to open a store it would have to seek approval of the Best Buys that had already been there.
We also rarely pay directly for our own medical treatments. The fake prices we see in medicine (I was once hospitalized for $40k; a juice-box in an itemized hospital list could cost $12, etc.) are a great indication of the lack of competitiveness in that space. The truth is these fake prices reveal the fact that no one actually pays them, and instead are like that so insurance companies can negotiate individually with treatment providers. Now, given all of this, who could possibly enter this space and try to sell you on the idea that they could make an ultrasound that is 10% cheaper?
10% cheaper, that is, on top of an already highly-inflated price. Elsewhere in medicine, the INCREDIBLY high cost of FDA drug approval is extremely well documented, costing in the billions of dollars to bring a new drug to market. I hope it wouldn't shock the author of the post to learn that, with that incredibly high cost to play ball, the default scenario is for young medical startups to quickly sell to pharmaceutical giants, as that is really the only way to bring drugs to market. At a smaller scale, this too happens in the ultrasound arena, thus also making their price artificially high.
Speaking more broadly, the author's post is symptomatic of a view of much of our society which ends up treating prices as exogenous things. "College is expensive," "medicine is expensive." are things you hear all the time, and said with the intent that this reveals some fundamental truth about these things. That's garbage. College is expensive simply and only because colleges have been charging that much and people have been paying for it. Full-stop. In fact, the "free college" would be wise to understand that much of the increase in the price tag can be explained by the artificially low rates that you can borrow to attend them in the first place. I lived overseas for many years, and despite having Harvard Medical School-trained doctors and frequenting world class hospitals there, the actual, full cost of those treatments -- which I paid individually -- were a fraction of what they would have cost me in the U.S.