Live data from Hacker News

Why Are Medical Ultrasound Systems So Inexpensive?

liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com

51–60 of 72 posts

Re: Why Are Medical Ultrasound Systems So Inexpensive?

#51

The fallacy this author makes in his response is unfortunately very symptomatic of our society's poor grasp of fundamental economic principles. Worth noting that despite failing to see some of the larger forces at work that the previous post mentioned the author nevertheless acts condescendingly towards that other post, which is also very similar to how society-at-large operates. The one factor the author completely…

>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. I don't believe this is necessarily batshit crazy because hospitals in close proximity will coordinate to manage patient flow. There is also likely disaster coordination but I've not seen that directly. "Hostile…

>> coordinate to manage patient flow

Right there. That's why the costs are so extreme.

Where is it written that someone must 'coordinate to manage patient flow?' Show me what fundamental principle of this nation mandates that some body of colluding apparatchiks are supposed to 'coordinate to manage patient flow.' What great benefit is achieved by subjecting every evolution of the medical system to a horde of bureaucrats?

The entire medical industry is rife with this mentality; that nothing may exist without the blessing of a dozen regulatory agencies and another dozen industry trade groups, all actively colluding to prevent any market forces interfering with their fiefdoms and livelihoods.

>> Hospitals are not something you want competitive churn in.

Why? Where is that written? What makes you think competition would be bad?

You're going to claim something like "churn would make medicine dangerous and put lives at risk." Maybe. That's your guesswork. The last major illness I had -- the only one more exotic than a flu I've ever had in my life -- was C. diff, contracted in a US hospital while visiting a patient. Don't tell me the unbelievably huge costs of our medical system are some surety against risk.

The US medical system is the biggest bubble in the history of our species. At some point the forces of nature are going to pop it. That's not a right wing view or a left wing view. It's just physics. These costs cannot continue to compound unless you're willing to employ gulags.

I'm betting that in the aftermath a full featured ultrasound machine will cost maybe $15k and the biggest measurable effect of that (if anyone is bothering to measure at that point) will be that there are more of them and more people will have access to them. And yes, I'm fully willing to risk whatever parade of horribles you can imagine. I'm also willing to make you risk them as well, and the pressure being created by spiraling costs means that have eventually I and the many, many people that also share my view, will have the power to do exactly that.

Re: Why Are Medical Ultrasound Systems So Inexpensive?

#52

The article seemed to be mostly an explanation of why any high quality ultrasound has to be expensive and I'm sure the author is correct there. But the original article was about the possibility of cheap, low quality ultrasound. I can understand why, when you're dealing with human lives, you wouldn't want anything but the best. But that wasn't the use case of the original article.

Yes, I think you are right.

Also, I'm curious if good software can somehow compensate for low-quality hardware. The availability of a cheap machine could spur the development of new signal processing algorithms that work around hardware shortcomings.

Re: Why Are Medical Ultrasound Systems So Inexpensive?

#53
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If risk of scalding means the price can be reduced to a point to where every ambulance or high-speed paramedic car can have one, then it is worth it. If it means that every back-water third-world doctor can have one, great. Sometimes knowing if a patient has internal bleeding, and where, is worth the risk.

Don't forget to balance that advantage with the risks and harms of over testing.

Re: Why Are Medical Ultrasound Systems So Inexpensive?

#54

The article seemed to be mostly an explanation of why any high quality ultrasound has to be expensive and I'm sure the author is correct there. But the original article was about the possibility of cheap, low quality ultrasound. I can understand why, when you're dealing with human lives, you wouldn't want anything but the best. But that wasn't the use case of the original article.

Yes, I think the author's criticism of the original article is a bit harsh and misdirected. There are lots of caveats and qualifications in the original, including the frank admission that the transducers are difficult and expensive to make. It also includes explicit statements to the effect that a cheap ultrasound machine is not intended for serious medical use but rather for "education, imaging, sports training and just for fun."

Re: Why Are Medical Ultrasound Systems So Inexpensive?

#55
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me its the same as pharma. Can you tell me if a government (ex India) would like to devote resources to make cheaper ultrassounds they wouldn't be able to? I only buy non-technical arguments, unless the bill of materials is on the same order as the price of the equipment.

With pharma I think the main "cost" involved is about the risk of investment. It takes billions of Dollars to potentially make billions of Dollars from a single product. More likely you invest hundreds of millions of Dollars with no return at all. It takes a special kind of company, almost a bank, to stomach that kind of risk. And this extraordinary risk also demands extraordinary rewards. Medical technology isn't re…

The assessment of pharma isn't true, and is evidenced by their high profit margins along with price difference between different markets - same exact thing is substantially cheaper in the EU than in the USA.

Re: Why Are Medical Ultrasound Systems So Inexpensive?

#56

The article seemed to be mostly an explanation of why any high quality ultrasound has to be expensive and I'm sure the author is correct there. But the original article was about the possibility of cheap, low quality ultrasound. I can understand why, when you're dealing with human lives, you wouldn't want anything but the best. But that wasn't the use case of the original article.

Is he correct, though? Even a high quality ultrasound probe is only a few thousand dollars. At best, I don't like this post because it just plays up the difficulty of the engineering without any context. Yes, making an ultrasound is hard and complex, but its not as hard and complex as making a car, which is how much they cost. He just presents the engineering like we should be able to intuitively relate that to cost.

Hell, he also doesn't contextualize any of the engineering itself. At the end he brings up the housing, and not making it cut or burn people. What? Not making things sharp is not rocket science. The machine doesn't cost 30k-150k because it isn't sharp. Most things aren't sharp. He's conflating details with challenges.

Acoustic lenses, 100 micron precision? Injection molding produces surface finish and repeatability to sub-micron levels without even trying. A 50 cent plastic magnifying lens is more precise than the acoustic lens in an ultrasonic machine, AND its made of more expensive plastic (it just so happens the best acoustic matches between water and PZT are very cheap plastics).

He's completely dismissive of PZT buzzers, which is really unwarranted. A 2 cent PZT buzzer is actually the closest product to an ultrasound probe, engineering wise. The transverse mode of a PZT buzzer is in the tens of MHz, the surface finish is easily a few microns, and the performance across the disk is very uniform- it just so happens the cheapest way to mass produce buzzers creates those properties. Of course to get two disks that are similar you need to pay more, but the price is still measured in cents.

Dice and fill is complex but not necessary, especially for lower frequencies. It uses standard semiconductor tooling and while expensive, it doesn't mean each transducer costs as much as a car. Splitting the elements is also complex, but its a hell of a lot simpler. Also he keeps saying 100 micron- its not a feature size except for dice and fill. It's an accuracy, and one that can be achieved by hand with 2x magnifiction. For actual context: 127 microns is your standard "sloppy" machinery tolerance. When you order something from a machine shop and mark a dimension as not important, you'll get 127 microns/.005".

There are any number of ways to section the transducer. Laser would be one. It would cost less than a dollar per, and worst case you have to repole the PZT afterwards. Bonding is a pain but not complicated. You can just solder to silver coated PZT, strain relieve the bond wire, and pot the whole thing in plastic. Keeping that 100 micron accuracy just means making sure you don't get hair all over it when you put it together, unless you're blond in which case your hair is too fine to matter.

And then... a cable? That's his next example of complexity? Buy a bunch of ground plane ribbon cables and roll em up. Crosstalk will be less than on a PCB. This whole thing just gives off the impression he's stuck thinking about things the way he's always done it and has never considered alternatives. He talks about the challenges of building products.

>Ever made a protoype? Ever made 2 of them? 4? 100? 10,000? And made them all the same? Yep, it's a different world when you have to start selling and supporting products.

It's one thing to make a product that doesn't inject noise into the hospital grid, is shielded to more than FCC standards, its waterproof and heat and fireproof. It's quite another to just make a product. Yeah, making things is hard, but literally every company that sells something knows how to do it. It's built into cost. It's not an explanation.

Re: Why Are Medical Ultrasound Systems So Inexpensive?

#57
post #26

This is a great post, thanks for writing and sharing. I'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,…

I trust the current post on the physics and EE side of things. That said I'm also very curious about the computer graphics side nowadays. It seems to me that historically, most of the complexity was handled through sophisticated mathematical abstractions at the material level, making the research very costly. How much post processing can be done to infer more information from less costly inputs (I'm thinking ideas li…

There is work going on in this sort of arena, and I've wondered why there hasn't been more. I think probably there are a few reasons.

First is medical imaging tends to have relatively low resolution and high noise compared to optical images. So there is a danger of over-processing.

Second is, somewhat related, that I think there is distrust in clinical practice and regulation of black boxes where processing happens in the background. You're taking responsibility away from a doctor and putting it on your system, so there is a greater burden of validation.

Third is cultural. Doctors get a ton of training to interpret the signal in these images, and I think there is both a badge of honor in this as well as a barrier to adjust to something new. In my Masters, one of the medical device design instructors talked about a prototype of a digital stethoscope with huge improvements to acoustics. Doctors hated it - even though the sound was better, it wasn't the sounds they were used to. Although this was before the Eko Stethoscope, which is a digital stethoscope and seems to be doing well. Maybe an example of market timing.

Re: Why Are Medical Ultrasound Systems So Inexpensive?

#58
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for pointing out right to the important thing: Those ICs are not new, they are on the market since some years.

And have probably been used in some cheap systems?

I don't know if the $200 quoted by the OP for all ICs is bulk pricing when they were new or $200 now when they are limited and special parts. But it's moot anyway, I doubt the ICs are the major price point.

Re: Why Are Medical Ultrasound Systems So Inexpensive?

#59
Original blog post author here. Thanks to everyone for their comments, I've tried to answer as much of the issues raised as I can in a new blog post, here.

http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/12/medical-ultraso...

TL;DR summary - ultrasound engineers are not stupid, are adding capabilities as they can, and driving costs down, but demands keep rising as new applications are found, and there is not yet the "killer app" demand for ultrasound that will drive smartphone sized economies of scale to lower prices massively. Regulation is not a huge cost driver (and you seriously do not want no regulation), and there is no cartel action in ultrasound conspiring to keep prices high, it's actually an incredibly competitive industry.

Re: Why Are Medical Ultrasound Systems So Inexpensive?

#60
post #56

The article seemed to be mostly an explanation of why any high quality ultrasound has to be expensive and I'm sure the author is correct there. But the original article was about the possibility of cheap, low quality ultrasound. I can understand why, when you're dealing with human lives, you wouldn't want anything but the best. But that wasn't the use case of the original article.

Is he correct, though? Even a high quality ultrasound probe is only a few thousand dollars. At best, I don't like this post because it just plays up the difficulty of the engineering without any context. Yes, making an ultrasound is hard and complex, but its not as hard and complex as making a car, which is how much they cost. He just presents the engineering like we should be able to intuitively relate that to cost.…

A 2 cent PZT buzzer is ridiculously far from an ultrasound probe, engineering wise, and your units are off by about three orders of magnitude. And soldering depoles PZT.

A transducer does not cost as much as a car (well, not a well made car), but a system does. That's the cart plus a number of transducers.

Yes, I only covered the transducer in that post, but as I noted, the systems and software deserve their own Pt II. It takes time to write this kind of stuff you know?

Your other points I try to answer in my updated blog post along with many others here in this thread.

Post reply on HN