Medical Device Design Transfer to a Contract Manufacturer | MDDI Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry

It is increasingly possible to set up a medical device startup as a “virtual” company. With the ubiquity of high speed internet connections and inexpensive, even free, web conferencing applications along with cloud-based file sharing sites, savvy entrepreneurs focused on commercializing quickly and with minimum expense can use outsourced services, contractors and consultants for just about everything.

There are contract design houses, contract clinical research organizations, “rent-a-CFO” firms, freelance sites for graphic designers and all sorts of marketing experts, manufacturer’s representative sales organizations, outsourced customer service and support organizations, logistics companies to warehouse and distribute your products, websites that will display your product and process customer orders, and (the subject of this article) contract manufacturing organizations (CMO).

This article from MDDI explains in detail how to design in anticipation of using a contract manufacturing organization. The logic and elements should be easily understood by anyone with ISO9000 experience, as the process is to “plan the work and work the plan.” The first step is to create a Design Transfer Toolbox. In the toolbox are a number of specifications, documents, and plans. From the article:

  • User requirements specification (URS). What must the process do?
  • Sequence of events (SOE) chart. When will each assembly step occur?
  • Functional requirements specification (FRS). How will the process operate? How will the functionality be tested?
  • Design specification (DS). How will the configuration of the process with detailed drawings and databases be defined?
  • Trace matrix. How is each design requirement tested and verified? This directly relates each requirement to test functionality.
  • Process failure modes and effects analysis (pFMEA). How will the CMO prove it has built the right product in the right way? Input document is the product design failure mode and effects analysis (dFMEA).

It’s important to understand that this is a collaborative process between the medical device company and the CMO. The various specifications and processes must be detailed and agreed to by both parties before a contract is signed and work commences. The consequences of not following rigorous documentation and not having copious communications will be delays, quality problems, and regulatory infractions. On the other hand, investing time and effort before doing the design transfer can result in a high quality, cost-competitive manufacturing process and a successful long-term relationship between the medical device company and the CMO.

Takeaways: Not only are virtual medical device companies possible, there are high quality, reasonably priced companies and individuals operating as contractors, consultants, and freelancers that are eager for your business. If you are a medical device startup CEO with an urgent need to get to market, you should consider outsourcing areas outside of your core competencies. You will save money and time.

Read more: Elements of Effective Device Design Transfer to a Contract Manufacturer | MDDI Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry News

This startup wants to help you save on medical bills by taking control of your health | GeekWire

Health 2.0“, also known as digital health – focusing on improving people’s health through a constantly evolving mix of web or mobile device apps and educational software and websites, social media, personal health records, and various forms of connected sensors – is growing and attracting much attention, from entrepreneurs, investors, the media, and public health officials.

The basic idea is that people can take charge of and improve their own health – and reduce their healthcare expenses – if they have data about what’s going on with their bodies and some basic information about what to do about it. Sometimes the data is shared with a healthcare provider.

The organization Health 2.0 estimates that there are 2540 companies in the Health 2.0 segment as of June 2013. A majority of the companies, 1465, are consumer-focused while the next largest category, professional facing, has 643 participants. There are 203 companies involved with patient-provider communications and 229 companies working on data and analytics. I’m sure the overall count increases every day.

Why is Health 2.0 such a hot segment in healthcare? For one thing, the barriers to entry are lower than in other segments like medical devices or biotech. Many of the apps are unregulated or require a 510(k) marketing clearance at most. The cost to develop and deploy an app is a fraction of what it costs to commercialize a Class II medical device.

How do these companies plan to make money? That, as the (updated) saying goes, is the $64 million question. Many of the apps and web services are free. Some use the familiar freemium model where a basic version is provided free of charge and the fully-featured version is sold for a few dollars or so. What’s lacking is a recurring revenue model, or is it?

Just as Google and other companies with large user bases do, many Health 2.0 companies aggregate and sell the data generated by their apps. It’s appropriately anonymized but it’s probably worth much more in terms of lifetime revenue per user (LRPU) than the nominal charge paid by the consumer. Plenty of researchers and marketers in Big Pharma and insurance companies as well as government would love to have large data sets with behavioral data from a target population from one of their drugs, pipeline or on the market.

The company referenced in the article, Health123, was started by ex-Microsoft and Seattle tech veterans. They plan to approach employers with the prospect of reducing their health insurance expenses by improving employee health through deployment and use of their app. It’s another revenue model. It also raises serious privacy concerns as seen in a lively discussion in the article comments.

It’s tempting to think that your company could be the one to demonstrate positive outcomes. It seems to me that there is much anticipation regarding effective health apps that can improve public health and/or “bend the cost curve” as the healthcare policy wonks like to say. Looks like there are a couple of thousand startups that are in agreement.

Takeaways: Health 2.0 presents many opportunities for medical device and healthcare IT entrepreneurs. Even hardware companies can get in on the action via development and integration of all sorts of physiologic sensors. This could turn into a “land grab” where small and nimble startups do all of the innovation and are then snapped up for outlandish valuations by big medical device and healthcare IT companies who can’t afford to miss the market opportunity.

Read more: This startup wants to help you save on medical bills by taking control of your health – GeekWire.

Crowdfunding for Medical Devices

The notion of crowdfunding early stage medical device development is spreading. By now everyone is familiar with Kickstarter and the many examples of companies that have successfully raised funds by appealing to large numbers of “average Joe/Jill” supporters. There are more than a few copycats now that Kickstarter has been successful. Most, however, do not encourage or permit crowdfunding of medical devices.

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/85broads/files/2012/03/crowdfunding-photo.jpg
Image from Forbes.com

There is obviously a funding gap for many early stage medical device companies. Venture capitalists have abandoned the early market except for blue chip prospects. Angel investors have become extremely risk-averse in my opinion and have functionally replaced VCs (although not the big VC investments of 10-15 years ago). Between federal budget sequestration and increased competition, grants from NIH, CDC, NSF, and DoD have dried up and take too long to be a reliable source of funds for most startups.

As usual, savvy entrepreneurs to the rescue! Here are a few specialized sites that are crowdfunding medical device startups:

  • Medstartr “Patients, Doctors, and Companies Funding Healthcare Innovation.”
  • Poliwogg “Put Your Money Where Your Passion Is”
  • indiegogo “The world’s funding platform. Fund what matters to you.
  • b-a-medfounder “A uniquely positioned crowdfunding platform dedicated to medical device invention and innovation projects.”
  • healthfundr “Accelerate health innovation. Invest in the companies shaping the future of health.
  • microryza “FOLLOW & FUND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Many of these sites and organizations are new and do not have a track record. Most are focused on investors who want to put in a small amount of capital. Perhaps they are angel investment neophytes who are just starting out or maybe they prefer to make lots of small investments. Who knows? Others seem to focus on “donors” who are essentially giving a gift to the company, again, for very personal reasons. In any event, all of the crowdfunding sites seem like resources to investigate for early stage startups looking for that first $100k or so of seed funding.

It will be interesting to see how these services develop. As many of you know, early stage investors can get diluted down to almost nothing in terms of equity very quickly. And although medical devices cost only a fraction of what a biotech drug might cost to develop, it still requires a minimum of a few million dollars in capital to get a Class II device to market. If that funding is stretched out over a few rounds, the early stage investors almost certainly won’t get much, if any, return on their investments.

It remains to be seen if a relatively obscure and small niche like medical device development can attract sufficiently large numbers of investors. It’s also a big unknown if the proliferation of crowdfunding sites prevents any of them from reaching a critical mass of investors.

There are caveats in using these services, of course. Just as investors perform due diligence on you and your startup, so must you conduct your own diligence on the crowdfunders. Keep in mind also that these are for-profit businesses, not charities. They will take a percentage of the funds you raise. One popular crowdfunding model takes a percentage if you raise your target amount and a larger percentage if you fail to achieve your fundraising goal. I suppose that’s intended to be an incentive for you to work hard to promote your offer.

There is also some uncertainty about how these sites screen for accredited investors and avoid the laws against general solicitation. I’m certainly not well-versed in these matters but I’ve been keeping up with recent new regulations issued by the SEC on a blog written by a Seattle attorney, William Carleton. Read it here: Counselor @ Law.

There is also an older, more established online funding presence at AngelList.

Takeaways: Crowdfunding is a relatively new funding option for medical device startup CEOs and CFOs to consider. Add this option to your fundraising toolbox. Keep in mind that these investors may be less financially sophisticated and less experienced than the typical angel investors you are accustomed to dealing with. Some of these investors may be making decisions based on emotion. I strongly recommend consulting an attorney before signing up with any of these services and at least getting a thorough review of the service’s terms and conditions.

Read more: Inventor launches crowdfunding hub for medical devices – FierceMedicalDevices.

How Doctors Think About New Technologies | The Health Care Blog

Valuable insights into the mind of a physician – written by Leslie Kernisan, MD, a physician! Let’s face it, most of the time when we’re talking with doctors, we’re trying to get feedback about our product or idea or we’re trying to sell our product or idea. That doesn’t leave a lot of time to ask about how doctors think about new technologies or what their decision-making processes/criteria are for new technologies.

Here are a couple of observations from the blog post:

  • Vague, disorganized, or poorly designed websites drive visitors away, especially busy physicians.
  • Doctors prefer to consume information offline as mentioned in this blog post.
  • Don’t expect a busy clinician to call or email for more information. The information you provide must be sufficient the first time around.

And here are her questions about the new technology:

  • Does it solve a clinical problem she is experiencing?
  • What evidence exists that the technology will solve a problem, improve outcomes, or improve patient health?
  • How does it compare to the gold standard in terms of method, outcomes, complications, etc.?
  • How exactly does it work – be general and specific here. The physician may want to know how your technology works but they must know how it works in the context of the other devices and systems they use daily.
  • How easy is it to use? What’s the learning curve? Can you show a video of the device in use? Can you provide sample screens of a software application including drop-down menus?
  • How easy would it be to try the technology? Does it require significant financial investment, integration, or time investment, i.e., training, learning curve cases. Who bears the risk if the trial is unsuccessful?
  • Is it cost-effective? Show some financial examples and compare with popular alternatives.
  • What are the benefits to the patient and to the physician? Don’t just focus on features.
  • Who is the “ideal” patient for your technology? What about fit for the patients at the extremes of complexity, both simple and hopelessly complicated? Will it work for them?

And here are some suggestions from the doctor about how to optimize your company/product website to make it easier to use and navigate and also to get the information to the user:

  • Create a page or section for clinicians. Don’t exclude the general public but use proper medical, scientific, and technical terminology and keep the marketing-speak to a minimum.
  • Consider having more than one “how it works” section. Some people like a general explanation while others prefer detail. Also, provide the information in multiple formats. Some prefer print, others pictures and diagrams, and others like to watch video.
  • Offer downloadable brochures in PDF format, again in different levels of complexity.
  • Provide evidence of efficacy. This is especially important for physicians considering the trial of a new technology. If it’s insufficient, they will let you know. If it’s inaccessible, however, you may never know why they refused your offer.
  • Be sure to compare your product against the gold standard or traditional clinical practice along whatever dimensions are important to users. Either think like the user or ask them what data they would like to see in order to make a decision.
  • Offer a free trial or some equivalent risk mitigation. Do not expect the doctor to bear all of the risk in evaluating your product. They won’t.
  • Identify your benefits and advantages vs. the competition. Don’t exaggerate – your product does not need to be better in every category to be considered for a trial.

Takeaways: If you are a startup CEO or medical device product manager, make sure the information you are providing is tailored to your target customer. Keep in mind that evaluation is part of the sales process. Your goal is to get to the next stage in the process, evaluation/trial. You do not need to win the sale at this point. Prematurely trying to close a sale often kills it. Finally, think in terms of the big picture when providing information for evaluation. Put yourself in the place of the doctor and/or patient and ask yourself what information you need to make a decision. Consider the other systems and processes that your device or technology must integrate with. And above all, be fair about allocating the risk when asking doctors for evaluations and trials.

Read more: How Doctors Think About New Technologies | The Health Care Blog.

Henry Ford, Innovation, and That “Faster Horse” Quote | Harvard Business Review

OK, so Henry Ford never actually said, “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” But he might have thought it, and he definitely managed that way.

http://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/news/legacy-of-the-ford-model-t-100-years-after-thumb-1380_2.jpg

“Henry Ford’s genius lay not in inventing the assembly line, interchangeable parts, or the automobile (he didn’t invent any of them). Instead, his initial advantage came from his creation of a virtuous circle that underpinned his vision for the first durable mass-market automobile. He adapted the moving assembly line process for the manufacture of automobiles, which allowed him to manufacture, market and sell the Model T at a significantly lower price than his competition, enabling the creation of a new and rapidly growing market.

But in doing so, Henry Ford froze the design of the Model T. Freezing the design of the Model T catalyzed the speed of this virtuous circle, allowing him to better refine the moving assembly line process, which in turn allowed him to cut costs further, lower prices even further, and drive the growth of Ford Motor Company from 10,000 cars manufactured in 1908 to 472,350 cars in 1915 to 933,720 cars in 1920.”

Unfortunately for Ford, his company was out-disrupted by Alfred P. Sloan and General Motors, which introduced a dizzying array of innovations in the ensuing years, dooming Ford to decades of second place in the race for automotive market share.

I worked for a time in marketing at General Motors. We experienced the same frustration in focus groups. People are great at asking for incremental innovations and improvements, particularly if they are experiencing a problem and if they are asked, “what do you want?” But ask them what they want in personal transportation in ten years and you either get blank stares or Jetsons flying car suggestions.

It’s the same in medicine. Performing market research with actual healthcare professionals is necessary but not sufficient. They are immersed in the day-to-day drama of healing patients and dealing with monstrous bureaucracies. It doesn’t leave much time or energy for dreaming. You can find lots of small problems to solve by spending time with healthcare workers and asking lots of questions but you need a visionary founder or a visionary physician to imagine big innovations.

Medical device entrepreneurs have to walk a fine line. On one hand, they need to establish a solution for an unmet need and show that they can grow their market in a credible way. Unfortunately, that’s a bit too conservative an approach to satisfy most investors and stakeholders. On the other hand, they can “swing for the fences” and try to commercialize a disruptive idea. That strategy usually leads to feedback that they are taking too big a risk. Either way, funding is difficult and it may be tough to recruit employees and board members.

Sometimes it’s a matter of credibility. If this is your first startup or if you have a string of less-than-successful startups, maybe you can start by playing “small ball” – to use a baseball term. Get a few wins and show the world that you can plan and execute, then bring out your Big Idea. Of course, if you have a track record of success, you can probably successfully pitch investors and attract early employees without much difficulty.

For startup CEOs, it’s a good time to reflect on why you started the company. Was it to change the world or just to make a few bucks? Perhaps your strategy should reflect your passion.

Takeaways: Do perform market research, early and often as you work to establish your startup and idea. Don’t expect perfect market validation for your disruptive idea. Consider an incremental approach if you aren’t getting traction with customers, investors, or stakeholders. Establish relationships with the visionaries in your market segment.

Read more: Henry Ford, Innovation, and That “Faster Horse” Quote – Patrick Vlaskovits – Harvard Business Review.

You Can Now Find Out What Your Doctor Is Writing Down In That File | Fast Company

This is a follow-up in a way to yesterday’s post about interoperability in healthcare IT applications. It turns out that a team of researchers has developed and deployed software called Open Notes that allows patients to see their medical records and review their doctors’ visit notes. In a trial completed in 2012 of 14,000 patients at several leading medical centers, including Harborview in Seattle, study organizers reported that the results exceeded expectations:

Patients with OpenNotes reported better care, while doctors experienced little additional work. Of the patients with access to OpenNotes, almost all opened their records, more than 60% reported they took medications more regularly and 77% said they felt more in control of their care. By the end, every single doctor opted to continue with the program, along with 99% of the patients in the program.

This is the kind of innovation that costs almost nothing to implement and has the potential to have large positive effects on healthcare costs and patient health. Last month, the organization reported that the U.S. Veterans Administration (VA) joined as a full partner and is offering OpenNotes to its >1 million patients.

My knowledge of the VA is that they are heavily data and outcomes-oriented. I’m sure they will be doing analysis to determine the actual effect on costs and patient benefits. As they are a closed system and highly computerized, they have the ability to conduct relatively fast studies with high statistical significance.

The Open Notes projects is run by Tom Delbanco, MD and Jan Walker, RN, MBA. Both are on the faculty at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. They have been working on Open Notes since 2008 and have received funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, among others.

Now we need someone to take on the problem of corporate data silos in healthcare IT.

Takeaways: Even small ideas can have large effects. A side benefit is that small ideas are easier to explain. If you are having trouble finding angel or VC investors for your startup, consider “venture philanthropy.” There are many foundations that might consider a grant if it even tangentially helps achieve one of their goals. Not sure if you have a valid business model? This team charged ahead with grant funding and now has powerful evidence that they might have a solution to a very big healthcare problem.

Read more: You Can Now Find Out What Your Doctor Is Writing Down In That File | Co.Exist: World changing ideas and innovation.

Healthcare’s interoperability problem isn’t about technology | MedCity News

So the crux of this problem is that hospitals/institutions/clinicians think they “own” patient data. If we in America ever want to achieve the significant potential savings that could be realized through application of various forms of information technology to the healthcare system, the mindset will have to change. The patient owns his/her patient data.

Big Data, the catchphrase to indicate that every click on the Internet is captured, aggregated, and analyzed, is already in wide use by all sorts of consumer companies, large and small. It works – to reduce costs, to fine tune marketing messages, and to enable highly specific targeting of a company’s best prospects. It works because – except for “walled gardens” like Facebook – the data generated by Internet users is freely available for anyone to use.

There is no reason to think that Big Data won’t work equally well in healthcare. The problem is that healthcare data resides in an enormous number of well-insulated silos. Very few of the silos share anything, even sometimes within an institution.

Consider a patient with several doctors – a primary care physician, a cardiologist, and an endocrinologist. It’s very possible that the three doctors cannot access their patient’s records from their colleagues without special requests and permissions. Sure, they may get test results and written summaries of procedures but the minutiae where much actionable data is hidden is kept locked up in proprietary systems.

Consider a healthcare IT startup that needs (anonymized) patient data to validate its offering and to demonstrate its claimed benefits. It must cut deals with a number of providers to access the data. This takes time and costs money, two things not in abundance at most startups. And yet investors and customers demand proof of beneficial economic outcomes before investing or buying. A classic catch-22 situation.

Yet another example is a medical software startup (now defunct) where I once worked. They developed a terrific 3D image viewer that could run on low-end PCs, tablets, and laptops. At the time, 3D image viewing and manipulation was limited to high end workstations costing tens of thousands of dollars. The company had to negotiate deals with every hospital’s PACS administrator and vendor (there were many) and then write specific software to access the PACS servers. This was not a sustainable business model and the company went broke.

The CEO of HIMSS (Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society) acknowledges the problem. He doesn’t have a ready solution, however but he admits that part of the problem is the way our system reimburses providers for tests and procedures and not for health improvements. He does hint that Medicare will be changing its reimbursement structure over time and that private insurers are sure to follow.

Takeaways: The two buzzwords in this segment are interoperability and portability. It seems to me that an industry standard could be written enabling two-way access to any appropriately anonymized data. In addition, electronic medical records need standards so that users wanting to switch to a different vendor are not held hostage by high switching costs caused by the need to remap data fields, etc. In the modern day Gold Rush of companies looking to make fortunes in healthcare IT, perhaps there is another Levi’s looking to profit by selling shovels and overalls to the miners.

Read more: Healthcare’s interoperability problem isn’t about technology: A Q&A with HIMSS CEO | MedCity News.