Hips and knees: Consumers Union calls for no-cost revision warranties | MassDevice

Adding patient warranties to hip and knee implants would be a disruptive move if it’s ever offered…or mandated.

guaranteed

Implants are Big Business. The article states that there were 1.2 million hip and knee surgeries in the U.S. in 2011. That number is expected to increase to 4 million by 2030 as the last of the Baby Boomers ages into their golden years. Half of those surgeries, however, will be in patients under 65.

Of course, a major challenge in orthopedic implants is making them and implanting them so they last the life of the patient. With many people living well into their 80s and 90s today, an implant may be expected to last 25-30 years.  Revision surgery is messy and expensive. Patients are not happy about having to undergo implant surgery for a second time just because they outlived the first implant. And the risks of implant surgery increase as patients age.

Since implants are a fraction of the cost of joint surgery (a substantial fraction, but a fraction nonetheless), offering a warranty on the entire revision surgery would be a huge financial liability for the medical device manufacturers and unlikely to happen unless compelled by law. Of course, there are other big players involved, namely Medicare. Since most of the implant failures occur in older patients, Medicare foots almost all of the bill.

As we get deeper into healthcare reform and start to have fact-based discussions about costs vs.outcomes (one can hope, right?), issues like this should surface for policymakers to address. Why should a medical device company benefit from an inferior design by being paid for a second implant? What about surgeons and hospitals – if the implant is installed incorrectly, shouldn’t the surgeon and hospital bear some of the cost of fixing it, even if it’s ten or fifteen years later?

In my opinion, perfecting the design of hip and knee implants is a high stakes strategy. The first company to succeed in deploying a “lifetime” implant will start to gain market share at the expense of its competitors. Perhaps it will evolve a business case that enables it to offer the revision warranty. In that event, the market share gains will accelerate and weaker companies will disappear or be absorbed by the stronger.

I would bet that there are many biomedical engineers and researchers feverishly working on this challenge right now.

Takeaways: While in many ways we are in the golden age of medical devices, major changes are on the horizon. Things like lifetime costs and outcomes-based decision making are getting more attention every day. Advocacy groups like AARP and Consumers Union are becoming more vocal and more active. Government agencies are more involved than ever and there’s no end in sight. You should be prepared as the old ways are ending. Not for much longer can you count on selling a device by persuading a physician to demand it and then being able to bank on that revenue stream for years. Data – lots of it, and exhaustively analyzed – will be the most persuasive way to sell and to affect policy.

Read more: Hips and knees: Consumers Union calls for no-cost revision warranties | MassDevice.

Top 10 Pitfalls of a 510(k) Submission and How to Avoid Them | MDDI Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry

The FDA marketing clearance process (never “approval” for a class II or 510(k) device) can be maddeningly ambiguous, time-consuming, expensive, and risky if conducted incorrectly. There are, however, many companies that have a straightforward and relatively easy pre-market notification process. This article in MDDI lists a number of dos and don’ts to help you and your company end up in the latter category.

“Top Ten Pitfalls:”

  1. Misconceptions about 510(k)’s goals. 
  2. Not knowing the regulatory history of your product in the United States.
  3. Choosing the wrong comparison (predicate) device. 
  4. Choosing a predicate that is not available to test. 
  5. Choosing a predicate that is not available in the U.S.
  6. Not understanding (or being able to find) appropriate guidance.
  7. Not starting validation testing.
  8. Errors and inconsistencies in the 510(k). 
  9. Inattention to FDA’s instructions. 
  10. Missing and incomplete forms. 

My experience is that many people new to the 510(k) process misunderstand the FDA’s goals and role in the 510(k) process:

In the 510(k) review process, devices that meet eligibility requirements are “cleared” as opposed to being “approved” by FDA…The requirements and expectations for a properly completed 510(k) have evolved along with medical technology.

…the documentation must show that the device is “substantially equivalent” to a previously cleared (predicate) device. The device needs to have the same intended use and technical characteristics [as the predicate, but not necessarily the same technology]…The reviewers will also want to see data substantiating that the device’s performance, safety, and effectiveness are equivalent to the predicate.

Here are some of my own recommendations for avoiding FDA pitfalls:

  • Hire a regulatory professional, either a consultant or an FTE. Give special consideration to the regulatory professional’s experience and field of expertise. You want someone who has extensive experience with products in the same regulatory classification and preferably the same medical specialty as your products. If you can’t afford to have the regulatory person manage the entire 510(k) process, negotiate to have them help you with planning and to review all part of the submission as well as any communications with FDA.
  • Don’t second guess or micro-manage the regulatory professional. You should ask questions and have discussions, intense and challenging if necessary, about schedule, budget, indications, predicate device selection, test requirements and plan, clinical study requirements and plan, and so on. Once you have a recommendation, proceed. Trying to force an answer that is satisfactory to you will almost inevitably result in delays and increased expenses. If you find that you are spending a lot of time questioning your regulatory professional’s decisions, it’s probably not a good fit and you should find a new regulatory person.
  • Do not second guess the FDA and do not ignore their questions or recommendations. Also, do not assume that you can rely 100% on their answers to your questions. The FDA will always tell you that their guidance is not a legal opinion and is not binding. As the saying goes, “you pays your money and you takes your chance.”
  • On the other hand, don’t be afraid to ask questions of the FDA. This is particularly true if you fall into the “small manufacturer” category. You can get extra help free of charge from FDA staffers. Once again, however, do not rely exclusively on this guidance.
  • If you are concerned about risk, timing, and/or expense, consider launching your product in another market first. You can generate much-needed cash flow and perhaps even obtain clinical data for your 510(k) submission in places like the EU or a country in South America.

Takeaways: Regulatory submissions and clearances are among the most important milestones in commercializing a medical device. It would be foolish to leave this important function to amateurs or to ignore important recommendations and guidance.

If you are a medical device startup CEO, marketing manager, or product manager and especially if you are without much regulatory experience, be sure to budget for and recruit a highly regarded regulatory professional with experience and expertise in your market and your regulatory classification. The regulatory clearance process is complicated and can be daunting to novices but it can be successfully navigated by engaging experts and by learning and following the rules.

Read more: Top 10 Pitfalls of a 510(k) Submission and How to Avoid Them | MDDI Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry News Products and Suppliers.

What’s in a name? Naming and branding medical device products and companies

rose

We’ve all been there – needing a name for a new product or even more importantly, a new company. There are a number of schools of thought about naming. For example:

 

 

  • Name it for the doctor who invented/founded it. (covert endorsement or the medtech equivalent of vanity plates)
  • Just pick something generic and get it out there (Wile E. Coyote’s Acme Products company)
  • Smash two words together with a capital or two in the middle. (“CamelType”)
  • Make an implied promise with the name. (Intuitive Surgical, da Vinci)
  • Make up a serious sounding, semi-scientific name. Make sure it has a trendy consonant in it or is loosely based on some obscure Latin word. (the Immunex factor)
  • Let the engineers name it. (any number of unmemorable names)
  • Pay a naming/branding consultant a lot of money only to find out the .com URL is taken.
  • Convene a cross-functional branding brainstorming team to identify alternatives, then: a) have an all-employee company vote or (less likely to have long-term negative repercussions) b) let the CEO pick his/her favorite.
  • Use the code name of the development project. (more often than you would think)

It’s extra difficult in the medical device space, especially if you are in a “hot” segment like digital health. There are lots of other companies casting about in the same pool of potential names and with the same requirements that you have. And, ours being a Serious Industry, I doubt that we will see the medical device equivalent of “Cheezburger Network” in the near future.

Takeaways: Naming and branding is a lot like coming up with the perfect name for your first child. You put enormous thought and effort into finding the perfect name, perhaps even creating a unique name just for your offspring. You obsess over what message the name will send and how your child will be perceived, perhaps for the next century. Big stakes, I know.

The reality is that most kids make their names fit them. Most people use the name as an association to the child and the child’s personality rather than the other way around.

The same  holds true for product and company names (as long as you stay away from the really outlandish stuff). Pick a name without endless consideration of the implications. Then, spend your time and effort making the company and product fill the promise of the name to reinforce positive experiences with the brand by customers and other stakeholders. Soon, the actual meaning of the brand or product name will fade and be replaced by the (it is to be hoped) positive attitudes toward the product/brand.

It’s also helpful if, in addition to not being similar to another company or product in the same segment, the name or brand doesn’t require a lengthy explanation about what it means or how it came to be. Just think back to an acquaintance who insisted on telling you the derivation of the name of their son or daughter.

Here are a few examples about names of companies in digital health. I’m sure all of the people responsible for naming these companies had great intentions and thought their names would stand out. Unfortunately, at least one other person in another company had the same expectation and created a confusingly similar name:

Read more: The apparent shortage of digital health names | mobihealthnews.

Countries With Most (and least) Efficient Health Care: | Bloomberg

Care to guess how the USA ranks in healthcare against its peers?

The U.S. spends the most on health care as a percentage of GDP with the worst outcome compared with other developed countries.

We ranked 46th out of 48 countries in this study. The U.S. spends $8,608 per capita on healthcare while the top rated country, Hong Kong, spends just $1,409. Hong Kong also has the highest life expectancy at 83.4 years while the U.S. is in the middle of the pack at 78.6 years.

Each country was ranked on three criteria: life expectancy (weighted 60%), relative per capita cost of health care (30%); and absolute per capita cost of health care (10%). Countries were scored on each criterion and the scores were weighted and summed to obtain their efficiency scores. Relative cost is health cost as a percentage of GDP. Absolute cost is total health expenditure, which covers preventive and curative health services, family planning, nutrition activities and emergency aid. Included were countries with populations of at least five million, GDP per capita of at least $5,000 and life expectancy of at least 70 years.

If you object to Hong Kong being classified as a country, the next five highest ranking countries are Singapore, Israel, Japan, Spain, and Italy. The highest per capita annual healthcare expense in this group is in Japan, at $3,958 – less than half that of the U.S. Average life expectancies in these countries range from 81.8 to 82.6.

We are spending more and getting less than just about any other country in the world. When I hear people like politicians and business leaders say, “We have the best healthcare system in the world,” I wonder if they don’t have access to these facts, if they are speaking about the excellent care available to the privileged few with excellent healthcare benefits, or if they are in denial about the reality of our situation.

Takeaways: There are lots of opportunities (i.e., problems that need solving) when it comes to healthcare economics in the U.S. The media should reports facts like this Bloomberg article and call out politicians who crow that “we have the best…” We need big solutions to solve this big problem. Perhaps we can learn by modeling best practices from other countries. If you (or whomever) doesn’t like Obamacare (a modest first step), what’s your proposed solution? It’s pretty clear that continuing the policies of the past 70 years will not result in positive change.

You can point fingers in lots of different places: defensive medicine, intervention-based reimbursement, poor diet and lifestyles of Americans, medical procedure pricing opacity, outrageous compensation for hospital and medical insurer CEOs, Medicare restrictions on drug price negotiating, direct-to-consumer drug marketing, overbuilding of hospitals, and on and on. Medical device overuse and misuse is part of the problem as well, although the entire industry is “only” 6% of total healthcare expenditures.

The Affordable Care Act, although flawed, is at least a first attempt to address some of these issues. Early reports indicate that it may be having positive effects already.

Read more: Most Efficient Health Care: Countries – Bloomberg Best (and Worst).

Digital health needs more physician entrepreneurs | mobihealthnews

Are you aware of the Society of Physician Entrepreneurs (SOPE)? I was not. The CEO of SOPE, Dr. Arlen D. Meyers, a practicing ENT surgeon, says that doctors are not trained in business while in medical school or residency. That has certainly been my experience.

While many physicians have an entrepreneurial mindset, only a few I’ve met and worked with have business skills that would enable them to start and/or run a company. Some are just natural entrepreneurs although I think there are far more who believe they have business acumen but don’t have any or don’t have much business savvy. Those doctors are the toughest to work with as a medical device commercialization executive.

To address part of the problem, Dr. Meyers has created a certificate program in bioinnovation and entrepreneurship at the University of Colorado. The program is intended for postdoctoral students not interested in a career in academia.

Dr. Meyers also said, “most innovation in healthcare and medicine leaves out doctors and patients, particularly in the lucrative fields of drug and medical device development.” I’m not sure exactly what he’s driving at here. Most device companies, startups included, are happy to work with innovators or key opinion leader physicians to help create, develop, refine, and commercialize new products. They are well-compensated for commercial successes, much less so for market flops, of course. And patients are a necessary part of the process.

Medical device commercialization is not for amateurs and it’s not a part-time gig. Most physicians are incredibly busy people. It seems to me their natural role in a startup or on a new product development project in a larger company is to serve as a clinical/healthcare system resource, product endorser, and source of referrals. Of course, they are free to try their hand at business and create their own startups.

Dr. Meyers also points out that the burgeoning digital health segment is underrepresented by physicians. That may be because the technology, networking, and systems interoperability dimensions of digital health solutions and products tend to be far outside most physicians’ areas of expertise. However, there are multiple opportunities for doctors to innovate. For example, their detailed knowledge of the healthcare delivery system may have given them specific ideas about how to improve patient care delivery with apps. He also believes that non-face to face care using telehealth or digital health products and apps is going to be a substantial opportunity for entrepreneurs, whether physician or layman. Any of those ideas could be the basis of a digital health startup.

Takeaways: Medical device and digital health startups, even with their high failure rates, are attractive to at least some physicians – those with entrepreneurial mindsets. Startup founders and CEOs should identify and recruit like-minded doctors for their executive teams, boards of directors and advisory boards. If you are a digital health startup CEO with a tech/IT background, you can minimize the risk of making bad or just uninformed product decisions and enhance your commercial products by finding and engaging with an entrepreneurial physician.

Read more: Digital health needs more physician entrepreneurs | mobihealthnews.

Presence of sales reps influences coronary stent selection, price | MassDevice

As the saying goes, “that’s why they get paid the big bucks.” All kidding aside, a recent study published in the American Heart Journal confirms and quantifies what most industry insiders know intuitively: there is no substitute for a live salesperson at the point of use.

sales repMany cardiac catheterization (“cath”) labs either stock or make available more than one brand and more than one type of coronary stent. Since there are many different indications and technical features among the various offerings, it’s difficult for hospitals to standardize on just one brand. So instead of “converting” a physician or a hospital to permanent purchase of the company’s products, the sales rep gets to convert each case she or he attends.

Hospitals and physicians are aware of the influence a rep can have over the selection process. Many limit rep visit frequency in an attempt to be “fair.” Another factor is that some reps are technically and clinically more competent than others. They perform a genuinely valuable service for the physician by reviewing diagnostic information and making informed recommendations about the ideal product for the clinical situation.

On a darker note, some reps (and some companies reinforce these behaviors) have personal relationships with physicians, complicating the goal of unbiased product selection.

Some hospitals have even banned certain sales reps or even instituted blanket bans of every sales person from point of use contacts.

The study reported that the presence of a sales rep increased the per-case price of stenting by up to $230. One investigator also said that the company’s market share was increased by the rep’s presence, meaning that the physician used that rep’s company’s products over the equivalent competitive product. This choice occurred apparently because the rep was present and able to inform and/or persuade the cardiologist to use the rep’s products.

Some cocktail napkin math: say a typical rep makes $150k per year in cash compensation. That’s about $3,000 per week or $600 per day.  It doesn’t take many cases per day selling high margin stents to pay the rep’s salary and make a tidy profit for the company. And that’s why successful reps will do everything they can to spend the day in scrubs instead of a business suit.

Takeaways: While good sales reps are costly and rare, and a direct sales force is insanely expensive, you get what you pay for. Of course there are other options such as manufacturers’ reps, distributors, telesales, and partnering/sales force sharing. In all of those alternative approaches, you give up control and access compared with the direct sales rep model.

The key in marketing and selling high value, high price, high margin products is to recruit, hire, and maintain the highest quality sales force possible and to design an incentive compensation program that encourages desired behavior while dissuading undesirable behavior. Easier said than done, and probably merits the hiring of an experienced sales executive to create and manage the sale team.

Keep in mind that sales reps pay for themselves more directly than any other employee. Budget appropriately if you decide that a direct sales force is right for your venture. Plan for longer sales cycles and reduced market share if you decide that direct sales is a luxury your company or startup cannot afford.

Read more: Study: Presence of sales reps influences coronary stent selection, price | MassDevice.