🔥 Find me at MedicalDevicesGroup.net 🔥
5 min reading time
Every medical device promises “Improved Patient Outcomes.” That is, except commodities and less expensive devices claiming parity with the incumbent solutions.
Buried under 8 inches of snow – they consider this a State of Emergency in Seattle – and there’s my Lucas is laughing at my futile attempt to get out of the driveway…
… my idle mind thought, “If each innovation improves patient outcomes, how does the value analysis committee (the provider) and insurance company (payer) decide which “improvement” is worth it?”
I mean, they can’t chase every improvement. Doesn’t it come down to which one saves the most money?
So I asked smarter grown ups.
Gunter Wessels, Beth Brooks, and Nic Anderson (Nic’s teaching a workshop at 10x in May) are my go-to experts on reimbursement and health economics.
This is what they said.
Beth Brooks, PhD • EVP, Global Commercialization Services •
Meet your next client here. Join our medical devices group community.
In addition to the immediate cost outcomes, we need to emphasize the long-term health benefits for increased community integration, reduced depression, reduced chronic care costs, reduced costs for healthier individuals - colds, influenza, pneumonia, falls, [Immobile elderly people often suffer from a number of diseases which worsen their mobility. Arthritis, osteoporosis, hip fracture, stroke and Parkinson's disease are among the most common causes of immobility ] and depression-related issues [Increased aches and pains, which occur in about two out of three people with depression; Chronic fatigue; Decreased interest in sex; Decreased appetite; Insomnia, lack of deep sleep, or oversleeping].
Marked as spam
Good insight, David. Thank you for the comment.
Marked as spam
Please log in to post questions.