Kjetil Marius Istad

Mr. Istad is the Director of procurement and logistics in Helse Sør-Øst RHF, the largest Regional Health Authority in Norway with a purchasing budget of € 2 billion.

Mr. Istad has 10 years of experience from different executive positions, with focus on procurement, logistics and finance, at different Health Trusts. He also has experience from the consulting industry as part of Deloitte consulting, working on various national and international procurement and logistics projects. 

This blog is part 3 of a series on the MEAT value-based procurement project, an initiative that advocates towards a shift from price-based procurement of medical technology towards value-based procurement. It does so by defining a Most Economically Advantageous Tendering (MEAT) framework that includes the value of medical technologies, services and solutions in procurement processes across Europe. Read part 1 and part 2 . If you would like to contribute please contact the MedTech Views editorial team at info@medtechviews.eu . As a public procurement professional, I have witnessed some welcome changes in how we select products for the public health service. However, to maximise the value we get from public spending, we must accelerate this shift in approach. It is futile to talk about innovation and change in the public sector without rethinking procurement. Leaders in the field of procurement must stand up and embrace change in our own processes, in how we approach the market – and in how we think . We need to put more focus on the effect of what we purchase rather than the cost of the items themselves – instead of buying inputs we should focus on buying outcomes. In Norway, we have an agreement with the medtech industry which allows us to test equipment as part of the tender process. This gives us an opportunity to see whether the product solves our problem and to observe how users – doctors, nurses and sometimes patients – view it. For example, when we ran a tender to purchase intravenous (IV) catheters we gave health professionals a chance to use it and sought feedback from patients. During this two-month testing period, we found that the cheapest catheter was not as sharp or flexible as the competing product, and health professionals often needed to try more than...