You are looking for

Ever since the end of WWII, the reigning clinical philosophy was one whereby there was no limit on medical treatment. From the 80s onwards, this philosophy shifted towards a more balanced approach whereby the benefit of the treatment had to outweigh the potential risks associated with it, with evidence-based medicine being the concept used to assess a new treatment.

Too often we, as stakeholders in health, forget about whom we are talking when we say “patients.” We talk as if the patient is somewhere far away from our discussions rather than the person with whom, about whom and for whom we are having those discussions. In reality, we are all patients – for some it’s just once a year and for others it’s every day of the year. But it’s important to remember that health policy should, theoretically, benefit all of us when it is our turn to receive healthcare – no matter what that care is.

Medical device manufacturers routinely design products that, even a few short years ago, were the stuff of science fiction. And let’s not even mention the amazing research underway today that will animate tomorrow’s medical products, from Tricorder-like devices performing on-the-spot diagnostics to 3-D printers producing replacement body parts. But there’s a problem: money. To succeed in today’s marketplace, medical device original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) must take into account funding and reimbursement pathways, the critical role that health technology assessment (HTA) can play, and other factors that may have little to nothing to do with how well or how safely a device performs its intended task.

Not too long ago, I was invited to a friend’s 40th birthday party. As many other guests I came up with my best wishes and cheers stressing the benefits of getting “settled, mature, wise, stable, change-resistant and risk and-averse…” That was then, but it did make me think when today I was once again reading through the WHO report “Health Technology Assessment of Medical Devices” how ambiguous this whole age perception is.

I’m fascinated by organisations. In particular, I’m in intrigued by the way some organisations succeed at their chosen task whilst others fail. There are, of course, lots of explanations for what separates “the wheat from the chaff”, as we English say. Some academics say it is the firms’ capabilities and resources, others their culture, still others put it down to leadership. But all of these are what one might call “static” explanations.

Sitting on the tram this morning, flicking through my e-mails and preparing for the busy day ahead, I began to muse on the incredible impact that information technology has had on my life. Doing this sort of communication was inconceivable even when I had my first management role. My own personal secretary was highly skilled […]

The blogosphere has been driven into a foment over the last week or so by a paper by Groeneveld et al entitled ‘Increasing Use of Cardiovascular Devices and Rising Health Costs’. Its conclusions are interesting but, I suggest, not conclusive of anything which should prompt policy makers to ask further questions. Discounted for inflation the […]

The prominence of World Kidney Day (11th March) brings into sharp focus the changing epidemiology of our times and the impact of modern life styles of the developed world on the demands placed on healthcare systems. The surge in incidence of diabetes coupled with extending life expectancy are producing a parallel rise in the incidence […]

Is innovation still affordable with increasingly strained healthcare budgets? How can medical innovations continued to be financed? Panelist of the round table of distinguished speakers Member of the European Parliament Jorgo Chatzimarkakis made a statement which nicely complements the study released by AdvaMed only 2 days ago. He said that innovation does not increase costs […]