[bsenftner]

I experienced this somewhat when consulting for a medical device startup. They'd developed a modular system supporting Laparoscopic procedures, reducing hands during surgery, which equated to significant safety increases as well as cost reductions. However, their big issue continues to be navigating the procurement process at hospitals, which is akin to requiring a full time lobbyist per hospital for the duration of that hospital's adoption of their system: 2-3 years, after getting them to actually try the system, which often requires 18 months of demos, trials, and negotiations.

Our technologies we, geeks, develop are going to have a very hard time revolutionizing the medical industry. The big players have closed the door behind them in a major way.

[johngalt]

You're selling to the wrong party. Don't sell it to the hospitals, sell it to the insurance companies.

Hospitals will be thinking

1. "will insurance claims be rejected for non-standard treatment?"

2. "If something goes wrong with my malpractice insurance cover it?"

Even if everything goes correctly, and procedures are better/faster/cheaper the insurance companies will just lower the amount they pay. The hospital doesn't have a lot to gain here.

Conversely if an insurance company hears about a new better/faster/cheaper treatment suddenly that's they only thing they will pay for and the company selling that treament makes a mint, with hospitals knocking down their door.

[rsheridan6]

I'm not so sure about the insurance companies. I am a pharmacist and I see insurance companies insist on paying for expensive things and declining to pay for cheap things all the time. For example, they won't pay for cheap Relion brand syringes, but they will pay for BD syringes (BD is the bad guy in the linked article), which cost much more. I'm not sure about the reasoning behind this, but I'll bet it's sordid and corrupt.