[rscale]

This caught my eye:

Kaiser spokesman Jim Anderson argues that if Shaw’s products didn’t make their way to hospitals it was because of “significant supply issues” on Retractable’s end. He also says they were prone to malfunction and that, in several cases, needles detached and were left “stuck in the arms of patients.”

I'm doubtful that a Kaiser spokesman would fabricate these problems, which leads me to believe that perhaps this reporting isn't as balanced as it could be. Maybe these needles are great, but perhaps there are two problems here, one being a competitor with a lot of control over the customers, and a second being problems with supply chain and quality control.

[enko]

>I'm doubtful that a Kaiser spokesman would fabricate these problems

I'd also be surprised if what was said didn't turn out to be technically true, but that's not really the point, which is to spread FUD. Raising vague, out-of-context allegations is a time honoured mudslinging technique and I hate to see it accepted without question.

> “significant supply issues” on Retractable’s end

Out of context this is meaningless. What is a significant supply issue? It could be anything and everything, including this guy not liking the colour of the packaging or any other triviality.

It sounds odd to me that a company with $42MM in funding and desperately trying to move its products for over a decade would have anything other than a gross oversupply.

> prone to malfunction and that, in several cases, needles detached and were left “stuck in the arms of patients.”

This statement would be technically true even if the product in question was less prone to malfunction and needle breakage than the incumbent product! Without any sort of context, however, it is at best ambiguous and at worst quite possibly deceptive.

It's very possible to deceive and mislead without ever actually telling a lie.

[HorizonXP]

"After months of trial and error, Shaw hit on the idea of surrounding the tip of the syringe with six petal-like flanges, which could flare open to make way for the catheter port. Unlike some of the solutions floated by big medical device makers, such as coating the ports with silver, Shaw’s innovation added only a few pennies to the cost of production. And it seemed to be remarkably effective: a 2007 clinical study funded by Shaw’s company and conducted by the independent SGS Laboratories found the device prevented germs from being transferred to catheters nearly 100 percent of the time. "

As someone who is trying to finish his Master's thesis relating to prostate cancer, claims like this make me cringe. It's like paying a marketing group to conduct a survey for you. Of course the results will be positive.

I didn't read the whole article since it's pretty long, but I bookmarked it for later. But this guy managed to burn through $42 million dollars and still hasn't achieved wide adoption?

If this was really about getting his superior technology to market, he would attempt to strike a licensing deal with these companies instead of trying to supplant them.

Fact is, many people in medical device and healthcare industry claim to be conducting research and ground-breaking work in the name of making people's lives better. But in reality, they're looking to get rich off of it. I respect that, but at a certain point, you need to decide what's more important: your personal profits, or the lives of the people you claim to be dying from this issue.

The guy who invented/discovered/extracted insulin didn't patent it/the process, even though he could've made tons of money. Again, if you want to make money, I respect that. But in that case, don't go whining about lives being lost.

I wish this guy luck, because it sounds like he has something new and novel. He just needs to realize that he has to pivot, not persevere.

[ilkandi]

When the Dyson was invented, the bag-vacuum incumbents wanted to licence his technnology and shelve it. He had to go solo to "bring his superior technology to market". What's wrong with trying to get rich on a product? And using the profits as seed money to bring more useful things to market?

[wisty]

On the other hand, here's another quote from the article:

"Without a GPO contract, it doesn’t matter how good your product is. Even if I could wave this wand over your body and cure you from cancer, chances are I couldn’t sell it to hospitals"

The core problem is, big manufacturers offer discounts (or bigger kickbacks) for bundling. A niche product is unlikely to succeed, even if it's obviously better. A product that has pros and cons is not going to have a chance.

Also, I'd imagine that a detached needle could be a greater legal liability than an infection. It's easy to prove that a needle detached in a patients arm. It's a lot harder to prove that an infection was caused by a needle without safeguards. "First, do absolutely no harm for which you can be sued for" is not a great creed, but it's one some hospitals will follow.

If you're a supplier, perhaps you're best shot is to license to a big manufacturer, to break in, even if you're capable of producing and marketing your product; because you'll be locked out of the supply stream if you go it alone. That's a pretty sad state of affairs.

[ilkandi]

You may be accepting the Kaiser rep's FUD. The quote doesn't say, "these needles break, and BD's don't", or even "these break more than regular needles".

[chaostheory]

"The core problem is, big manufacturers offer discounts (or bigger kickbacks) for bundling. "

Yeah someone can correct me, but to add to the point: hospitals have razor thin margins. If I remember correctly, it's 10% or less.

[gusfoo]

10% is hardly "razor thin", it's quite respectable in a lot of industries.

[dan_yall]

Try 3%.

[pascalchristian]

As a doctor and health-tech startup founder (although not based in the US), I can confirm that this reporting is bullshit.

First of all healthcare is a very conservative space. Unless your product demonstrate a truly significant progress, nobody will give an eye at you. The decision making progress is very slow and very conservative. So even without the big medical supply corp, Shaw might never had a chance anyway.

"And it seemed to be remarkably effective: a 2007 clinical study funded by Shaw’s company and conducted by the independent SGS Laboratories found the device prevented germs from being transferred to catheters nearly 100 percent of the time"

Cigarette companies have sponsored plenty of "independent" studies that shows that cigarettes are not detrimental and even healthy. So take that with a grain of salt.

"But Shaw still isn’t any closer to breaking into the hospital market, and in the meantime the life on his patents is dwindling."

Really? Patients losing their life over some IV caps?? IV caps are always going to be more prone to infection when compared to needles (since well, those caps are stuck in there for weeks while needles are disposable), but nurses are trained to look at sign of infections ASAP.

[narkee]

FYI, that last line says "patents", not "patients".

[pdeuchler]

"BD had released its own safety syringes some years earlier. But the ECRI Institute, the Consumer Reports of the health care industry, had rated its best-selling model 'unacceptable' (it was later upgraded to 'not recommended'), whereas Shaw’s product received the top rating."

<anecdotal evidence> I have a doctor and a nurse in my extended family that deal with Kaiser on a daily basis and I've heard horror stories that would make a battle hardened marine cringe. One that immediately comes to mind was a patient that literally died while waiting for some kind of approval (it's been a while since I've visited) from Kaiser for a kidney transplant. </anecdotal evidence>

[d503]

Kaiser actually shut down their kidney transplant program in 2006 [1] after a number of problems came to light. The state regulator prepared a 50 page report on the matter [2]. Incidentally--and I have no personal experience with Kaiser or any other HMO and can't tell how close to reality this is--Kaiser (in California at least) does pretty well in government quality of care performance measurements and overall member ratings [3], and they are also Consumer Reports's top ranked California HMO.

[1] http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/13/... [2] http://www.dmhc.ca.gov/library/reports/med_survey/surveys/05... [3] http://www.opa.ca.gov/report_card/hmorating.aspx

[DanBC]

> leads me to believe that perhaps this reporting isn't as balanced as it could be.

That's probably a valid point. Media loves a little guy against huge industry story.

> in several cases, needles detached and were left “stuck in the arms of patients.”

More data needed to make any assessment. We need to compare failure rates of the retractable device with existing devices. We also need to adjust for the skill level of the people using the devices. There's probably an adjustment needed for the patients too.

[tomp]

> I'm doubtful that a Kaiser spokesman would fabricate these problems,

Why?

[debacle]

Because that's defamation.

[raganwald]

This is a kind of Ad Hominem Circumstantial, turned inside-out. Sometimes we slam someone’s statement by pointing out their self-interest. This is supporting their statement by pointing out their self-interest, but it has essentially the same form.

Either way, it is not a direct argument with the statement.

[jeremyarussell]

Only if they can prove the Kaiser spokesperson was lying.

[oconnore]

Do you have any evidence to support them being especially ethical, or is this just a gut reaction?

The facts are that we don't have enough facts, we have an unsubstantiated accusation that should be treated as such.

[debacle]

Countering an unsubstantiated accusation with another unsubstantiated accusation isn't going to get us anywhere.

It's not about being ethical. It's about exposing yourself to liability.

[oconnore]

Where, exactly, did I make any accusation at all?

I said we don't have enough evidence to make meaningful claims, which I still hold to be true.