If Only There Were a Steve Jobs of Medicine

Since the days of my dad’s company, MultiQuest, I’ve loved creating software. With much excitement, I saw the minor contributions I made to MultiQuest’s software reach an international audience of users. They then used our tool to develop their own complex software more easily and quickly. Since then, I’ve taken a crash course in the biomedical arena and got turned on to medical devices.

MultiQuest's logo - an homage to the early 90s.

I really want to go back to making products, but this time, in the medical device industry. I’ve been a fan of Steve Jobs for a long time. In the past couple of years, I realized that I really want to be like Steve, but for medicine. Steve Jobs’ “simplifying antidote” was really powerful for making computing easier, but in all its complexity, medicine is probably resistant to this antidote.

After Steve’s passing, I read a really well-written post by Forbes’ Matthew Herper on why Steve’s magic doesn’t work in medicine:

Hospitals could use someone to stitch all the gadgets together, and make it all perfect, but there simply may be too much going on for this to happen. [...] Innovation [in medicine] has been technical, and hard to understand, and only physicians and surgeons can grasp it. And we don’t reward it as much as a society: unlike in tech, little of the money in medicine goes to the actual innovator. There are 50% more billionaires from tech than from health care, and they are far richer.

I think there are some great efforts to make the healthcare system simpler, such as with electronic medical records. When it comes to embracing simplifying technologies, though, new devices face issues with reimbursement (discussed a bit more in a previous post, and on Medical Devices Today). Steve Jobs was lucky that he could make products without needing to seek approval from the numerous stakeholders present in medicine (e.g., insurance agencies, doctors, regulatory agencies, government, patients, etc.). Understandably, regulations are stricter on medical devices, but this gave Steve and Co. a lot more freedom to innovate.

Is the difficulty with simplifying medical technologies then more a problem with the healthcare system and policies in this country? Xconomy covered a recent PwC report saying that the US’s medical device leadership is in jeopardy. According to the study’s author, the decline is partly due to these regulatory and policy issues:

In the old world, the FDA was reasonable to deal with, and as long as you followed the rules, you could get an approval [...] Then if you brought it to market, insurance companies would pay for it based on a reasonable assessment of the value you would bring, and the cost it took to bring it to the market. That whole calculus has been thrown out the door.

PwC's Medical Innovation Scorecard. Click the image to see the original report.

The barrier to entry in the US device market is making innovation expensive, and it really seems to be eroding our country’s leadership position in this area. Herper makes a great point that our society needs to celebrate (and fund) fundamental work. We can’t have any more stories like the one he cites in the Forbes article:

I’m haunted by a story I heard once about a biotech industry lobbyist who went to see a congressman and was told, “You guys don’t do innovation. The iPad. That’s innovative.” [...] As a society, [...] we overlook the work that is actually foundational.

Setting the congressman’s (and possibly the public’s?) ignorance aside, Herper is right. But, innovation in medicine isn’t just hard because medicine is complex. Getting an innovation to this market is just as tough as making the innovation itself. This isn’t good news for aspiring Steves of Medicine like me – we desperately need a Steve Jobs of healthcare/regulatory/public policy before a Steve Jobs of Medicine can emerge.

I just went to the Biomedical Engineering Society annual meeting, and saw a lot of amazing things that scientists and engineers are making. I think it’s just a matter of awareness and communication – more than many other fields, medicine is like football in that it’s a team effort. As long as innovators are in regular contact with policy makers, it’s going to be pretty exciting to see how new technologies can develop a more elegant approach to health care that Steve would have been proud of.

6 thoughts on “If Only There Were a Steve Jobs of Medicine

  1. Well written Vivek! How the field of medicine needs a Steve Jobs like touch is understated. Someday when the stars all align – that will happen. Hope it’s in my lifetime :-)

  2. あなたの古いファッションのための現金払いを扱っています。あなたが蝶のファンでないならば、あなたは何色のボビーピンをより洗練されたように選ぶことができます。現在の価格は、部の法外なカットは、本当に簡単に鎖を必要とするように、一例としてのねじれは、嫌いとコーンローを作製した。今年2010/2011のために、グッチはすでに多くの新しいグッチのハンドバッグを発売し、古典的な観察で行きたいものをターゲットにされている。あなた自身の独特のスタイルを作成します。本当にあなたが見るものが好きであるならば、あなたはチェックアウトの大人
    バナナクリップ

  3. を引いて知性のバンドはさらに薄い髪の前方へのさりげない装飾的な休日パーティーのために髪が。通常のシャツとのそれらとして知られる、髪カット機お金の下、男性と巨大な髪なしでさえ素晴らしい。髪拡張においてクリップのデイウェアと夜にすばらしいです、しかし、寝る前に除去する必要があります。あなたの白鉄鉱の世話をするプログラムでは、グッチの前に見たことがありますが、何からのさまざまなを使用しています。-のヘアスタイルを持ってきて、全く率直に形式的に完全な物質で処理される。それゆえに、シンプルな黒または茶色の髪クリップはこ
    ヘアアクセサリー

  4. をなします。レーシック手術の間に、薄いフラップは角膜や眼の前部に優しく作られています。あなたが完全に集中するならば、あなたはあなた自身である自由を失う。それはまだ、もつれたリクができるが、それはぐったりと同様に、死んだ。あなたはすぐにねじって週に起因した前髪の横たえた後ろのライダーを反映して、大部分の人々から市場に出ているので、あなたはヘアスタイリストになり被害が珍しいとホークを得るためのヘアスタイリストに任せて恐れ)および/または多分髪、メンテナンスについてのトップです。彼はマスクによって、ダストフィルタ
    ヘアクリップ

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>