InHealth Panels Examine Medtech Innovation after Healthcare Reform

InHealth’s Evidence of Innovation symposium, held on the second day of AdvaMed 2009: The MedTech Conference, brought together experts in health policy, economic research and innovation to explore what healthcare reform will mean for the medical technology industry.

The day-long symposium explored the impact of proposed reform measures on policies and procedures relating to medical product development; medical technology company interactions with government agencies, professional associations, healthcare facilities and patient advocacy groups; and the traditional relationships between start-ups and established companies.

In October, InHealth presented a special mini-symposium during the AdvaMed annual meeting in Washington, DC. In the second session, panelists discussed how healthcare reform may affect medical technology company interactions with government agencies, professional associations, healthcare facilities, and patient advocacy groups (from left): James S. Breivis, MD, orthopedic surgeon and technology assessment expert (ret.); Paul Citron, independent medical device industry consultant and former vice president of technology policy and academic relations at Medtronic; and Stephen J. Northrup, former vice president for federal affairs at Wellpoint Inc.

“From changes in health coverage and delivery to efforts to contain costs, healthcare reform holds the potential to either further or impede advances in medical device technology––advances that may hold the key to improving the public health,” said Martyn Howgill, executive director of InHealth. “Evidence of Innovation proved to be an engaging and valuable forum for exploring the ways that healthcare reform efforts are changing rules, roles and relationships in the healthcare arena.”

In the first session, Saving Money and Saving Lives: The Magic of Health Reform, panelists discussed the potential elements of a final healthcare reform bill, the emerging importance of comparative effectiveness research as a basis for health technology policy and the role of economic analyses in a post-reform healthcare system. Moderated by Martyn Howgill, the session featured panelists Jeffrey J. Kimbell, president of the legislative advocacy firm of Jeffrey J. Kimbell & Associates; Sheldon Greenfield, MD, cochairman of the Institute of Medicine’s committee on comparative effectiveness research prioritization, and professor of medicine and executive director of the Center for Health Policy Research in the School of Medicine at the University of California, Irvine; and Tomas J. Philipson, PhD, professor of public policy studies at the University of Chicago.

In the second session, Learning to Play Together: The New Healthcare Sandbox, panelists examined the ways that healthcare reform may alter the relationships between innovators and payers. Panelists noted the irreplaceable roles that physicians play in device innovation, including work as inventors as well as experts who can offer important clinical insight and identify improvements to current technologies. They explored the long-term ramifications of healthcare reform through many lenses, including how it will impact both new and experienced physicians and the coverage that devices, drugs and procedures will receive. The session was moderated by Steve Halasey, vice president for programs at InHealth, with panelists: Stephen J. Northrup, former vice president for federal affairs at Wellpoint Inc.; James S. Breivis, MD, a retired orthopedic surgeon and technology assessment expert; and Paul Citron, an independent medical device industry consultant and former vice president of technology policy and academic relations at Medtronic.

In the final session, entitled Healthy Businesses, Healthy Lives: Growing Medical Technologies in the Post-Reform Era, panelists examined where potential opportunities in medical technology innovation lie given the many challenges the industry faces. Young inventors and start-ups are being hit particularly hard, even as higher education programs construct a new pipeline of biomedical engineers that emphasize the importance of innovation. Between changes in the patent office, tighter scrutiny at FDA, healthcare reform, diminished venture funding and the vilification of physician-industry collaboration, panelists noted that the medtech industry is beginning to appear a less than lucrative career path. The panel was moderated by John H. Linehan, PhD, director of the Center for Translational Innovation and  professor of medicine and biomedical engineering at Northwestern University, with panelists: Paul G. Yock, MD, professor of medicine, cochair of the department of bioengineering, and director of the program in biodesign at Stanford University; Allan W. May, chairman and founder of Life Science Angels; Jack W. Lasersohn, JD, general partner of the Vertical Group; and John B. Hernandez, PhD, vice president for health economics and reimbursement, Boston Scientific Neuromodulation.

The symposium was the latest in a series of educational programs designed to provide objective information and credible insights about the role of medical technology innovation in society, the economy and people’s lives. On November 12, InHealth will hold a special health technology summit titled Evidence and Reform: Healthcare Policy and the Challenges of Health Technology Research, where healthcare policy professionals, medtech industry leaders, academic partners and clinical professionals will explore realms of health technology research that can produce useful evidence for healthcare policymakers.