Successful commercialization of medical technologies increasingly requires developers and manufacturers to think early-on about regulatory approval and reimbursement strategies for their new devices. This can be particularly challenging in the case of monitoring devices, where demonstrating the effectiveness and finding the coding and coverage can often be a complicated and lengthy process, particularly with the given current reimbursement policy. In this paper, we use three technology case studies to examine how firms are navigating the status quo and illustrate the importance of incorporating a comprehensive understanding of current market and regulatory constraints into the development and commercialization process. The case studies suggest that viable approaches can include pairing a monitoring technology with a therapy, or relying on hospital-pay or patient-pay models that are based on demonstration of direct benefits or cost-savings to these parties. The results emphasize that successful innovation in monitoring technologies increasingly requires a very closely aligned engineering, business, and health-economic strategy. Developing a comprehensive understanding of the specific value drivers and policy-induced constraints can contribute substantially to achieving the true benefits of monitoring technologies.

1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
, 2002, “
The Burden of Chronic Diseases and Their Risk Factors: National and State Perspectives
,” http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/burdenbook2002/index.htmhttp://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/burdenbook2002/index.htm.
2.
National Coalition on Health Care
, 2004, “
Health Insurance Cost
,” http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtmlhttp://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml.
3.
Lewis
,
C.
, 2001, “
Emerging Trends in Medical Device Technology: Home Is Where the Heart Monitor Is
,” http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2001/301_home.htmlhttp://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2001/301_home.html.
4.
Field
,
M. J.
, and
Grigsby
,
J.
, 2002, “
Telemedicine and Remote Patient Monitoring
,”
JAMA, J. Am. Med. Assoc.
0098-7484,
288
(
4
), pp.
423
425
.
5.
Benson
,
B.
, 2006,
Fifth Annual MedTech Investing Conference
, Minneapolis, MN.
6.
Paté-Cornell
,
M. E.
, “
Warning Systems in Risk Management
,”
Risk Anal.
0272-4332,
6
(
2
), pp.
223
234
1986.
7.
Gupta
,
S.
, 2008, “
Design and Delivery of Medical Devices for Home-Use: Drivers and Challenges
,”
Third IEEE Conference on Medical Electrical Devices and Technology-MEDTECH 2007
, pp.
215
235
.
8.
Pietzsch
,
J. B.
,
Aquino
,
L. M.
,
Yock
,
P. G.
,
Paté-Cornell
,
M. E.
, and
Linehan
,
J. H.
, 2007, “
Review of U.S. Medical Device Regulation
,”
ASME J. Med. Devices
1932-6181,
1
, pp.
283
292
.
9.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
, 2003, “
GMP Wireless LifeSync System 510(k) Summary
,” http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf3/K030795.pdfhttp://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf3/K030795.pdf.
10.
Ramanna
,
M.
, 2006, Discussion, [email protected]@gmpcompanies.com.
11.
LifeSync Corporation
, 2007, LifeSync System, http://www.wirelessecg.comhttp://www.wirelessecg.com.
12.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
, 2002, “
FDA Approves GlucoWatch
,” http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2002/NEW00830.htmlhttp://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2002/NEW00830.html.
13.
GlucoWatch HelpLine
, 2006, 1-866-GLWATCH.
14.
Animas Technologies, LLC
, 2007, “
GlucoWatch
,” http://www.glucowatch.comhttp://www.glucowatch.com.
15.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
, 2000, “
Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Information Data
,” OxiFirst Fetal Oxygen Saturation Monitoring System, http://www.glucowatch.comhttp://www.glucowatch.com.
17.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
, 2000, “
Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Information Data
,” OxiFirst Fetal Oxygen Saturation Monitoring System, http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf/P990053b.pdfhttp://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf/P990053b.pdf.
You do not currently have access to this content.