Tag

Tagged: value-based healthcare

Sponsored
5 months ago

Redefining Value in Neurosurgery

HealthPad
Directory:
Medical Technology
Tags:
AI
commentary
MedTech
neurosurgeon
neurosurgery
value-based healthcare
  • Neurosurgical MedTech is facing strategic drift - systemic change is reshaping demand, access, and decision-making across the surgical pathway
  • Boards and C-suites may need to reassess strategic priorities, as short-term focus and outdated assumptions can leave organisations vulnerable
  • The next generation of surgeons needs more than devices - they need integrated, intelligent systems that reduce burden and drive better outcomes
  • In today’s neurosurgical landscape, relevance demands purposeful action - MedTech must evolve from vendor to strategic partner, or risk being replaced

Redefining Value in Neurosurgery


It was 2:14am when the call came in.

A 42-year-old father of three had been found unresponsive after a fall down the stairs. By the time the trauma team paged neurosurgery, the CT scan had revealed a massive subdural hematoma. The patient was herniating. Within minutes, a neurosurgeon was scrubbed. In under an hour, skull bone had been removed, pressure relieved, bleeding controlled. He survived. And because the right tools were there, because someone had made the right decisions about product, training, readiness, and system support, he walked out of the hospital two weeks later.

Twelve hours later, a different kind of page. A seven-year-old girl. Headaches, vomiting, sudden weakness. An MRI revealed a posterior fossa mass - potentially malignant. The clock was ticking. Brainstem compression was imminent. She needed urgent decompression, a safe resection, and a surgical team equipped with the precision, tools, and guidance to preserve not just life - but function, future, and quality of childhood.

Two patients. One adult, one child. One traumatic, one oncologic. Both required immediate, expert, high-stakes neurosurgical intervention. Both depended on the system being ready - not just the clinicians, but the technology, the planning tools, the workflows, the infrastructure.

These are the stories that have powered neurosurgical MedTech for decades - real urgency, real need, real intervention. But here’s the question no one in the boardroom is asking: Can our current approach guarantee outcomes like these in five years?
 
In this Commentary

This Commentary challenges the neurosurgical MedTech sector to confront a truth: incrementalism is no longer enough. As health systems evolve and pressures mount, the companies that survive will not be those with marginally better tools - but those that reimagine their role. It is a call to move from selling devices to solving system-level challenges - urgently and strategically.
 
The Blind Spot in the Boardroom

A persistent blind spot exists at the leadership level of today’s healthcare enterprises: a structural underinvestment in long-term strategic thinking, planning, and execution. This is not due to a lack of competence or awareness. More often, it reflects a deliberate trade-off by capable leaders navigating underperformance, resource constraints, and market volatility. Faced with immediate pressures, boards and executive teams understandably default to familiar levers - cost control, portfolio shifts, efficiency gains. These are acts of stewardship; but when they become reflexive rather than selective, they crowd out the equally vital work of long-term transformation.

This is not a failure of leadership - it is a question of context. Many boardrooms are filled with accomplished individuals: former CEOs, financial experts, and operators whose success was shaped in eras where scale, control, and predictability defined strategic advantage. But healthcare today is not that world. AI-enabled diagnostics, value-based reimbursement, genomic medicine, and platform-based care delivery are redrawing the competitive map. What drives durable advantage is evolving, and legacy instincts - while still valuable - must now be paired with new forms of strategic fluency.

Compounding this challenge is the velocity of change. Healthcare’s regulatory, technological, and societal dimensions are shifting faster than traditional governance cadences can accommodate. Meanwhile, many leaders came of age in pre-digital systems. Their judgment remains essential, but ease with digital-native logic - networks over hierarchies, experimentation over control - is often uneven.

And time is the silent constraint. Directors and executives are stretched across portfolios, committees, and crises. In such conditions, there is little room for the kind of deep, reflective engagement that effective governance now demands. Strategic clarity does not emerge from dashboards and board packs alone - it requires time to think, space to challenge assumptions, and the discipline to look beyond the quarterly cycle. It requires research, dialogue, and an active commitment to exploring what comes next.

When this capacity is missing, a pattern emerges: leadership cultures skew toward immediacy over imagination. Strategic conversations settle for iteration when reinvention is what is required. Governance processes, overly fixated on near-term performance, can unintentionally steer organisations away from harder but more consequential questions: What are we solving for? What must our operating model become? What future are we building toward?

Unless boards and executive teams carve out the time, frameworks, and curiosity to explore these questions, they risk stewarding high-performing organisations that are strategically misaligned with the future. In a healthcare environment where transformation is not episodic but continuous, the central challenge is no longer just managing performance - it is continuously redefining relevance.

When the scalpel sleeps


The new episode of HealthPadTalks is available. Listen now!
You’ve Been Riding the Wave - Now It’s Breaking

For too long, neurosurgery has enjoyed the protective halo of presumed indispensability. When a patient presented with a subdural hematoma or spinal cord compression, intervention was urgent, the pathway was clear, and MedTech delivered. The clinical imperative created a commercial one: the market was structurally “non-elective,” margins generous, pricing inelastic, and innovation rewarded even when it was incremental. Under these conditions, strategic urgency was muted. The business model functioned on autopilot - its relevance rarely questioned, its trajectory assumed. But such strategic passivity is no longer sustainable. The context has changed. Many boardrooms and C-suites have not.

The pressure is no longer hypothetical. Exhausted neurosurgeons are leaving the field or reducing their case volumes. Hospital systems are consolidating, professionalising, and centralising procurement. AI-enabled triage is reducing surgical volume at the margins, pre-emptively excluding cases once seen as revenue. Value-based care models are compelling institutions to scrutinise every decision - every device, every invoice, every representative in the OR. Customers are no longer just individual clinicians; they are integrated systems - data-driven, cost-conscious, and increasingly risk-sensitive. In response, the industry has delivered incremental innovation: a more ergonomic retractor, a connected drill, a smarter implant. These advances are not without merit - but they are rarely transformative.

In a landscape reshaped by digital platforms, precision medicine, and outcome-based reimbursement, marginal improvements are not enough. What is needed is a step change in how value is created, measured, and delivered - not just in products, but in the models, services, and partnerships that surround them.

Why, then, do boards and executive teams often avoid deeper strategic interrogation? Why is rigorous, foundational scrutiny the exception rather than the norm?

A common justification points to immediate pressures - tariffs, remediation mandates, debt burdens - as reasons for prioritising the urgent over the strategic. But this rationale, while convenient, reveals more about institutional habit than necessity. At its core, the reluctance stems from a legacy mindset: leadership teams often operate on inherited assumptions rooted in a market context that no longer exists. Directors and executives are frequently selected - and subsequently conditioned - to act as stewards of financial continuity rather than agents of strategic reinvention. The result is leadership discourse dominated by dashboards and pipeline metrics - instruments of preservation, not transformation. In such an environment, operational busyness becomes a proxy for progress, crowding out the uncomfortable but necessary work of existential reflection. Difficult questions are not addressed; they are deferred, displaced by the comforting choreography of routine - a pattern that may sustain performance but seldom builds resilience.

Such inertia carries risk. Complacency is not neutral - it is a liability. When the tide shifts, legacy strength offers little defence against decline. The MedTech organisations that endure will not be those that optimised within the status quo, but those that interrogated it. They will be led by people willing to entertain uncomfortable questions: What is the purpose of our technology in a system that prizes prevention over intervention? Are we creating value or clinging to procedure?

If these questions are not being asked - or worse, if they are not welcomed - then the silence is diagnostic. The strategic threat is not disruption from outside; it is inconsequence from within. Relevance is not a given. It must be re-earned, deliberately and repeatedly. The era of assumed value is over. What follows is a test not of engineering prowess, but of strategic imagination.
The first 12 episodes of HealthPadTalks are available on most platforms. Listen now and follow us!
Non-Elective ≠ Guaranteed

At the heart of neurosurgical MedTech is a myth: that the intrinsic urgency of brain and spine pathology renders the industry resistant to systemic disruption. The prevailing assumption is: if the clinical need is acute, the system will accommodate it; the surgeon will decide, the device will be deployed, and reimbursement will follow. But this is a mirage. Urgency may command attention, but it does not confer immunity. In fact, in an era of escalating systemic pressure, urgency can magnify the consequences of strategic inertia.

Structural shifts are underway. Coverage for acute neurosurgical services is thinning, with institutions struggling to sustain uninterrupted 24/7 access to specialist care. Triage is no longer confined to the hospital: AI-assisted imaging, algorithmic risk stratification, and virtual consult platforms are redefining which cases enter the surgical funnel. Interventions that were once default are now discretionary - not on clinical grounds, but on economic and systemic ones.

Meanwhile, the decision architecture is being rewritten. Surgeons, long the de facto arbiters of device choice, now operate within frameworks increasingly dictated by administrators, integrated delivery networks (IDNs), and evidence-based procurement protocols. In many cases, it is not clinical preference that determines selection, but alignment with cost-containment targets and population-level outcomes data. The new gatekeepers speak a different language - one of value, efficiency, and predictability. And they are asking more searching questions: What is the delta in recovery time? What is the downstream cost impact? How does this device impact total episode-of-care economics?

It is tempting, in this context, to find reassurance in steady sales; but this is dangerous. Revenue continuity is not synonymous with strategic health. Sales are a lagging indicator and may persist even as relevance erodes. The illusion of resilience can become a trap - a reason not to re-examine assumptions. The fact that the system is still buying does not mean it will continue to. It means the inertia has not yet caught up with the inflection.

And that is the risk: not that the industry will experience a collapse, but that it will sleepwalk into decline - mistaking transactional continuity for strategic validation. In a system undergoing structural rewiring, staying in motion is not the same as moving forward. If your organisation is not reassessing its role within this evolving care architecture, it is not strategizing - it is reacting.
 
Innovation Has Stalled

Over the past decade, neurosurgical MedTech has seen steady, incremental refinement - but few transformative breakthroughs. We have welcomed sleeker drills, smaller footprints, and improved navigation fidelity. These are not without value. But they represent optimisation of the existing paradigm, not reimagination of what is possible. The market has rewarded caution: safe upgrades over systemic innovation. What once looked like prudent risk management now reveals itself as a strategic dead end.

What is missing is not more precision - it is more perspective.

Where are the integrated, AI-enabled decision-support systems that intervene upstream, shaping patient trajectories before a scalpel is lifted? Where are interoperable, workflow-aware platforms designed to reduce cognitive load for overstretched OR teams - not merely to tick procurement boxes, but to deliver real-time clarity in high-stakes settings? Where are the tools built not only for technical performance, but for usability under clinical pressure?

This is not a call for future vision - it is a demand for present-day relevance. Because the future of neurosurgical care is no longer defined solely by what happens on the table. It is shaped by who gets to the table, when they get there, and how consistently their care unfolds afterward. Access, timing, and continuity have become defining variables - alongside, and sometimes above, intraoperative excellence.

Yet much of MedTech continues to define its value proposition narrowly - around intraoperative utility, rather than system-wide impact. The industry has been optimising for the procedure, not for the process. Engineering ever-better instruments while overlooking the operational, workforce, and systemic pressures that increasingly shape their relevance and use.

This is no longer a subtle mismatch - it is a widening divergence.

Health systems are contending with care bottlenecks, clinician burnout, fractured workflows, and accelerating complexity. And in such an environment, companies offering surgical devices - but not solutions - risk becoming technically excellent and strategically peripheral.

In a system undergoing significant change, incrementalism is not just insufficient - it is a form of strategic avoidance. Continuously refining what happens within the sterile field, while ignoring what happens across the episode of care, is a choice with consequences. Because in this landscape, failing to adapt is not neutral. It is, in effect, complicity in the system’s stagnation.
HealthPadTalks is a podcast exploring the trends redefining healthcare’s future. Building on HealthPad’s Commentaries, we don’t just deliver answers — we question them. Through bold ideas, diverse voices, and meaningful debate, we aim to improve outcomes, cut costs, and expand access for all. Make sure to follow us! 
The Surgeon of Tomorrow Won’t Wait

The emerging generation of neurosurgeons is entering a clinical landscape substantially different from that of their mentors. This shift is not incremental - it is structural. Trained in a digital era, these clinicians are fluent in simulation-based learning, real-time analytics, telemedicine, and AI-supported decision-making. In contrast to the hierarchical, analogue systems their chiefs once navigated, they bring a baseline shaped by interactivity, adaptability, and speed.

Yet the systems they now inherit are often fragmented, outdated, and ill-suited to their training. They face mounting procedural demands, shrinking peer cohorts, and patients who are older, sicker, and more complex - within an infrastructure that has not kept pace. Hours that could hone clinical acumen are instead lost to inefficient interfaces and administrative detours. The result is a growing dissonance between the capabilities of this new generation and the legacy systems they are expected to sustain.

This is the lived reality of early-career neurosurgeons today. And responding to this reality requires more than an expanded product catalogue or incremental device enhancement. What they need are not just devices, but integrated, intelligence-driven systems calibrated to the pressures of modern practice.

They need surgical planning platforms that can consolidate and interpret patient history, imaging data, genomics, and predictive risk models - transforming scattered inputs into actionable, context-rich insights. They need intraoperative systems that integrate with hospital infrastructure, enabling real-time feedback, adaptive decision support, and streamlined handoffs. They need post-operative analytics capable of identifying complications early, closing the loop between outcomes and interventions, and continuously informing clinical learning. And crucially, they need device-software ecosystems that are interoperable by design - not kludged together by necessity - eliminating the friction that slows them down and clouds clinical focus.

If MedTech continues to operate in silos - selling hardware here, software there, and expecting clinicians to bridge the gaps - it risks alienating the users who will define the field's future. For this new generation of neurosurgeons, the question is not what you sell. It is whether what you sell reflects the reality they are navigating. Solutions that do not reduce complexity or elevate clinical capability will not be adopted - no matter how advanced the underlying technology.

The next frontier is not defined by engineering alone, but by empathy with the end-user’s lived experience.
  
What Needs to Happen?

The window for repositioning is narrowing. Neurosurgical MedTech now faces an inflection point: evolve with strategic intent or risk sliding into commoditised decline. Continued viability will not be secured by incremental upgrades or tactical marketing - it requires a reframing of what it means to create value in a transformed clinical ecosystem. This is not evolution by default; it is reinvention by design. Four strategic imperatives suggest the path forward:
  1. Build Beyond the Device It is no longer sufficient to iterate on instruments in isolation. The neurosurgeon’s need is no longer defined by sharper tips or lighter frames - it is defined by systems that think, adapt, and assist. What is required are integrated, end-to-end solutions that support the full arc of clinical decision-making: from pre-operative diagnostics and risk stratification to intraoperative precision, to post-operative monitoring and outcomes tracking. The future belongs to platforms, not point solutions. Strategic value will be determined less by what a device does in isolation and more by how it coordinates care, reduces variability, and amplifies clinical judgment across the entire care journey.
  2. Embrace Systems Thinking Technology does not operate in a vacuum - it thrives within an interconnected, and increasingly data-driven healthcare ecosystem. That means native integration with electronic medical records (EMRs), imaging archives, scheduling platforms, and clinical analytics tools is no longer a differentiator. Design for interoperability, not after-the-fact retrofitting. Simplify clinical workflows, not complicate them. A solution that adds cognitive or logistical friction, no matter how advanced its engineering, will be seen not as innovation but as impedance. In a system strained by complexity, elegance equals adoption.
  3. Invest in Outcomes, Not Just Operations The sales paradigm must shift from transactional pitch to transformational partnership. It is no longer sufficient to demonstrate that a device works - you must prove that it matters. Health systems are increasingly accountable for outcomes, variation, and cost - and MedTech must share in that accountability. Bring validated data, longitudinal evidence, and real-world metrics to the conversation. Co-own the outcomes. This is how suppliers evolve into strategic allies. Those who fail to make that shift will find themselves reduced to line items - priced down, replaced easily, and remembered for what they failed to become.
  4. Solve for the Workforce Today’s neurosurgeon is under siege - not just by clinical complexity, but by the cognitive overload of navigating fragmented systems, documentation fatigue, and time scarcity. Innovation must begin with empathy. Build tools that reduce mental load, accelerate clarity, and return time to clinicians whose bandwidth is under constant threat. This goes beyond ergonomics - it is about designing with an understanding of workflow, pressure, and human limits. The most advanced product is irrelevant if it does not respect the constraints and needs of the user.

This is the minimum viable response to a market in transformation. Relevance in the next era of neurosurgical MedTech will not be inherited. It must be re-earned, with clarity, urgency, and strategic courage.
 
Takeaways

Neurosurgery has always been a high-stakes field - but the definition of those stakes is evolving. Success is no longer measured solely by performance in the operating room. Today, it hinges on whether MedTech can sustain its role as a partner in a health system undergoing rapid and often unpredictable transformation. The critical question facing every executive and board is no longer simply, “What’s next?” but “Are we doing what’s needed today to make these outcomes possible tomorrow?” In an environment where clinical, technological, and economic priorities are being rewritten, relevance is not a given - it must be continually re-earned.

For decades, neurosurgery thrived under the protective logic of clinical urgency - trauma, tumours, and life-or-death interventions shielded it from the strategic scrutiny faced by other segments. But such insulation is gone. The urgency has migrated. It now belongs to healthcare systems stretched thin, to clinicians facing burnout, to patients navigating delayed care, and to procurement leaders demanding measurable value. The environment has changed. The expectations are higher. The rules are being rewritten - and historical relevance offers no immunity.

MedTech must now rise to meet the urgency that once sustained it. But this time, the response cannot be incremental. Cosmetic innovation will not suffice. What is required is outcomes-oriented transformation: technologies that reduce friction, amplify clinical capacity, integrate across workflows, and deliver clarity when it matters. The next generation of neurosurgeons - and the systems that support them - will not wait for another iteration. They will gravitate to those who build with urgency, insight, and empathy.

The 2:14am call is still coming. But the neurosurgeon on the other end will no longer accept a catalogue of options - they will demand a coherent solution. One that anticipates their reality, accelerates their judgment, and respects the stakes. If you are not building for that moment, someone else is. And in this new era, the risk MedTech faces is not disruption. It is decline - quiet, cumulative, and ultimately irreversible. Relevance is not a legacy. It is a choice - made again and again, by leaders willing to confront uncomfortable truths and commit to a more integrated future.
view in full page
5 months, 1 week ago

HealthPadTalks: When The Scalpel Sleeps

HealthPad
Directory:
Medical Technology
Tags:
AI
commentary
HealthPadTalks
MedTech
patient engagement
podcast
remote patient monitoring
value-based healthcare

MedTech’s old playbook is dead. In this episode, we uncover how AI, digital health, and remote care are reshaping the healthcare landscape — moving from more surgeries to fewer, from intervention to prevention. The future of medicine isn’t about placing more devices in the OR, it’s about keeping patients healthy enough to stay out of it.

view in full page
7 months ago

MedTech’s Blueprint for Failure

HealthPad
Directory:
Medical Technology
Tags:
AI
commentary
digital therapeutics
ESG
global markets
MedTech
ML
patient-centricity
value-based healthcare
This Commentary:
  • Unpacks the hidden costs of dismissing emerging trends as “irrelevant”
  • Explores why short-term thinking persists in traditional MedTech leadership
  • Challenges the industry’s reliance on outdated playbooks and familiar metrics
  • Highlights strategic blind spots - from AI and value-based care to patient-centricity and global markets
  • Offers a lens on what it takes to stay relevant in a shifting healthcare landscape

MedTech’s Blueprint for Failure

Let us begin with respect. The seasoned MedTech executive is not a figure of the past, but the architect of the present - responsible for building some of the most durable, trusted, and clinically impactful companies in healthcare. These leaders have guided global organisations through shifting regulations, economic cycles, and evolving standards of care. They have delivered not just products, but platforms of safety, precision, and reliability that clinicians and patients around the world depend on. Their legacy is real, earned, and deeply embedded in the modern healthcare system.

MedTech leaders have operated in environments defined by complexity - balancing regulatory scrutiny with engineering excellence, margin pressure with operational discipline, and clinical outcomes with commercial scale. They have not just adapted to change; they have often outlasted it. And while others have chased the latest buzzword or market trend, these executives have anchored their strategies in consistency, trust, and results.

Yet in many boardrooms today - especially those contending with near-term headwinds - pressing concerns like debt, tariffs, remediation, stagnant growth, and quarterly targets increasingly overshadow the pursuit of long-term strategy. Anything not tied directly to fixing, shipping, or selling is often sidelined. Innovation becomes a luxury. Structural change is postponed. And conversations about AI, value-based healthcare, emerging markets, or digital-transformation are acknowledged but often not given the time they merit.

This mindset is not irrational - it is forged under pressure and reinforced by financial reality. But the cost of sidelining strategic evolution is often subtle and slow building, only revealing its consequences over time. Early symptoms - like subtle shifts in talent retention, slight erosion of market positioning, or narrowing strategic options - are easy to dismiss under the pressure of day-to-day demands. Yet, by the time the damage becomes visible on a balance sheet, the organisation is often already in decline, with fewer, harder, and more expensive paths to recovery.

It is within this diagnostic blind spot - where early warnings go unnoticed or unheeded - that we locate the central tension facing today’s legacy institutions: the trade-off between operational resilience and strategic relevance. It is in the spirit of this tension that we offer the following reflection. Not a barrage of new imperatives, but an inventory of what over decades has too often been dismissed as “irrelevant” or “peripheral” by established leadership. Not to mock, but to reflect. Not a rejection of their discipline, but a gentle inquiry: what truths might be slipping through the cracks beneath the weight of short-term certainty?
 
In this Commentary

This Commentary explores the growing disconnect between the operational priorities of legacy MedTech companies and the strategic shifts reshaping the industry. It highlights the mindsets, market signals, and structural forces often dismissed as ‘irrelevant’ or ‘peripheral’ - AI, digital therapeutics, emerging markets, patient agency - and contends that what has long been sidelined may, in fact, shape the essence of today's competitiveness - and define that of tomorrow. It is both a reflection on the past and a challenge to reimagine relevance before the market makes the decision for us. The Commentary is essential reading for MedTech executives because it surfaces the uncomfortable truths behind strategic stagnation, offering a candid lens on how legacy thinking - while once effective - may now be undermining future viability.
 
AI & Machine Learning: “Hype for Those Without Real Products”

AI and machine learning have become the preferred language of tech evangelists, analysts, and keynote speakers - often cited with urgency, as if predictive algorithms alone can remake healthcare. But for many in traditional MedTech, these developments remain abstract. After all, who needs real-time clinical insight when a mature salesforce, a trusted product line, and a robust procurement process continue to deliver quarter after quarter? Why invest in data infrastructure when the commercial team already “knows the customer”?

AI, legacy executives argue, may be making waves in radiology, accelerating image analysis, reducing diagnostic errors, and even optimising surgical workflows - but where is the SKU? Where is the billing code? And until machine learning finds its way into a procurement algorithm or a reimbursement pathway, it can be safely filed under “interesting, but not actionable.”

What is often overlooked is that while AI might not yet sit neatly on the income statement, it is rapidly embedding itself in the competitive context - influencing everything from operational efficiency to clinical decision-making.

But for now, the advantage of declaring it irrelevant is that it requires no investment, no transformation, and no urgency. It remains a future problem - and for many executives, that is precisely the point.
 
Value-Based Care: “A Fine Theory for Panels and Podcasts”

Value-based care has become something of a permanent fixture at healthcare conferences - a well-rehearsed talking point, often nestled between ESG updates and digital transformation slides. It is the kind of topic that earns nods on stage and silence in the boardroom. Yes, payers talk about outcomes, total cost of care, and shifting financial risk upstream. But for many traditional MedTech executives, these are macro-level abstractions - ambient noise in a world still largely driven by volume, device utilisation, and unit sales.

The logic is simple: procedures are still reimbursed, hospitals still procure on precedent, and the salesforce still delivers - why rethink the fundamentals? Why disrupt a business model built on predictability just because someone rebranded cost containment as “value”?

Beneath the surface, the shift toward value-based care is gathering momentum. Contracts are increasingly tied to performance metrics, and payers are testing shared savings models. Providers are beginning to reassess the true, end-to-end cost of patient care. Yet fully embracing these changes means confronting uncomfortable realities - exposure, accountability, disruption. And so, value-based care remains more aspiration than action: cited with reverence but kept at arm’s length.

A compelling vision of tomorrow - just not one that needs to interfere with this quarter’s pricing strategy.
 
Consumerisation & Patient-Centricity: “Charming, But Not for Us”

The notion of consumer empowerment in healthcare has always held a certain charm - well-suited, perhaps, to wellness apps. Talk of patient autonomy, real-time health tracking, and personalised care journeys tends to generate polite applause, especially at innovation forums and digital health expos. But in the commercial reality of MedTech, where relationships are measured in surgeon loyalty and purchasing decisions rest with procurement committees, this wave of patient-centric rhetoric can feel somewhat . . . ornamental.

After all, patients are not the buyers. They are not typically involved in procurement decisions or responsible for evaluating tenders. The idea that individuals managing chronic conditions might influence device design, data visibility, or treatment planning introduces an unfamiliar variable into a system optimised for clinical workflows and sales cycles.

And yet, slowly, persistently, the paradigm is shifting. Patients are choosing care pathways. They are tracking their own health data. They are becoming participants, not passengers. Platforms that once served physicians now speak directly to the patient.

But for many MedTech incumbents, this shift remains peripheral - acknowledged just enough to be applauded, but not yet enough to require change.

Next Gen MedTech: Why Gen Z Is the Future

The new episode of HealthPadTalks is available!
 
Digital Therapeutics & SaMD: “Not Quite Real Enough”

In the traditional MedTech imagination, a real medical device has weight - preferably metallic. It should arrive with a sterilisation certificate, a SKU in the ERP, and a Class II or III designation that took years to earn. It lives in an operating room or a cath lab. You can hold it, implant it, clean it, and ideally bill for it with a code that is older than the average digital health start-up.

So, when software - intangible, updateable, and fast to iterate - began showing up with clinical claims, it was met with a familiar scepticism. These so-called Digital Therapeutics and Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) offerings seemed free of traditional manufacturing constraints, and even worse, largely indifferent to legacy distribution channels. They do not require hospital contracts, nor do they fit neatly into capital budgeting cycles. And they speak in a language unfamiliar to many: customer engagement, data loops, and behavioural algorithms.

Still, some executives politely applaud their promise while waiting for them to fade under regulatory scrutiny or investor fatigue. But the landscape is shifting. These “not quite real” solutions are now earning FDA clearances, showing outcomes, integrating into clinical workflows - and being prescribed.

Ignoring them has become less a strategy and more a luxury of a shrinking window.

Emerging Markets: “Strategically Ignored for Your Convenience”

Asia, Africa, India, Latin America - regions rich in population, clinical need, and rapidly evolving health infrastructure. Fascinating from a distance, and always good for a growth slide in an investor deck. But in the daily rhythm of many MedTech boardrooms, these geographies tend to fall neatly into the “too hard” bucket. Regulatory systems are diverse, reimbursement pathways inconsistent, and distribution? A logistical adventure.

Far easier, and more comfortable, to focus on the tried-and-tested: the mature markets of North America and Western Europe - which account for ~68% of the global MedTech market. Further, here, the rules are known, the players familiar, and margins - while tightening - remain respectable. Besides, there is always another round of hospital consolidation to “unlock efficiencies” and delay the need to confront more complex growth decisions.

And yet, while traditional players revisit the same contracts in the same regions, something different is happening elsewhere. In these so-called ‘secondary markets’ (~83% of the world’s population lies outside North America and Europe), healthcare systems are leapfrogging legacy infrastructure, adopting digital-first models, and demanding innovation designed for scale and affordability - not just high-margin precision.

The irony is that the future footprint of global MedTech is already being laid - just not necessarily in the markets where comfort still masquerades as strategy.
 
Sustainability & ESG: “A Future Agenda Item”

Environmental sustainability, climate resilience, ethical supply chains - all important considerations. And there is no shortage of working groups, position papers, and corporate statements affirming their significance. But in the real world of commercial MedTech, where quarterly earnings drive strategy and procurement continues to prioritise cost over carbon, ESG often remains a well-meaning footnote rather than a board-level priority.

The logic is straightforward: carbon disclosures do not drive revenue, Scope 3 emissions do not appear on the P&L, and regulatory mandates - at least for now - are more suggestion than obligation. Besides, the packaging is recyclable, and there is an ESG tab on the investor relations site. Is not that enough?
You might also like to listen to: 

Can We Survive the Storm? Battling Antimicrobial Resistance and Climate Change for Global Health
Yet the calculus is changing. Investors are starting to assign risk premiums based on climate exposure. Hospital systems, under pressure from their own sustainability commitments, are factoring environmental impact into procurement decisions. And younger talent - the people legacy MedTech firms need to attract - are making employment choices based on whether purpose lives beyond the PowerPoint.

Still, for those intent on prioritising Q2 over 2030, sustainability can remain someone else’s problem - for now. Just do not be surprised when it shows up disguised as a lost bid or a brand erosion no spreadsheet saw coming.
Interoperability: “The Inconvenient Virtue”
 
Open data, shared platforms wikis, plug-and-play integration - admirable concepts! They appear regularly in white papers and keynote speeches, often accompanied by words like ecosystem, collaboration, and patient-centricity. But in the practical world of traditional MedTech, interoperability can feel more like a Trojan horse than a noble pursuit.

After all, the value of an installed base has long rested not just in clinical outcomes, but in strategic insulation. When systems speak only to themselves, switching costs rise, vendor loyalty deepens, and the customer journey - while perhaps less elegant - becomes predictable. One vendor, one platform, one point of contact. Efficiency through exclusivity.

The idea of opening those walls - of making data portable, devices interoperable, workflows vendor-agnostic - threatens to loosen what has kept margins healthy and customers captive. Why enable cross-vendor visibility when we have spent a decade engineering lock-in?

And yet, interoperability is no longer a future aspiration; it is becoming a market expectation. Health systems want seamless integration. Clinicians want consolidated insights. Regulators and payers are asking new questions about data silos. What was once a competitive moat may soon look more like a barrier to relevance.

For now, though, resisting interoperability remains a strategy - just one increasingly out of sync with the systems it is meant to serve.
 
Radical Collaboration: “Strategy by Committee”
 
The language of modern innovation is increasingly becoming crowded with phrases like: co-creation, open innovation, multi-stakeholder ecosystems. These concepts, while fashionable in accelerator pitches and design-thinking workshops, can sound close to relinquishing control - a notion that sits uneasily with traditional MedTech leadership, where strategy has historically resided in the safe hands of the C-suite, and product development follows a controlled, internal cadence.

The idea that a device roadmap might be shaped by input from patients, start-ups, or digital health partners is, for some, a step too far. Where does it end? With transparency? With shared credit? With a developer in a hoodie contributing to a Class III product?
And yet a different model is taking hold. The complexity of modern care, the speed of technological change, and the convergence of digital and clinical domains are rendering vertical silos inefficient at best, and irrelevant at worst. The most adaptive players are not simply tolerating collaboration - they are institutionalising it. They are building shared platforms, pursuing joint ventures, and embedding end-users into the development process.
You might also like to listen to:
MedTech CEOs: Leading the Future of Innovation
Still, for those wary of strategy by committee, the default remains simple: keep innovation proprietary, partnerships transactional, and the decision-making neatly behind closed doors. Just do not confuse control with competitiveness.
 
Healthcare Equity: “A Noble Distraction from the Real Business”

Healthcare equity - an issue widely acknowledged as morally urgent, globally significant, and commercially. . . inconvenient. No one disputes that access to care remains uneven, outcomes vary across geographies and demographics, and millions remain excluded from the full benefits of modern medicine. These are important concerns - and the subject of many keynote speeches and Corporate Social Responsibility reports.

But when it comes to actual commercial strategy, equity has long been treated as something of a philanthropic side project. After all, real markets are “addressable” - preferably with clear reimbursement codes, centralised procurement structures, and margins that respect investor expectations. Equity, by contrast, lives in the realm of public health policy, not product portfolio planning.

And yet, while the underserved continue to be framed as someone else's mandate, the business case for inclusion is gaining weight. Regulators are scrutinising clinical trial diversity. Health systems are tying equity metrics to partnership decisions. Investors are asking tougher questions. And new entrants - often digital-first and community-based - are reaching populations once deemed commercially irrelevant.

Still, for the legacy executive, healthcare equity remains safest when framed as a noble aspiration rather than a strategic necessity. Just do not be surprised when future growth starts showing up in places once written off as too complex to matter.
 
Legacy Playbooks: Elegantly Outdated

Amid all the noise - the shifting markets, the digital incursions, the reshaping of care pathways - the traditional MedTech executive remains a model of composure. A lighthouse of predictability in a fog of disruption. Grounded in operational excellence, fluent in regulatory nuance, and rewarded for consistency not reinvention, this leader follows a playbook that has served the industry - and shareholders - well.

After all, why chase the abstraction of platform thinking or dabble in the uncertainty of agile R&D when a single, well-validated hardware SKU can still deliver millions in revenue? Why invest in data infrastructure or user experience design when your procurement contracts are locked in for another cycle?

And building for 2030 is a noble concept - but the board evaluates performance every 90 days. The calendar alone tends to keep ambition in check.

Yet outside this disciplined architecture, the ground is shifting. Software-first models are changing timelines. Ecosystem thinking is redefining value. And growth is increasingly flowing to those who can move fast and adapt wide.

Still, the legacy playbook remains intact - not because it is future-proof, but because, for now, it has not yet fully failed. Which is the most seductive form of risk.
 
The Strategic Cost of Disdain

The irony is that the forces most easily dismissed as peripheral or irrelevant - too new, too soft, too speculative - are the ones now redrawing the competitive boundaries of MedTech. What does not map neatly to this quarter’s operating plan is what will determine the next decade’s relevance. But when you have mastered a playbook that has delivered decades of steady growth, it becomes easy to mistake familiarity for wisdom - and to confuse irrelevance with inconvenience.

And yet, the early signals of disruption are no longer subtle. Valuations are migrating toward companies that are not just selling products but enabling platforms - software-first, data-rich, and service-wrapped. Top-tier talent is bypassing incumbents in favour of purpose-driven, tech-enabled ventures that move faster, speak differently, and build with a fundamentally broader view of healthcare. Payers are evolving from passive reimbursors to active shapers of innovation, increasingly willing to back outcomes over devices. Regulators, once a shield for incumbents, are becoming more agile, more digital, more impatient. And patients - long treated as endpoints - are asserting themselves as active participants and economic agents in care.

What is often framed as a distraction is a different order of relevance - one that does not fit the existing metrics but will soon define them. Ignore it, and the cost is not just missed opportunity. It is strategic erosion, playing out slowly, then all at once.
 
Takeaways

For decades, legacy MedTech companies have been navigating a subtle but persistent decline - an erosion that has unfolded so gradually it was easy to dismiss, much like the onset of a chronic illness. What once appeared as stability was, in fact, stagnation. The industry’s longstanding dependence on mature product lines, familiar markets, and traditional operating models has led to a slow accrual of vulnerabilities: stagnant growth, eroding valuations, mounting debt, regulatory setbacks, and an aging leadership culture out of sync with a tech-driven future. Meanwhile, the pipeline of young, purpose-driven, digital-native talent continues to shrink. These are not isolated issues to be patched - they are symptoms of deeper structural malaise. Simply treating the pain points without addressing root causes is no longer viable. The era of incrementalism is over. The next chapter of MedTech will not be written by those who measure relevance through the rearview mirror, nor by those who treat the overlooked as optional. Legacy players may have little room left to manoeuvre - but manoeuvre they must.

In a sector now being redefined by data, decentralisation, patient agency, and new value models, the most dangerous words a leadership team can utter are “irrelevant” or “peripheral” - especially when aimed at the forces transforming the foundation beneath them. What if the so-called detours - software-first care, AI-driven pathways, health equity, emerging markets, radical alliances - are not distractions, but the main road? What if growth no longer comes from building higher walls around legacy, but from widening the gates to welcome new models, new mindsets, and new partners?

This is not a call to abandon strategic discipline or chase the latest trend. It is a call to confront blind spots. To recognise that irrelevance is rarely a cliff - it is a slope, made slippery by inertia and unchallenged assumptions. The future will demand more of MedTech. The only question is whether its incumbents will demand more of themselves - before the market decides for them.

A forthcoming Commentary will outline a strategic roadmap for legacy MedTech leaders navigating mounting headwinds, offering practical steps to overcome structural constraints and reignite value creation, growth, and competitive relevance.
view in full page
11 months, 3 weeks ago

MedTech Market Access for a Digital Era

HealthPad
Directory:
Medical Technology
Tags:
commentary
digital health
MedTech
predictive analytics
value-based healthcare
  • Traditional, high-touch sales approaches fail to meet the demands of today’s healthcare systems
  • Value-based care, digital health, AI and increased patient voices are reshaping purchasing priorities and market dynamics
  • Marketing success lies in outcome-based partnerships, AI-driven insights, and integrated digital solutions
  • MedTech leaders must become digitally fluent, foster innovation, and prioritise long-term value

MedTech Market Access for a Digital Era

In the late 20th century, the MedTech industry thrived, powered by a sales-driven approach that prioritised the relationship between sales representatives and healthcare providers. These strategies, built on personal trust and labour-intensive engagement, played a pivotal role in bringing transformative technologies to patients. However, the healthcare landscape of the 21st century is evolving rapidly. The traditional relationship-centric sales model, once a cornerstone of success, is now at odds with the demands of modern healthcare ecosystems.

The rise of value-based healthcare, digital health platforms, and AI-driven personalised therapies has redefined how healthcare is delivered and measured. Providers and healthcare systems are seeking solutions and services that demonstrate tangible clinical and economic value, integrate into digital workflows, and support data-driven decision-making. This shift requires MedTech companies to transcend traditional sales policies and embrace innovative, technology-enabled approaches to market access. Success in this rapidly changing era demands not just products but also partnerships, where digital tools, real-world evidence, and collaborative strategies drive sustainable outcomes. It is time to rethink how MedTech engages with the healthcare sector in a world shaped by data, efficiency, and value.
 
In this Commentary

This Commentary explores the decline of the traditional MedTech sales model, once built on personal relationships and high-touch engagement, in an era dominated by value-based care, digital health, and AI-driven healthcare solutions and services. It highlights the misalignment of traditional strategies with modern healthcare needs and suggests ideas for reimagining market access. By embracing outcome-based partnerships, leveraging AI, and embedding digital services, MedTech companies can position themselves as leaders in the evolving healthcare landscape.
 
The Rise and Resilience of the Traditional MedTech Sales Model

The traditional sales-driven model in MedTech emerged as a natural response to the needs of both the industry and the healthcare ecosystem. Sales representatives were more than transactional intermediaries; they played multifaceted roles as educators, advocates, and trusted advisors. Their expertise bridged the gap between cutting-edge medical technologies and the overburdened physicians tasked with delivering care. Often, these representatives worked directly alongside clinicians, providing support in operating rooms during surgeries, or guiding optimal device use, ensuring that complex products achieved their intended outcomes.

This model thrived during a time when clinicians held significant autonomy in selecting tools and technologies. Purchasing decisions were often personal, based on trust and familiarity, which made relationship-building important. MedTech companies responded by assembling well-trained, specialised salesforces adept at navigating these nuanced dynamics. Firms like Johnson & Johnson, Abbott, and Medtronic solidified their market dominance - the combined 3 companies account for ~16% of the global MedTech market - by cultivating deep customer loyalty through this hands-on approach, reinforcing their reputations as partners in care rather than just vendors.

Even as healthcare evolves, the resilience of this model is evident. Its foundational emphasis on trust, expertise, and collaboration remains a cornerstone, albeit one facing new challenges in an era of value-based care and centralised purchasing decisions.
 
Why Traditional MedTechs Cling to Old Ways

Despite significant changes in healthcare delivery, many MedTech companies remain tethered to this traditional sales model. There are several reasons for this inertia.

1. Cultural Legacy of Sales Dominance
Senior leadership teams in many traditional MedTech firms are frequently comprised of executives who built their careers in sales, fostering a deep-rooted belief that success is driven by high-touch, relationship-oriented selling. This perspective often aligns with the sector’s historical reliance on personal connections to drive growth. Shifting such entrenched mindsets can be a challenge, particularly in organisations with a legacy of success using these approaches. It requires not only cultural transformation but also demonstrating the value of alternative strategies.

2. Misaligned Incentives
Many MedTechs continue to incentivise their commercial teams using metrics focused on short-term sales performance, such as quarterly revenue targets or the volume of devices sold. While effective for driving immediate results, these incentives create a strong disincentive to explore alternative strategies that may better serve long-term objectives. By prioritising near-term gains, companies risk stifling innovation and missing opportunities to align more closely with evolving customer needs, ultimately limiting their potential for sustainable growth.

3. Lack of Digital Fluency at the Top
Traditional MedTech leaders frequently lack the digital fluency needed to fully understand and embrace the transformative potential of tools such as AI, predictive analytics, and digital service layers. This gap in knowhow and experience can encourage scepticism about the value and efficacy of digital-first strategies, often leading to hesitation or underinvestment in these innovations. Without a clear appreciation of how such technologies can drive competitive advantage, organisations risk falling behind in an increasingly tech-driven healthcare landscape.

4. Complexity of Healthcare Systems
Selling to healthcare providers, payers, and integrated delivery systems is more complex than engaging with individual clinicians. These broader stakeholders demand value propositions that go beyond individual product benefits, requiring an understanding of system-wide outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and interoperability. Despite this shift in the healthcare environment, many MedTech companies remain hesitant to move beyond their traditional clinician-focused sales strategies. Such reluctance stems from a preference for familiar approaches and a lack of confidence in navigating system-based selling challenges.

5. Resistance to Risk
The MedTech industry operates within a highly regulated ecosystem, where strict compliance standards and patient safety are paramount. As a result, companies tend to be inherently risk-averse, with leadership often cautious about pursuing change. This hesitation is driven by concerns that innovation or new strategies could inadvertently compromise regulatory compliance, disrupt established customer relationships, or threaten existing revenue streams. While this caution is understandable, it can sometimes hinder the agility needed to adapt to evolving market demands.
 
Why the Traditional Sales Model No Longer Works

The healthcare industry’s transition to value-based healthcare, alongside the rapid rise of digital health solutions, has rendered the traditional sales model increasingly obsolete. Here’s why:
 
1. Shift to Value-Based Care

Under value-based care, healthcare providers are incentivised to deliver superior patient outcomes while controlling costs. This shift moves away from traditional fee-for-service models, where clinicians had discretion to select high-cost devices, toward systems emphasising cost-effectiveness and real world evidence-based results. MedTech companies must adapt by demonstrating their devices provide measurable, impactful value through robust data and clinical evidence, rather than relying on persuasive sales tactics or legacy relationships to drive adoption.
 
2. Consolidation of Decision-Making
 
Purchasing decisions in healthcare have shifted from individual clinicians to procurement committees, group purchasing organisations (GPOs), and hospital executives, who now drive the process. These stakeholders prioritise data-driven evidence that demonstrates both clinical efficacy and economic value, leaving little room for decisions influenced by personal relationships. This transition emphasises the growing significance of robust metrics and compelling outcomes in shaping purchasing strategies and aligning with institutional priorities.
 
3. Digital Health and AI Disruption
 
The rapid proliferation of digital health solutions and services has heightened expectations for seamless integration, real-time data sharing, and personalised user experiences. As a result, legacy MedTech devices that lack advanced digital capabilities are increasingly perceived as outdated and less competitive. This shift is obliging companies to rethink their product strategies and marketing approaches, emphasising innovation, connectivity, and alignment with evolving healthcare ecosystems to remain relevant and meet the demands of modern stakeholders.
 
4. Rising Patient Empowerment

The healthcare landscape is undergoing a transformative shift as patients take an active, informed role in their care decisions, driven by digital tools and unprecedented access to information. As highlighted in Choice Matters by Gordon Moore et al, empowered patients influence health outcomes and reshape healthcare expectations, demanding transparency, personalisation, and value. For MedTech companies, adapting to this paradigm requires prioritising patient-centric strategies, fostering collaboration, and delivering tailored solutions to remain relevant and trusted in an era of heightened patient agency.
 
Reimagining Market Access: Ideas for the Digital-First Era

To thrive in this digital era, MedTech companies must embrace changes to how they market and distribute their products. Here are three strategies for rethinking market access:

Outcome-Based Partnerships
The traditional fee-for-product sales model in MedTech needs to evolve into outcome-based partnerships that align the incentives of MedTech companies with those of healthcare providers. Such partnerships can include innovative risk-sharing agreements where payment is directly linked to the device's performance in delivering measurable clinical outcomes.

For instance, rather than selling a surgical robot outright, a MedTech company might partner with a hospital to deploy the technology while sharing in the cost savings generated by fewer surgical complications and improved patient recovery rates. Similarly, companies specialising in wearable health devices could base their pricing on tangible metrics, such as increased patient adherence to prescribed treatment plans or significant reductions in hospital readmissions, ensuring mutual value creation.

Challenges and Solution
Challenge Establishing robust data and metrics to measure outcomes.
Solution Adapt existing products to generate data and work collaboratively with healthcare providers to define clear, evidence-based performance indicators. Leverage real-world evidence to validate outcomes over time.

Leveraging AI and Predictive Analytics
AI and predictive analytics are poised to transform how MedTech companies demonstrate value to payers and healthcare systems. By leveraging data from clinical trials, real-world usage, and digital health platforms, companies can build predictive models that quantify the long-term clinical and economic benefits of their devices.

For example, a MedTech company specialising in cardiac implants could use predictive analytics to highlight how its products reduce lifetime healthcare costs by reducing hospitalisations and improving patient outcomes. Additionally, AI-driven insights can help tailor value propositions to address the unique priorities of each healthcare provider, such as reducing readmission rates or improving operational efficiency, ultimately strengthening sales strategies, and fostering more meaningful partnerships.

Challenges and Solutions
Challenge Accessing high-quality, longitudinal data.
Solution Partner with healthcare providers, payers, and academic institutions to co-develop data-sharing agreements that ensure mutual benefit.
 
Embedding Digital Service Layers
MedTech companies must shift from a hardware-focused sales approach to delivering integrated solutions that combine devices with advanced digital service layers. These layers might include features like: (i) remote monitoring for continuous patient care, (ii) predictive maintenance alerts to optimise the uptime of surgical equipment, and (iii) AI-powered decision support tools that assist clinicians in making more accurate and timely interventions.

For instance, a company selling glucose monitors could enhance its offering by integrating them with a digital health platform that provides patients with personalised insights and actionable recommendations for managing their diabetes. These digital services not only foster long-term engagement with patients and healthcare providers but also create recurring revenue streams, reinforce brand loyalty, and position MedTech companies as indispensable partners in the care continuum.

Challenges and Solutions
Challenge Developing and maintaining high-quality software capabilities.
Solution Invest in in-house digital talent or pursue strategic acquisitions of digital health start-ups.
 
Case Study

DePuy Synthes, a Johnson & Johnson company and a global leader in orthopaedics, exemplifies how traditional corporations can transform sales strategies to thrive in the 21st century. By leveraging digital tools, data-driven insights, and personalised customer engagement, DePuy Synthes has set a new industry benchmark.

Central to this transformation is the adoption of Salesforce, a powerful customer relationship management platform. By centralising customer data and enabling real-time sales tracking, Salesforce empowers DePuy Synthes to make data-driven decisions and respond swiftly to customer needs. Complementing this, the company has incorporated Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality into its sales processes. These immersive technologies facilitate product demonstrations and surgical simulations, providing healthcare professionals with risk-free, hands-on experiences that build trust and confidence in complex orthopaedic solutions.

DePuy Synthes also employs targeted digital marketing strategies, including content marketing, social media engagement, and personalised email campaigns, to expand its reach and foster brand awareness. Through these channels, the company communicates with both healthcare professionals and patients, driving lead generation in a competitive market.

Data and predictive analytics, plays a role in refining sales strategies. DePuy Synthes leverages analytics to identify market trends, predict customer needs, and tailor offerings to specific segments. Predictive analytics further enhances inventory management and positions the company to seize emerging opportunities.

Remote collaboration tools, such as virtual meetings and webinars, enable DePuy Synthes to engage healthcare professionals globally, sharing product knowledge and maintaining client relationships without geographical constraints. This commitment to accessibility and innovation is emphasised by personalised customer experiences, where tailored recommendations and dedicated support teams foster loyalty and trust.

DePuy Synthes’ transformation underscores the need for MedTech companies to modernise their sales strategies. By embracing digital innovation, data-driven insights, and customer-centric approaches, DePuy Synthes has enhanced efficiency and secured its competitive edge, serving as a model for industry evolution.
 
Call to Action: A New Vision for MedTech Leadership

The transition to a digital-first era demands not only new strategies but also a shift in leadership mindset. MedTech executives must champion digital fluency and cultivate a culture of innovation and experimentation across their organisations. Key steps could include: (i) establishing dedicated innovation teams to pilot transformative market access and value-based care models, (ii) integrating chief digital officers into the executive leadership teams to drive digital transformation, and (iii) aligning incentive structures to prioritise long-term value creation over short-term revenue goals. By embracing these changes, MedTech companies can break free from legacy limitations.
 
Takeaways

The traditional MedTech sales model, while effective in its time, has reached its limits in today’s rapidly evolving healthcare landscape. In an era shaped by value-based care, digital health integration, and AI-driven personalisation, adhering to outdated approaches risks diminishing relevance. The future belongs to companies bold enough to reimagine how their solutions are marketed, adopted, and integrated into the broader healthcare ecosystem.

By shifting to outcome-based partnerships, MedTech firms can align their success with measurable clinical improvements and cost savings for providers. Leveraging AI and predictive analytics empowers companies to demonstrate the long-term value of their products while tailoring offerings to the specific needs of healthcare systems. Embedding digital service layers not only enhances product functionality but also fosters long-term relationships and recurring revenue streams.

This is not the end of MedTech’s growth potential but a pivotal moment to transform. By embracing these changes, companies can redefine their role as essential partners in delivering smarter, more sustainable healthcare.
view in full page