Is it close to market levels or is it artificially high (like through IP, tariffs/quotas, or other excessive regulations)?
I was wondering because my dad started his practice and he says it's overpriced and he said most of the stuff could practically be built in residential garages and that the materials to make them aren't that expensive.
I've googled stuff like "medical equipment protectionism", but can't find anything which leads to believe that the demand for it is so high and that's why it's expensive.
No2statism:Is it close to market levels or is it artificially high
Well. What is the market level of "medical equipment"?
he said most of the stuff could practically be built in residential garages and that the materials to make them aren't that expensive.
So uh...why doesn't he do that?
Thanks for replying:) Market level price is the price that the state is directly or indirectly controlling the price of it... basically, I should've just asked... "is the government doing anything (other than expanding the money supply) that makes the price of medical equipment higher than it would otherwise be?".
I guess he doesn't make them because he's not an engineer.
Patents keep it expensive.
Check this out...
http://gizmodo.com/5450150/in-early-tests-99-wii-balance-board-outperforms-17885-medical-rig
You can get around patent law if the device is being used for something other than what it was designed for. The Nintendo Wii Balance Board's patent application obviously didn't have anything vaguely medical in it.
can't find anything which leads to believe that the demand for it is so high and that's why it's expensive.
Medical insurance is subsidised, underwritten or nationalised in much of the developed world. Limitless public money is chasing an insatiable demand... The will not to die today. Then patents create legal monopolies wherever a useful means to that end may be found, at least where it's found by design.
As far as new tools that are used in an ambulance, and any tool I am capable of thinking of in an ER - they are cheaper when you work in the field.
Of course you are asking an odd question, qs JJ pointed ot what do you mean "markrt level"?.
Also, I wold think any medical supply company is going to want to make people who buy in bulk / major cliental pay cheaper prices in the long run.
A military company is going to usually naturally want to sell lower to Nation States vs Bob my neighbor
and an Ice Cream cone company is usually naturally going to want to sell lower to Baskin Robins than Bob as well
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
There is a huge market for generic medical devices that isn't being exploited. A lot products invented in the 90s are seeing their patents expire. Start something like GMD and make stents in your garage. I thought about it, but there's no free-market cure for my entrepreneurial laziness, unfortunately.
Would throwing government money your way cure your laziness ? Actually, will it cure anyones laziness ? Speaking of laziness, its not laziness that prevents people from creating a garage medical startup, its the reality that the medical industry is so regulated that the even the hardest working soul working 24 hours a day in his garage would never be able to overcome all the red tape and lawyers to comply with the rules, which is exactly why only a massive corporation could ever do any of this work.
No, all you gotta do is get an instruction manual. I'll read it once the gubmint pays my operation's hot pocket/ramen noodle costs.
Depending on what you mean by "equipment" I'd state unequivocally yes. While I also work in the medical field I'm also a consumer--I recently was able to purchase an instrument on eBay that equivalent versions sell for 10x as much from a reputable vendor. The difference? If I were ever to create documentation that made reference to the instrument I'd be in a world of hurt should I ever be audited by the FDA since it came with no certification.
In a more normal circumstance:
Medtronic v. Michelson
This particular 'inventor' is well known because his patents are extremely broad and also well strictly enforced--is there any question that the 1+ billion dollars he made on his IP would not have otherwise reduced costs for the items they are describing?
The fact that there is such enormous lawsuits regarding IP in the field of medical technology is proof that money is being wasted and necessarily increasing the cost of the end product.
An opportune moment for me to link on a Mises Daily article I wrote on the MRI machine: The Wicked Work of Medical Patents.
its the reality that the medical industry is so regulated that the even the hardest working soul working 24 hours a day in his garage would never be able to overcome all the red tape and lawyers to comply with the rules,
That's possible. It is also possible that no one is qoing to want to trust a random amature working in his garage. Or no one outside of an eccentric billionaire would want to casually bear the legal burden of dealing with faulty medical products - something I would imagine would be expensive in any environment.
Medical patents are an ugly business. I don't think that totally getting rid of patenting is a good idea. But there are times when maybe we could get away with dropping patent protections or shortening the terms. Like with Celera, who helped with the HGP in expectation of a patent until the government went "hahaha fuck you" and released it for public use.
Ideally the NIH should steal more tax money from poor proletarian taxpayers and use it to buy these patents itself so they're publicly available and the inventors get rewarded, but that's just my opinion.
It's not just the patents, in this case, but also regulations on "reliability" of medical devices.
Clayton -