Sunday, September 23, 2007

Clinical Innovations - Ten Thoughts (and Afterthoughts) About Medical Innovation

During a listless moment, I jotted down ten thoughts for a talk I’m developing on medical innovation.


1. Innovation is about trying, testing, rejecting, and selecting new ideas that make a difference.

(To holding the line, don’t give too much reverence).

2. Innovation is the special province of surgeons (esp gadget-prone orthopedists) and IT physician types.


(Both of whom think gadgets or algorithms can correct most health care blights).


3. Innovation is about the future, not the past.


(The past is not always built to last).


4. Innovation is about opportunities rather than problems.


(Don’t get too hung up on the old emblems).



5. Innovation ideas often comes from outside rather than inside.


(Savings come from inside, revenues from outside).



6. Innovation separates good practices from also-rans.


(Also-ran rarely own a Benz).


7. Innovation distinguishes U.S. health care from the rest of the world - 80% of Nobel Prize winners are from the U.S., and so do most technologic advances.


(Doctors in other countries with socialistic systems have fewer incentives to take more chances).


8. Innovation may offer services cheaper, better, and more convenient, but it can be disruptive.


(To the practice routine, it may be revolutionary and violently eruptive.)


9. Innovation may be the salvation of U.S. health care; in the process saving us from the mediocre.


(And from the managed care broker).


10. Innovation requires physician champions and leaders.


(Who serve as chief innovators and idea breeders).

4 comments:

Gary M. Levin said...

I like "catalytic innovation" in lieu of "disruptive technology"

GML

Richard L. Reece, MD said...

I too like "catalytic" innovation rather than "discruptive" innovation

Dr. Bonis said...

You said: "7. Innovation distinguishes U.S. health care from the rest of the world - 80% of Nobel Prize winners are from the U.S., and so do most technologic advances.(Doctors in other countries with socialistic systems have fewer incentives to take more chances)."

I do not agree with that conclusion. The reasons for nobel prizes prevealing within USA are more complex than just a lack of innovation outside States. There is a proved publication bias for english speakers (most of then americans), a wealthier economy allows to invest more in research...

Innovation has nothing to do with nobel prizes. Has to do with finding problems and solving them. Some of the most important discovers for medicine in the last 100 years comes from outside USA (penicilin, vaccines, the world wide web...). Of course we use to value more the solutions to our problems (obesity, cancer, cardiovascular diseases for example...) thatn to other problems (water sanity, infectious diseases, malaria). In africa there are millions innovating everyday to solve these problems. Of course they don't use to win Nobel prizes. Sometimes they do, as that guy of microloans from Bangla Desh.

However I agree with you about the perception of innovation being more easily implemented in USA health-care system than in some European systems. But the socialized medicine is not the problem. The problem is burocrary and lack of employes empowerment. Burocracy is the enemy wherever it occurs under "socialist system" or "capitalist system".

Great blog!

Anonymous said...

The absolute adroitness and superior of replica watches will accomplish you blessed and that is aswell the acumen why they are abundantly approved afterwards all about the globe. Nowadays, added and added humans tend to buy these adorable and affordable Cartier replica watches instead of the individual awful priced affluence one.