Achieving Together

When you think about medical technology product development or manufacturing, many things come to mind—science, patients (and patience), skill, knowledge, talent, quality, speed, cost, in addition to countless others. Pick your favorites. Where our industry excels—perhaps more so than other manufacturing sectors—is in bringing all of these seemingly disparate variables together. The pieces, parts and materials that go into creating a titanium trauma screw or a state-of-the-art imaging system, for example, don’t just physically go into the device itself. Resources in different forms are scattered throughout the process. It’s more than a supply chain of tangible goods moved from Point A to Point B, which are then put together and sent back out, that brings a medical device to market. More than parts, it’s about bringing the people (with the right talents) together.

This issue’s feature about assembly and automation (page 34)—a regular topic in our annual coverage of the medical device manufacturing space—is very literally about bringing parts together. But, as experts quoted in this year’s installment tell MPO, what goes into medtech assembly and automaton isn’t as cut-and-dry as it may appear.

“Automation is not simply buying a vision system and robots. Subtle design changes like part alignment pins, textured surfaces and contrasting colors often enable more robust assembly and inspection strategies,” said one industry source. “With early involvement, equipment can be designed to catch and isolate any non-conformities resulting in a robust work cell with 100-percent tested and verified product.”

To continue the “bringing things together” theme, Managing Editor Michael Barbella’s feature on nanotechnology (page 52) not only delves into how current research of extreme miniaturization could transform medical device product offerings, but also outlines how two university engineers/professors working on separate projects and in different fields of study joined forces to achieve a cutting-edge breakthrough they may not have reached otherwise had their offices not been just a few doors apart.

And as Associate Editor Ranica Arrowsmith explores in this month’s electronic component manufacturing feature (page 42), traditional medical device product development is colliding with forces from consumer electronics to redefine how medical devices are created and used. Deep pockets (think Apple and Google), a push for interconnectivity and the influence of a different design philosophy are set to reshape the production, value proposition and use of medical technology.

Financial News (page 20) looks at how medical device companies are jumping on the “inversion” bandwagon—buying foreign companies to reincorporate abroad to take advantage of lower tax rates (Medtronic Inc.’s proposed purchase of Ireland-based Covidien plc). It’s a way to come together that U.S. lawmakers wish companies weren’t so quick to pursue. But, no shock here, they can’t get together to decide how to stop it. The White House has contemplated executive action but hasn’t set a timeline yet. On Sept. 2, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters that if Congress refuses to act, the Obama administration is considering options to respond to “corporate deserters.” The practice is legal, but the White House wants to make it tougher. Some experts suggest the administration and U.S. Department of the Treasury could sour the taste for corporate inversion deals by counting a company’s U.S.-issued debt as equity, making it more difficult for firms to achieve the necessary majority of foreign equity ownership required for an inversion deal.

While many Democrats want to respond to inversions with specific legislation, Republicans and even former President Bill Clinton claim that inversion deals are a symptom of a larger tax problem that requires comprehensive reform to resolve. President Obama says he’s open to reform, but it’s unlikely that anything substantive would happen on that front with midterm elections just weeks away. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) suggested that companies that do inversion deals should not be allowed to compete for federal contracts. Financial experts seem to think the inversion trend—2014 has been the busiest year on record for such deals—is slowing, as bigwigs begin to worry about possible government intervention, among other headaches. 

Inversions perhaps aren’t the best examples of medtech firms coming together to achieve great things. But, as this (and I’d like to think every) issue of MPO illustrates, the medical device industry’s true grit is in how it leverages a host of varied resources to achieve incredible results.

Christopher Delporte
Editorial Director
[email protected]