PRODUCTS & SERVICES
Photo credit: nosorogua
stock.adobe.com
Device, equipment maintenance and
repair driven by yin–yang yearning Potential healthcare sting related to state “right-to-repair” laws
blunted for now by Rick Dana Barlow
I
f healthcare organizations wanted to log their utmost desire and deepest fear about the devices and equipment clini- cians and administrators use within their facilities, they likely would record dueling acknowledgements: Devices and equipment work continuously as designed when needed without ever going down and that devices and equipment fail to work as designed when needed and go down, respectively. Aside from the idyllic desires, the reality is
that devices and equipment endure normal wear-and-tear from continual use and need to be maintained and repaired as part of the total cost of operation and ownership. Healthcare organizations, by and large, can choose between three options to care for their devices and equipment, and all three require access to technological knowledge, component parts and labor without nega- tively affecting any warranty. 1. Contracting with the original equip- ment manufacturer (OEM) via extended warranty program or time-and-mate- rials package
2. Contracting with a third-party inde- pendent service organization (ISO) in lieu of an OEM
3. Working with biomedical/clinical engi- neering professionals on staff that may be trained and certifi ed. Each option offers certain benefi ts and challenges that must be recognized and managed. Not surprisingly, providers and suppliers alike favor specifi c preferences that generally line up like this: OEMs want to service their own devices and equipment because they stress they have the experience and materials to provide quality service to retain and satisfy customer relationships; ISOs want to compete and generate revenue by offering what they promote as quality maintenance and repair services at lower costs than the OEMs; and healthcare organi- zations simply want the best of both worlds – that is, OEM reliability and service quality at ISO prices.
OEM vs. ISO
OEM supporters maintain the advantage that the constructors of the equipment know it the most intimately and have the manpower and material resources to keep it working. This can add to the cost of the equipment, which they cover through retail pricing that can be reduced through
38 February 2023 • HEALTHCARE PURCHASING NEWS •
hpnonline.com
skillful contract negotiations by group purchasing organizations (GPO) , inte- grated delivery networks (IDN) or hospital supply chain department leaders. OEM supporters also contend that they must meet federal quality manufacturing and service regulations for their products to be marketed for sale. “Medical technology companies must fol- low strict regulatory quality system regula- tions in order for their serviced devices continue to be safe and effective,” said Manish Singh, Business Unit Vice President, Service Delivery, Olympus America Inc. “OEM repair technicians are extensively trained and specialize in maintaining and repairing OEM devices. The stan- dards and level of training provides confi dence that the medical equipment is brought back to manufac- turer specifi cations during each repair event, thus making the device operate as it was intended with a resultant effect being prevention of patient harm. Further, OEMs are required to report adverse events to the FDA, which is critical
Manish Singh
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46
