Accessible Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter April 4, 2014

The Crowd, the Cloud and Improving the Future of Medical Device Innovation

Marco Huesch and Robert Szczerba


Barriers and delays to medical device innovation are often solely attributable to the regulatory environment instead of both the current state of innovation practices and product development processes in the industry. Increasing the pace of innovation while reducing costs requires the creation of a new approach that fits both established medical device corporations as well as entrepreneurial start-ups. In this commentary we advance the concept of innovation platforms to facilitate ideation in the medical device space. Such platforms could also allow the full health benefits from individual medical devices to be reaped, by overcoming interoperability concerns through simulation and credentialing. Given the dramatic benefits of medical device success, such non-traditional business models for development may be potential solutions for industry, users and regulators.

Corresponding author: Marco Huesch, USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA, Tel.: +213-821-6122; Fax: +213-740-3460, e-mail:


Austin, R. D., L. Devin and E. E. Sullivan (2012) “Accidental Innovation: Supporting Valuable Unpredictability in the Creative Process,” Organization Science, 23:1505–1522.Search in Google Scholar

Bailey, D. E., P. M. Leonardi and S. R. Barley (2012) “The Lure of the Virtual,” Organization Science, 23:1485–1504.Search in Google Scholar

Boosman, F. and R. J. Szczerba (2010) Simulated Clinical Environments and Virtual System-of-Systems Engineering for Health Care. Interservice/ITSEC Conference. Available at: .Search in Google Scholar

Chesbrough, H. W. (2003) Open Innovation, The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Search in Google Scholar

Curry, L. A., I. M. Nembhard and E. H. Bradley (2009) “Qualitative and Mixed Methods Provide Unique Contributions to Outcomes Research,” Circulation, 119:1442–1452.Search in Google Scholar

Cutler, D. M. and E. Meara (2000) “The Technology of Birth: Is It Worth It?” Frontiers in Health Policy Research, 3:33–68.Search in Google Scholar

Garber, A. M. and J. Skinner (2008) “Is American Health Care Uniquely Inefficient?” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22:27–50.Search in Google Scholar

Leone, A. (2011) An Embedded Solution for Medical Device Interoperability. Available at: .Search in Google Scholar

Mabry, P. L., D. H. Olster, G. D. Morgan and D. B. Abrams (2008) “Interdisciplinarity and Systems Science to Improve Population Health: a View from the NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35:S211–S224.Search in Google Scholar

Newhouse, J. P. (1992) “Medical Care Costs: How Much Welfare Loss?” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 6(3):3–21.Search in Google Scholar

Szczerba, R. J. and M. D. Huesch (2012) “Does Healthcare Need Science or Technology More?” BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 12:103.Search in Google Scholar

Terwiesch, C. and Y. Xu (2008) “Innovation Contests, Open Innovation, and Multiagent Problem Solving,” Management Science, 54:1529–1543.Search in Google Scholar

Trochim, W. M., D. A. Cabrera, B. Milstein, R. S. Gallagher and S. J. Leischow (2006) “Practical Challenges of Systems Thinking and Modeling in Public Health,” American Journal of Public Health, 96:538–546.Search in Google Scholar

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2012) Overview of Device Regulation. Available at: .Search in Google Scholar

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (2003) The Critical Care Workforce: A Study of the Supply and Demand for Critical Care Physicians. Available at: in Google Scholar

Von Hippel, E. (2005) Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2014-4-4
Published in Print: 2014-1-1

©2014 by De Gruyter