
Seattle-based Shift Labs now has three low-cost medical devices in the pipeline - alvinktai
http://fortune.com/2015/09/09/shift-labs-medical-devices/
======
georgeoliver
So if medical devices are expensive to support marketing costs, why are
Shift's marketing costs less?

~~~
icegreentea
Some WAGs here.

They haven't gotten FDA clearance yet - and apparently infusion pumps require
a 510k submission (heres the guidance document specifically for infusion
pumps:
[http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulation...](http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM209337.pdf)).

I only gave it a quick skim, and it doesn't seem overly difficult to fulfill
(I work at a company that makes an FDA cleared diagnostic device). I'm
guessing that they received more funding than the article stated - the
regulatory process + setting up all the quality systems required is an easy
way to burn cash, even if you are a smart lean savvy startup. Trying to
fulfill the 510k submission could easily burn ~1 million even if they were
lucky and smart.

For another thing, marketing costs in medical devices tend to by high because
you need a lot of face time and networking. You often have to work through a
lot of little different fiefdoms at every hospital/hospital network you want
to sell at. It's rare that you have a product whose technical advantages are
so overwhelming that it 'just sells itself', as the majority of the medical
field is in general pretty conservative. Incremental improvements to existing
products are in many ways a much easier sell than any attempt to break a mold.

Since Shift does not have FDA clearance yet, then they are in fact legally not
allowed to market in the US for human use. If that's the case, then their
marketing costs will naturally be lower.

That said, I have no idea how their veterinary sales/marketing work out.

~~~
petra
Sure there are politics and products are mostly the same, but doesn't selling
something much much cheaper via direct channel, attractive to purchasers?
Aren't they measured by cost?

------
nitin_flanker
There are very few people who don't like the way everything use to go. They
find shortcoming in some of these very complex things and find ways to improve
them. But then naysayers try to discourage them by giving some facts and
figure. But these people, with their indomitable will, don't stop and find a
way of their own. This story of Kolko and her DripAssist device is one hell of
an inspiring story. Her company has potential to revolutionize the medical
device industry.

------
CyberDildonics
Guys this is a straight up PR piece.

------
josephpmay
Another startup doing similar stuff is Stasis Labs

www.stasislabs.com

------
regeland
A IV drip regulator "changes how medical devices are made?" Hardly an example
to compete with pacemakers, stimulators, orthopedic implants, biologics,
endovascular devices, laproscopic surgery, electromagnetic navigation, CT and
MRI scanners, etc. Bit of an oversimplification (not uncommon for "Fortune") I
might suggest.

~~~
sdrothrock
The claim isn't that the drip regulator changes how medical devices are made,
but that the _company_ wants to change how medical devices are made -- that
is, it wants to make them affordable and accessible for countries that don't
have access to them.

Even the original headline ("Startup Shift Labs wants to change how medical
devices are made") doesn't make the claim that the drip regulator is
revolutionary or will change how devices are made.

Also, a relevant quote, italics mine:

> The primary market for DripAssist, however, _isn’t U.S. hospitals_ , where
> nearly every bed has its own IV infusion pump. “If you think worldwide about
> the number of infusions that are done every day,” says Kolko, _“The vast
> majority of them are done without a pump and that’s the market we’re
> targeting.”_

