Author: Team
THE ACTUATOR’S EIGHT PROMISING MEDTECH COMPANIES
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The Actuator, Australia’s venture-backed national accelerator for medical technologies today announced their second cohort of promising medtech seed ventures.
Supported by Australian Industry Growth Centre, MTPConnect and a plethora of ecosystem partners, The Actuator’s second cohort of companies will be put through their paces in a rigorous industry-led 15-month technology and entrepreneurial skill development accelerator program. Along with training, mentoring and connectivity to local and global networks, the program will provide up to $200,000 seed investment, and up to $2.5 million further funding through partners, Artesian.
After an intense selection and due diligence process, eight high-impact medtech startups were selected to participate in the 2018 Round 2 Actuator Accelerator program.
The second round of applications was extremely competitive and the quality of applications was exceptionally high, with 70 early-stage startups seeking to accelerate the commercialisation of their medtech innovations.
Capitalising on the Nation’s existing research, service and product development strengths, The Actuator will bring in the very best of Australia’s medtech and innovation system to prepare teams for clinical trials, advanced manufacturing and at-scale technology development.
The 8 successful participants are:
- TerraBlue XT – Medical grade, non-invasive, fully automated wearable system backed by an IoT/AI platform to predict, detect and manage epilepsy, scalable to other chronic neurological disorders.
- Curatek – A wireless disposable patch that continuously monitors respiratory rate to aid early warning of patient deterioration
- Stelect – A single use, novel catheter design for accurate stent selection the first time, every time.
- Augmented Bionics – Non-surgical ‘wearable’ alternative to cochlear implants.
- Rehabswift – A restorative brain-computer interface (BCI) to kick-start stroke recovery.
- Flomatrix – A novel catheter design aimed to reduce the current high PIVC failure rates
- Hexagon Innovation – Hexagon Innovation offers wearable technology that relieves worry about elderly people by detecting unusual events, falls or distress wherever they occur.
- Lenexa Medical – pressure injury (PI) prevention and detection in the operating theatre empowering clinicians to deliver targeted wound care interventions.
“Our mission is to support our home-grown talent within their local innovation ecosystems, and build incredible successes. We are eager to support such innovative and dynamic medtech startups, emerge out of Australia,” says Dr Buzz Palmer, CEO of The Actuator.
“The Actuator is an exciting initiative set to expedite technology transfer and research translation. MTPConnect congratulates the successful participants of the second round and we look forward to tracking the impact of these medical technologies.
“MTPConnect funded the Actuator in the 2016 round of our Project Fund Program, which was developed to bring together all players in the sector, to drive collaboration and commercialisation; overcoming identified constraints and barriers in the sector,” says Dr Daniel Grant CEO of MTPConnect.
The Victorian Government helped The Actuator to establish its headquarters in Melbourne and Minister for Innovation and the Digital Economy Philip Dalidakis said its programs were providing invaluable support to startups in a key sector.
“The Actuator is helping nurture innovative medtech startups as they take the next step in turning their great ideas and research into commercial success stories,” Mr Dalidakis said.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
BRIDGETECH PROGRAM ANNOUNCES PARTNERS AND 2018 COHORT
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Applications for the BridgeTech Program have been running over the past few months, and have so far received over 120 expressions of interest from researchers, business development professionals, entrepreneurs, medical professionals and more.
The BridgeTech Program is convened and administered by QUT and involves a consortium of partners who are delivering a program to train researchers and entrepreneurs on the scientific, legal, financial, clinical, regulatory and reimbursement disciplines related to taking medical technology to market.
This highly selective program is now enrolling 77 participants from around Australia, including:
- 14 participants from New South Wales
- 25 participants from Queensland
- 8 participants from South Australia
- 23 participants from Victoria
- 7 participants from Western Australia
Further to the announcement of the selection of the 2018 participants, The BridgeTech Program also announced the consortium partners who will be contributing to the design and networking opportunities of the program.
Comprising medtech companies, universities and industry associations, consortium now has 20 partners including:
| Agilent Technologies | IDE Group | Stryker | |
| AusBiotech | Life Sciences Queensland | The Actuator | |
| Cochlear | Macquarie University | University of Melbourne | |
| Deakin University | Magnetica | University of New South Wales | |
| Flinders University | MTAA | University of Newcastle | |
| Gadens | Queensland University of Technology | University of Western Australia | |
| Hydrix | |||
| Siemens Healthcare | |||
Speaking on the importance of the partners, Professor Lyn Griffiths, Executive Director of QUT’s Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation (IHBI) and Director of The BridgeTech Program, said that “through its consortium of partners, the BridgeTech Program is unique in its ability to incorporate industry expertise, create key collaboration opportunities and draw on the breadth of knowledge needed to design an effective course.”
The BridgeTech Program is also supported by MTPConnect – the Medical Technologies and Pharmaceuticals Industry Growth Centre – who are providing industry matched funding to run the program.
At the first event last week, held in Brisbane, at the Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation QUT, The BridgeTech Program hosted Lusia Guthrie as the first speaker for the 2018 cohort.
In addressing BridgeTech participants, Mrs Guthrie spoke of her experience and interest in the development and commercialisation of breakthrough healthcare products that embrace automation, robotics and machine learning.
Having over 35 years of experience in various sectors of healthcare, Mrs Guthrie shares her breadth of knowledge on bringing innovative products to global markets, embracing the entire process from concept to product launch, including company formation and capital raising.
This seminar is just the first of a series of talks that will be held in different cities around Australia for the 2018 cohort. Following this, BridgeTech participants will attend a 3-day face-to-face training session to be held at Luna Park in Sydney in November where they will consolidate their learning and create key collaborative networks in order to facilitate their commercialisation pathway.
“Developing this important educational initiative in partnership with industry means that participants will be provided with relevant and specific commercialisation training, advice and networks to better assist the commercialisation of medical technology and medical devices in Australia,” Professor Griffiths said.
The BridgeTech Program is the sister program of The Bridge Program, which is now in its second successful year and focuses on the skills needed for the commercialisation of pharmaceuticals rather than medical devices.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
AUSTRALIAN HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS LEADING THE WAY IN ETHICAL COLLABORATION
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]MTAA was one of five organisations that led the development of the Australian Consensus Framework, which aims to increase ethical behaviour characterised by values and principles such as honesty, integrity, transparency, accountability and oversight.
It has been developed with input and collaboration from 50 healthcare entities who are now signatories to the Australian Consensus Framework, including professional health bodies, industry organisations, hospital and health services associations, universities, regulators, patient and advocacy groups and other related organisations.
At today’s 2018 APEC Business Ethics Forum in Tokyo, Australia won the prestigious Lighthouse award for its work on the Australian Consensus Framework and generally the work to promote ethical behavior.
The Australian Consensus Framework does not replace existing Codes of Practice, with the values and principles constituting the Australian Consensus Framework aligning with the more comprehensive Medical Technology Industry Code of Practice that is administered by MTAA.
This industry-specific Code of Practice is mandatory for members of MTAA and incorporates detailed, best-practice requirements to promote high standards of ethical behaviour. The MTAA Code includes specific and detailed requirements for ethical behaviour in relation to advertising and promotion of products; interaction with healthcare professionals; mandatory training on the Code for company representatives who interact with healthcare providers; and interactions with consumers.
“As the fifth largest contributor to national growth and in employing over 1.5 million Australians, it is important that the healthcare sector exhibits and practises high levels of trust to the standards expected by the community. Open collaboration, dialogue and communication across all players in the health care sector is key. The Australian Consensus Framework for ethical collaboration provides a platform for this engagement.
“A key reform for the medical technology industry would be the implementation of a harmonised industry Code of Practice which all device manufacturers and suppliers are required to adhere to by law or regulation. The MTAA Code would be an appropriate basis for such a harmonised code,” said Ian Burgess, CEO of MTAA and a member of the Australian Consensus Framework Leadership Team.
Australian Federal Minister for Health, The Hon. Greg Hunt MP, praised the Australian health sector for developing the voluntary initiative.
“The new Australian Consensus Framework has come about from the hard work of a dedicated group of people in the health care industry who want to do things better. That work has been led by the Australian Orthopaedic Association, with representatives from the Medical Technology Association of Australia, Medicines Australia, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons and the Australian Healthcare & Hospitals Association, said Minister for Health, Greg Hunt MP.
Chair of the Australian Consensus Framework for Ethical Collaboration and CEO of the Australian Orthopaedic Association, Adrian Cosenza, said the Framework “has been designed in an environment where society’s trust in government, business and not-for-profit bodies globally, including in Australia, as measured by the respected Edelmen Trust Barometer, has been in steady decline in recent years. Unethical behaviour is one of the causes of this trust deficit.”
The launch of the Framework took place in Tokyo today (Friday 20 July) with addresses by the Federal Minister for Health the Hon. Greg Hunt MP and Australia’s Ambassador to Japan Richard Court as part of the 2018 APEC Business Ethics for SMEs Forum.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
GOLD, SILVER, BRONZE AND BASIC IS IT JUST A BRANDING EXERCISE?
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Earlier this week Minister Hunt invited stakeholders to comment on the exposure draft of the Private Health Insurance (Reforms) Amendment Rules 2018 (the Rules). The measures contained in the Rules will give effect to elements of the private health insurance reform package.
One industry with a keen interest in ensuring consumers continue to receive access to life saving and life changing medical treatment through their private health insurance is the medical technology (MedTech) industry.
Speaking on behalf of MedTech innovators, Medical Technology Association of Australia (MTAA) CEO, Ian Burgess, said that while MTAA supports the intent of the government’s reforms, there was still concern as to whether complex health insurance policies being peddled by private health insurance providers would continue due to the differences in coverage across a large number of hospital treatment categories.
“MTAA has already played a significant role in addressing the rising financial burden of private health insurance, particularly in terms of value and affordability. Our industry agreed to a reduction in the benefits paid by insurers for devices on the Prostheses List. These actions resulted in savings to insurers of around $1.1 billion, over four years, and underpinned the lowest premium increase in 17 years,” Mr Burgess said.
“The longer and more specific the list of services for inclusion/exclusion in the insurance product tiers, the more complicated the insurance product will be and lead to continued consumer confusion about what they are purchasing.
“Many of the hospital treatments that are flagged to be exclusive to the gold category are associated with clinical conditions with a high and/or growing prevalence. If insurers do not maintain existing coverage for patients with these conditions who are currently covered by low and mid-tier insurance products, consumers will be required to upgrade their cover to ensure they maintain existing levels of coverage, thereby increasing the cost of premiums at the household level.”
Australian Private Hospital Association CEO, Michael Roff, said that while the categories have the potential to make the system easier to understand, there remain concerns about the retention of junk policies.
“It’s disappointing. Not only has the government not addressed the issue of junk policies, it has, in fact, entrenched them with the new ‘basic’ category. Junk policies are a major cause of consumer dissatisfaction when they discover they don’t have cover for private hospital treatment when they need care,” Mr Roff said.
Despite the concerns raised by other industries, Private Healthcare Australia – representing the private health insurance industry – welcomed the government’s announcement saying the new system marks a major improvement to how consumers choose and use their private health insurance.
“Over a two-year period, we have gone through health fund products line by line to classify them into Gold, Silver, Bronze and Basic categories depending on the cost of the product, and the level of cover provided,” Private Healthcare Australia CEO, Dr Rachel David, said.
“This has been a complex process and a balancing act, because we need to ensure consumers have access to products which are both affordable and provide value for money across all life-stages.
“We have been careful not to unintentionally increase complexity, or introduce product changes that would either increase premiums or reduce coverage unnecessarily,” Dr David said.
Many in the industry will continue to look closely at these reforms to see whether they will help stem the flow of consumers opting-out of the private healthcare system, in favour of the public healthcare system.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
SETTING THE FACTS STRAIGHT | LEADING CARDIOLOGIST DR DAVID O’DONNELL
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]A disturbing and incorrect supposition has developed that doctors are not choosing the appropriate device for their patients and that patients outcomes are affected because of this.
Some important points need to be clarified:
1. Private patients in a Private hospital in Australia have world’s best procedural outcomes. Recent data from the GenesisCare network (Australia’s largest private cardiology group) has shown 30 day device complication rates that are up to 7 times lower than in the US or Europe and significantly better than the published complication rates in Australian public hospitals;
2. Private patients in a Private hospital in Australia have access to the best possible cardiac devices. The prosthesis list contains all of the currently available cardiac devices and the implanting cardiologist is free to choose any of these devices;
3. The implanting cardiologist in a Private hospital is responsible for the choice of device. I have not had any discussion with management about which device I implant and certainly no pressure by management to implant a specific device. This is not the case in many public hospitals where a tender process is typically conducted and a limited choice of devices is available;
4. The choice of cardiac device for a particular patient is complex and the implanting cardiologist considers many factors. The basic function of the device as a pacemaker, a defibrillator or a Cardiac resynchronization device is the fundamental decision. Beyond this, the extra features of the device are important – MRI conditional, Wireless, Remote Monitoring capable, multipolar leads, published reliability of the device and leads. Implantation and follow up of cardiac devices can be technically demanding and familiarity with implant tools and availability of technical support are important factors. Patient preference may also contribute to the decision;
5. It is not only ethically wrong but also against the recognized codes of conduct for an implanting cardiologist to choose a device based on pressure by hospital management or financial incentives. Each year as part of our registration, all doctors sign the Medical Board Code of Conduct, which states that good medical practice involves:
“Not asking for or accepting any inducement, gift or hospitality of more than trivial value, from companies that sell or market drugs or appliances or provide services that may affect, or be seen to affect, the way you prescribe for, treat or refer patients.”
A similar code of conduct from the MTAA prohibits device companies from offering incentives to implanting cardiologists.
6. It is my understanding that the price paid by a Health Fund for a cardiac device is set from Canberra via the prosthesis list. In this case, the commercial relationships between device companies and private hospitals would have no direct impact on device costs.
7. There is an underlying suggestion that doctors are upselling or inappropriately implanting cardiac devices. This is factually incorrect and distorts the most pressing issue related to cardiac devices. Most patients in Australia who are eligible for life saving cardiac devices do not receive these devices. Our implant rate is 40% of the US implant rate per million population and below many European countries. Whilst our overall implant rate is remarkably low, the situation is even worse for women, migrants, indigenous patients and patients of lower socioeconomic status who are consistently under implanted. From a medical viewpoint, the discussion on implantation of cardiac devices should focus on ensuring education and referral so that appropriate patients can access cardiac devices that have definitively been shown to prolong life.
A private patient in a private hospital in Australia receives the best possible cardiac device and has world best outcomes. The implanting cardiologist chooses the specific cardiac device and ethically and legally, this decision must be made in the best interests of our patient. Currently, the most pressing issue in Australia is the inappropriate lack of referral for implantation of life saving devices in eligible patients.[/vc_column_text][vc_zigzag][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”2165″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr David O’Donnell is a founding partner and the Chairman of Heart Care Victoria. David graduated from the University of Melbourne in 1993 and trained as a Cardiologist in Melbourne before undertaking a fellowship at Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, England. He returned to Melbourne in 2002 working at Austin Health as an Interventional Electrophysiologist, becoming Director of Electrophysiology in 2012.
David’s hospital career has focused on the newer techniques for ablation of atrial fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia. In recent years his clinical and research emphasis has been in the device management of heart failure, pioneering a number of novel techniques for cardiac resynchronization. As a previous high performance athlete he has maintained a close involvement with elite athletes with heart conditions and has affiliations with a number of sporting clubs and organizations.
David has a passion for education and frequently lectures, educates and performs surgery around the world.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENCES – PUBLIC & PRIVATE MARKETS
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Australia’s healthcare system is one of the world’s best, providing a range of services from population health and prevention, through to general practice and community health; emergency health services and hospital care; and rehabilitation and palliative care.
What makes Australia’s health system different compared to other countries, is its voluntary private healthcare system which helps complement and supplement the country’s public system.
This means Australians have the option of being covered by the public Medicare system (which provides access to free treatment and accommodation in a public hospital), or they can choose to be covered by a combination of Medicare and private health insurance.
Australians with private health insurance are eligible to receive funding to cover some of the costs of their care in a private hospital. They are also able to use a public hospital, although they may be charged for it.
The complexity of Australia’s healthcare system has played a considerable role in influencing the cost of medtech devices between the public and private healthcare systems. These complexities include:
- The purchasing arrangements and level of segmentation of the market;
- The level of technical manufacturer support required; and
- The level of regulatory hurdles and market delays.
Unlike in the public system, choice of surgeon and choice of medical device is a fundamental benefits of private health insurance cover and we need to work towards ensuring that value remains a cornerstone of our private healthcare system.
The fragmentation of the private healthcare system however, means achieving the same level of efficiencies of the public system challenging.
Take for example the approximately 630 private hospitals that purchase resources such as medtech devices on an as-needed basis, compared to the public sector (i.e. hospitals administered by the state and territory governments) which utilise their public tendering process to drive down prices and choice of devices available in their 695 public hospitals.
As a result, public hospitals can meet the delivery requirements of certain services through their funding arrangements. Whereas private hospitals, due to the lack of infrastructure required to deliver the same services, must rely on the device supplier to cover the costs, causing differences in prices between the public and private sector.
These factors mean comparing prices across public and private hospitals or across international jurisdictions can be problematic or in some cases not appropriate.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
AUSSIE INNOVATORS TO DRIVE BETTER HEALTH OUTCOMES
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The four committees, made up of renowned Australians with extensive experience from sectors such as research, technology, innovation and healthcare, will support the Australian Advisory Board on Technology and Health Competitiveness.
In March 2018, we announced the establishment of the industry led Advisory Board that is partnering with the United States Council on Competitiveness (USCC).
Both groups are focusing on collaboration and promotion of Australian technology, innovation and healthcare to boost business opportunities and create better outcomes for patients.
The Advisory Board is co-chaired by Mr Charles Kiefel OAM, Distinguished Fellow of the Global Federation of Competiveness Councils, Dr Larry Marshall, CEO of CSIRO, and Dr Jane Wilson, Director of Sonic Healthcare Ltd.
The Advisory Board is establishing an Australia-US Chief Technology Officer Dialogue.
The Dialogue will connect Australian and US Technology leaders to discuss common challenges, opportunities, and promote business and research collaboration in areas including healthcare, advanced computing, finance and entrepreneurship.
The four committees will help shape the agenda and discussion of the Advisory Board with members contributing their time and expertise on a pro bono or honorary basis.
These efforts will create more opportunities for Australian firms and innovators to learn from leading innovators in the United States.[/vc_column_text][vc_separator][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
STRATEGIC COMMITTEES TO SUPPORT THE AUSTRALIAN ADVISORY BOARD ON TECHNOLOGY AND HEALTH COMPETITIVENESS.
Autonomy
- Professor Russell Boyce (Chair for Space Engineering at UNSW Canberra)
- Mr Ric Gros (METS Ignited, growth centre)
- Dr Nick Barnes (3D vision, Data61)
Healthcare
- Ms Sue MacLeman (Managing Director MTP Connect (MedTech and Pharma Growth Centre)
- Dr Rachel Swift (Principal Boston Consulting Group)
- Professor Karen Reynolds (Dean of Research, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University and member of the Australian Medical Research Advisory Board)
- Mr Lucas Litewka (Director, USC Clinical Trials Centre)
Advanced computing
- Mr James Johnson (CEO, Geoscience Australia)
- Professor Andrew Dzurak (Director of the NSW node of the Australian National Fabrication Facility (ANFF) UNSW)
Financial systems, access to capital, and entrepreneurship
- Mr Sam Sicilia (Chief Investment Officer, HostPLUS)
- Dr Manny Pohl (Bond University)
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
National Diabetes Week 2018
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Too many Australians are being diagnosed with diabetes too late. The is true for both type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes. The delay in diagnosis is putting many people at risk of major life threatening health problems.
To find out more visit itsabouttime.org.au.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
