[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]An initiative of the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) and operated by MTPConnect, the BTB program is offering up to $1 million to support development and commercialisation of new biological, pharmaceutical, medical and health technology projects.
This is the second round of the BTB program. Round one, announced in December 2019, saw eight projects selected to share in funding of $5.9 million following a competitive application process.
MTPConnect Managing Director and CEO, Dr Dan Grant, says the BTB program is a unique opportunity for Australian innovators to take their research to the next stage along the translation and commercialisation pathway.
“We’re looking to support SMEs and research organisations conducting research projects that provide innovative solutions in any disease area using any therapeutic modality or medical technology,” Dr Grant adds.
“With applications only open for three weeks, from Monday, the Australian research community needs to move quickly to take advantage of the substantial funding on offer.”
MTPConnect is delivering the BTB program in partnership with BioCurate (Melbourne and Monash Universities), UniQuest (University of Queensland), the Medical Device Partnering Program (led by Flinders University) and the Bridge and BridgeTech programs (Queensland University of Technology).
The BTB program is uniquely positioned to provide applicants with expert mentoring from these partners, that provides scientific expertise and commercial acumen to support projects in their translation to proof of concept.
“The successful projects we invest in through the BTB program will lead to new therapies, technologies and medical devices to improve the health of Australians and deliver real impact to people all over the world,” Dr Grant explains.
Opening Monday 17 February, applications to the BTB program will be open until 5:00PM (AEDT) on Friday, 6 March 2020. Details can be found at the BTB page.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Humanity, Technology and Health Frontiers will be the focus of the Summit, with the program covering topics such as genomics, robotics, 5G technology, private/public partnerships and artificial intelligence.
The GFCC is a global multi-stakeholder organisation represented in more than 30 nations. It promotes innovation, productivity and mutual learning between countries as a way of supporting the ongoing success of a range of sectors, including health.
Noteworthy leaders in the GFCC network Charles Holliday Jr. (Chairman, GFCC and Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, plc.), Mehmood Kahn (Chairman, U.S. Council on Competitiveness and CEO, Life Biosciences) and Deborah Wince-Smith (President, GFCC and President and CEO, U.S. Council on Competitiveness) will travel to Australia to attend the Summit.
The Morrison Government has committed $300,000 to support the delivery of the Summit.
The Summit will allow Australia to create new partnership opportunities and work with other global leaders to develop innovative health solutions to current and future problems.
Health and innovation are key priorities for the Government, including the recent commitment of $5 billion through the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) to support breakthrough medical research into new frontiers of science.
Areas of focus include the transformative platforms of stem cell research and genomics, being able to diagnose, treat, and help people recover with genuine precision medicine.
The Summit agenda will address Australia’s future competitiveness with discussions on navigating the Australian context and opportunities for collaboration between countries.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Why does it matter? The private health insurance (PHI) industry has been actively lobbying the government to cut the costs of premiums, which has resulted in benefits and choice being slashed for hard working Australian families. A tactic of the PHI industry is to try to focus as much blame, for the high premiums they charge, onto others, including medical technology innovators.
What is their argument? The PHI industry believes the cost of medical devices, as well as keeping vulnerable people who are suffering from a mental health condition in hospital too long, is causing premiums to rise. The PHI industry also wants the government to implement ‘international reference pricing’ to further cut into the prices of medical devices in Australia.
This is where the ‘apple and oranges’ comparison comes into play. Let’s explain: Like any product or service, the price for medical devices can vary from one country to another. Just as the price of a Toyota Sedan in Texas might be different from the price of a Toyota Sedan in Sydney or Adelaide.
What causes the difference in price? The price difference can be attributed to several factors, including:
Differences in healthcare systems;
Differences in purchasing arrangements and market segmentation;
Differences in price/benefit determination;
Differences in volumes of devices being used;
Differences in the level of technical manufacturer support needed;
Geographical differences; and
Economic difference.
Now despite all these difference that can affect price, the total PHI spend on medical devices is just 10%. Thanks to, what is called, the Prostheses List (PL), Australians can access innovative and leading medical devices, giving them certainty of access and cost (currently nil) to a wide range of prostheses.
KEY INSIGHTS: Comparisons across different markets will result in PL benefit adjustments that could reduce patients’ access to devices recommended by their physicians and force patients to pay more for the same products.
The Productivity Commission released a report in 2001 relating to international price comparisons of pharmaceuticals which said: “It’s difficult to identify robust specific explanations for the observed bilateral price differences. Rather, the price differences are probably due to a combination of influences, including systemic differences in health systems…”
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The prudential regulator has backed calls made by the ALP and others for an independent review of the private health insurance (PHI) sector, warning that “a new approach is urgently needed.”
He also warned of the impact on consumers, saying that “policy holders will be the first casualties, through higher premiums and reduced benefits.”
The speech, given at the Members Health Directors Professional Development Program in Sydney this week, warned that only three private health insurers would remain viable by 2022 on the current trajectory, with “too many PHIs seemingly waiting for the Government to find a miracle cure”.
The Consumers Health Forum of Australia welcomed the comments from Mr Summerhayes.
“When its own regulator says a new approach is “urgently needed” it is time for the Federal Government to bite the bullet and launch a thorough inquiry into private health insurance,” said CHF CEO Leanne Wells.
Medical Technology Association of Australia CEO Ian Burgess said it was proof insurers would rather “destroy their own products than lower premiums using their own profits”.
“The only way to stop private health’s death spiral is to stop the exodus of customers. The only way to do that is force the ‘Big 4’ insurers to drop their premiums below zero,” Mr Burgess said.
“Private health insurers are self-destructing and the government must step in and save private health from itself.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]To deliver the program, MTPConnect is partnering with research, training and industry organisations to deploy an integrated, three-pillar plan driving skills development and workforce training that brings together researchers, clinicians, industry and the entrepreneurial ecosystem.
MTPConnect Managing Director & CEO, Dr Dan Grant has welcomed the awarding of the program, which he says MTPConnect is uniquely placed to deliver.
“Our REDI program is all about ensuring Australia has an industry-ready MTP workforce with the skills necessary to keep pace with a rapidly changing sector,” he said.
“We’ll leverage a national alliance of proven education and training providers, research institutes and industry partners to deploy a range of activities and initiatives – all focused on enhancing the MTP sector workforce.
“As we roll out our REDI program, we’re thrilled to be working with partners including, The George Institute for Global Health, APRIntern, Industry Mentoring Network in STEM (IMNIS), the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre (VCCC), the Medical Device Partnering Program (MDPP), MedTech Actuator, the Bridge and BridgeTech programs (Queensland University of Technology) and ANDHealth.
“The program will also leverage the expertise and experience of Research Australia, CSL, Innovative Manufacturing CRC, the Medical Technology Association of Australia (MTAA), Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Reference Committee, the University of NSW and the NSW Office of Health and Medical Research,” Dr Grant said.
In addition to the program partners and associates, MTPConnect Chair Sue MacLeman says the MTPConnect REDI program will be engaging widely across Australia’s MTP sector.
“The MTPConnect REDI program has a national remit and sector-wide focus,” she said.
“Our program will provide researchers across Australia with a diverse range of experiences and exposure to entrepreneurism with the aim of strengthening Australia’s success with translation and commercialisation.
“The MTPConnect REDI program will also systematically address current gaps in workforce skills and put in place programs to meet the challenge of developing and retaining world-class talent who have industry experience in research translation, clinical development and commercialisation.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]February 1, 2020 marked the final price reduction for devices on the Prostheses List as per an agreement (the Agreement) between the Medical Technology Association of Australia (MTAA) and the Minister for Health, Greg Hunt MP, entered into on October 2017.
Price cuts under the Agreement have already saved insurers a total of A$390 million and the savings are on track to exceed the A$1.1 billion in total expected by 2022. Between the Agreement and the 7.5% benefit reduction for hip prostheses announced by then-Minister for Health Sussan Ley in October 2016, the medical devices sector has undergone four significant price cuts.
“Every day we at Stryker are driven by our mission to make healthcare better for patients, that includes ensuring Australians have access to affordable, high quality medical technology” said Maurice Ben-Mayor, President of Stryker South Pacific.
“We believe that the Prostheses List is an effective, transparent mechanism to protect patients from out-of-pocket costs and guarantee choice of the most clinically effective prostheses for their individual needs.
“The MTAA’s Prostheses List Agreement was modelled on the assumption that private health insurers would pass the A$1.1 billion of savings from medical device price cuts onto their members in the form of lower private health insurance premiums.
“Unfortunately, I have seen little evidence that these savings have been passed on in full to consumers.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The price cuts are thanks to the Medical Technology Association of Australia’s landmark agreement with Federal
Health Minister Greg Hunt in 2017, which is on track to save $1.1 billion off the cost of medical devices by 2022.
MTAA CEO Ian Burgess said patients continued to get “more for less”, with price drops for about 7000 individual types and brands of medical technologies used in millions of procedures in the private system each year, including:
Condition
Med Tech
New Price (Feb 2020)
Savings (Feb 2020)
Savings Since Agreement (2017)
Heart Disease
Pacemaker
$35,132
-$2,848
-$12,343
Diabetes
Insulin Pump
$8,574
-$451
–
Severe Arthritis (Hip)
Replacement Joint
$8,351
-$393
-$853
Lung Disease
Airflow Valve System
$5,686
-$299
-$614
Bone Cancer (Leg)
Artificial Bone
$7,066
-$181
-$428
Eye Trauma
Artificial (Glass) Eye
$1,741
-$92
-$189
Source: Federal Dept of Health Prostheses List Feb 2020, Nov 2019 & August 2017.
“This agreement with government continues to help more Australians access more medical technology at less cost.
“That is what I call a win-win-win for patients, taxpayers and industry.
“Today’s announcement also debunks the long-held claim that the cost of individual medical technologies continue to rise, when the vast majority are actually falling in price.
“This is further evidence that when governments work with the medical technology sector, patients get a good deal more.”
Over 3 million medical devices were used to treat Australians with private health insurance last year alone.
Mr Burgess said just like advancements in medicines, medical technology was evolving and becoming as much about improving lives, not just saving them.
“Two of the biggest contributors to Australia’s ill-health are inactivity and isolation – and the two are often linked, particularly as we get older.
“Increasingly medical technology is being used not just to save lives, but keeping Australians more mobile, social, and now, working, for longer, which are all essential to the future health of our ageing population and economy.
“These medical technologies are also continuing to improve patient recovery and operating times, for less cost, meaning better outcomes for the health system and the budget.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The picture in Figure 1 shows a “repaired” endoscope by a hospital contractor hired to repair medical equipment. In order to repair the tip of this endoscope the repairer used an adhesive with a softer consistency than that specified by the original manufacturer. Instead of achieving a smooth surface, the poor quality of the adhesive and workmanship resulted in cracks and pin holes left at the bonding site. Cracks and pin holes are notoriously difficult to clean and sterilise. The tip of this “repaired” endoscope becomes a cross-contamination hazard.
Representatives of businesses selling repairs of medical equipment and maintenance-related services to hospitals are quick to point to standards such as AS/NZS 3551 and AS/NZS 2500 as the “bible” of clinical engineering. Both standards were written by these vested interests with little or no input from other stakeholders such as MedTech industry or consumer groups.
For example, AS/NZS 3551 Management program for medical equipment contains aspirational, conveniently vague statements such as: “modification shall not reduce the safety of medical equipment or accessories for patients, operators or the environment”, but fails to provide specifics on requirements for repairs and modifications performed by or on behalf of health facilities, i.e.:
repaired medical equipment must continue to meet the safety and performance specifications as defined by the original manufacturer;
modified medical equipment must comply with all applicable Essential Principles of safety and performance defined in the Australian Therapeutic Goods Act 1989.
AS/NZS 3551 and AS/NZS 2500 are long overdue for a substantial revision to align them with international standards and best practices, such as these IEC and ISO standards:
IEC 62353:2014 Medical electrical equipment – Recurrent test and test after repair of medical electrical equipment;
ISO 55001:2014 Asset management – Management systems;
IEC 60601-1:2012 Medical electrical equipment – Part 1: General requirements for basic safety and e performance. This international standard has already been adopted as an Australian & New Zealand standard: AS/NZS IEC 60601.1:2015.
The quality and effectiveness of a repair job is often jeopardized by the use of low quality parts and materials. Poor parts and materials may break if they are not strong enough, they may fail earlier than expected, or they may rub, corrode, or in some way damage other parts of the machine. Even if you do a first class repair job:
poor quality engine oil means the engine will not last as long as it should
poor quality batteries affect the performance of the equipment, have a short life, and leak
poor tyres compromise the safety of a vehicle
poor quality solder evaporates or cracks easily
poor gaskets and seals leak, or perish quickly.
Cost and quality often go together. Equipment manufacturers’ own brand of spare parts and maintenance materials often produce better results than ‘lookalikes’. Many companies are set up solely for the purpose of manufacturing lookalikes – these products are often (but not always) cheaper, but may be of inferior quality. We recommend that, as the items get more technically complex or critical, you should try and buy better quality spare parts and maintenance materials. A discussion on sourcing and obtaining good quality products can be found in Guide 3 on procurement and commissioning.
The TGA has no jurisdiction over repairs and modifications to medical equipment taking place in health facilities. Original manufacturers have no say on what happens to their equipment once it is purchased and put into service by health facilities. There is a need for appropriate regulatory oversight and better standards to address repairs and modifications of medical equipment performed by health facilities or on their behalf. Patient safety should always come first.
Researchers currently estimate that a person carrying the Wuhan coronavirus will, on average, infect approximately 2.6 people.
Recent reports out of Wuhan also cite a case of a single patient who infected 14 health care workers. That qualifies him as a super spreader: someone who is responsible for infecting an especially large number of other people.
During an emerging outbreak, epidemiologists want to determine whether super spreaders are part of the picture. Their existence can accelerate the rate of new infections or substantially expand the geographic distribution of the disease.
In response to super spreaders, officials can recommend various ways to limit their impact and slow the spread of disease, depending on how the pathogen is transmitted. Pathogens transmitted via air droplets, contaminated surfaces, sexual contact, needles, food or drinking water will require different interventions. For example, the recommendation for face masks would be specific to airborne transmission, while hand-washing and surface sterilization are needed for germs that can live for a while on surfaces.
What are the characteristics of a super spreader?
Whether someone is a super spreader or not will depend on some combination of the pathogen and the patient’s biology and their environment or behavior at the given time. And in a society with so much global connectivity, the ability to move pathogens rapidly across great distances, often before people are even aware they are sick, helps create environments ripe for super spreading.
Some infected individuals might shed more virus into the environment than others because of how their immune system works. Highly tolerant people do not feel sick and so may continue about their daily routines, inadvertently infecting more people. Alternatively, people with weaker immune systems that allow very high amounts of virus replication may be very good at transmitting even if they reduce their contacts with others. Individuals who have more symptoms – for example, coughing or sneezing more – can also be better at spreading the virus to new human hosts.
A person’s behaviors, travel patterns and degree of contact with others can also contribute to super spreading. An infected shopkeeper might come in contact with a large number of people and goods each day. An international business traveler may crisscross the globe in a short period of time. A sick health care worker might come in contact with large numbers of people who are especially susceptible, given the presence of other underlying illnesses.
When have super spreaders played a key role in an outbreak?
There are a number of historical examples of super spreaders. The most famous is Typhoid Mary, who in the early 20th century purportedly infected 51 people with typhoid through the food she prepared as a cook. Since Mary was an asymptomatic carrier of the bacteria, she didn’t feel sick, and so was not motivated to use good hand-washing practices.
During the last two decades, super spreaders have started a number of measles outbreaks in the United States. Sick, unvaccinated individuals visited densely crowded places like schools, hospitals, airplanes and theme parks where they infected many others.
Super spreaders have also played a key role in the outbreaks of other coronaviruses, including SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome). A traveler sick with SARS and staying in a Hong Kong hotel infected a number of overseas guests who then returned home and introduced the virus into four other countries.
For both SARS and MERS, super spreading commonly occurred in hospitals, with scores of people being infected at a time. In South Korea in 2015, one MERS patient infected over 80 other patients, medical personnel and visitors in a crowded emergency department over a three-day period. In this case, proximity to the original patient was the biggest risk factor for getting sick.
Can super spreading occur in all infectious diseases?
Yes. Some scientists estimate that in any given outbreak, 20% of the population is usually responsible for causing over 80% of all cases of the disease. Researchers have identified super spreaders in outbreaks of diseases from those caused by bacteria, such as tuberculosis, as well as those caused by viruses, including measles, MERS and Ebola.
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Ms Trimmer grew up in Sydney and studied law and arts majoring in English at the Australia National University.
Trimmer stayed in Canberra after completing university and joined leading local firm Macphillamy Cummins & Gibson to practice commercial law, then went onto work at Deacons Graham & James (now Norton Rose Fulbright), before finally finishing her legal career as a commercial partner at Minter Ellison, practicing in both Canberra and Sydney.
Trimmer had her first insight into the workings of government when departments started outsourcing legal services in the late 1990s and she worked on a wide range of matters, including the contracts for the new Australian passport.
It was a high-profile role because it came at an interesting juncture for the legal profession. The practice of law was undergoing significant structural change, with many national mergers of firms; technology changing the way legal services were delivered; and women outnumbering men among graduates going into the profession but still not breaking through into partner ranks to any great degree.
Trimmer says that as president of the Law Council she learned about listening to differing and sometimes conflicting views, negotiating outcomes, and the art of compromise. “I learned that acting in a respectful way around a board table or a council table is hugely beneficial, and you take that into all other aspects of your life. Respectful relationships sometimes get overlooked but are really critical to successful organisations,” she says.
Trimmer also came to understand the political process, the effectiveness of well-directed advocacy, and the need to work with all parties in parliament, as well as with the bureaucracy.
Before she joined the AMA, Trimmer had her first taste of an executive role as CEO of the Medical Technology Association of Australia (MTAA). She learned more about recruiting the right people, managing them, and letting them grow in their roles. She also gained insight into how to report to a board and importantly how to provide information and guidance from the executive to the board because as an executive she was much closer to the business and where it was heading.
When she was headhunted to join the AMA in 2013, Trimmer saw an opportunity to employ her developing advocacy skills. “I was attracted by the AMA’s advocacy influence and by the complexity of the policy issues it addresses. Health policy is probably the most challenging area of public policy because of the interweaving of so many players – public and private, federal and state, funders, providers, consumers, and of course the healthcare professionals,” she says.
Effective advocacy starts with understanding the structure of the parliamentary process and the political decision-making process. “It’s a completely different set of dynamics, engaging at the political level. Often, people approach political influencing or political advocacy assuming that it’s the minister who is the one that is going to make the decision but, in fact, it’s so multifaceted,” Trimmer says. “Yes, you need to work with the policy minister, but you also need to work with their staff. You need to work with their department. You need to work with committees. You really need to spread your web very wide.”
It is also important to work with both sides of parliament and increasingly with crossbench MPs and senators. “There is now a multitude of small parties that sit in the Senate. Their members all sit on Senate committees, which can be quite influential in particular areas of policy, and obviously they can be a blocker to government legislation that’s coming from the [Lower] House,” Trimmer says.
Ms Trimmer was joined on the honours list by RACS and AOA’s past president Mr John Batten for his significant service to orthopaedic medicines and to professional bodies.
Biography information for this article was sourced from the Australian Institute of Company Directors .[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
