By Kevin O’Reilly
As we push the boundaries of medical technology, the sophistication of our devices brings with it not only life-saving advancements but also new challenges. The current model of health care equipment procurement and disposal, characterized by a linear supply chain, is simply no longer sustainable. A transformation to a more circular economy, where medical devices are maintained, reused, and kept in circulation, is not just a theoretical ideal but a pressing necessity
This concept, outlined in studies such as “A Circular Economy for Medical Devices: Barriers and Opportunities for Laparoscopic Instruments” and “Transforming The Medical Device Industry: Road Map To A Circular Economy”, highlights the potential benefits and hurdles that we face in this transformation. These range from perceptions around infection prevention to ingrained behaviors of consumers and manufacturers, and regulatory structures that may encourage the proliferation of disposable medical devices.
The linear model has seen health care systems relying heavily on single-use disposable devices, which, while efficient in the short term, has long-term implications that cannot be overlooked. The resulting health care-generated waste, increased health care expenditures and public health damage are pressing issues that we must address. Moreover, these linear supply chains are also vulnerable to disruption and fluctuating demand, a risk laid bare by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The circular economy offers a solution. By keeping manufactured products in circulation, we distribute resource and environmental costs over time and repeated use. This approach is not only financially prudent but also environmentally responsible, helping us to work towards a low-emissions future.
However, to make this transition, we must overcome the barriers that currently inhibit the implementation of a circular economy in the medical industry. One such barrier are the restrictions around medical device repair. The lack of access to repair materials and information leaves hospitals and health care providers at the mercy of the manufacturers’ business decisions. These restrictions can prematurely end the life span of a device, forcing providers to discard otherwise functional equipment.
This is where the Right to Repair movement becomes crucial. The premise is simple — to reclaim ownership of the devices we buy and use. In health care, that means ensuring that devices can be repaired, reused and kept in circulation longer, rather than being prematurely discarded due to business decisions or corporate policies.
Of course, manufacturers may argue that they impose these restrictions for safety reasons, given the complexity of their products. The data simply doesn’t back up these claims. When the FDA explored this question, they came to the conclusion that “the objective evidence indicates that many OEMs and third-party entities provide high-quality, safe and effective servicing of medical devices” and that “continued availability of third-party entities to service and repair medical devices is critical to the functioning of the U.S. health care system.”
On top of that, as the sophistication of technology advances, so too does the skill of technicians. In-house biomeds are often more than capable of managing equipment, provided they have the necessary resources and materials to do so.
Right to Repair is more than just a consumer movement. It is a necessary step toward creating a circular economy in the medical industry. By advocating for and implementing the Right to Repair, we can reduce waste, lower costs and improve the sustainability of our health care systems. It’s time to reclaim our ownership of the medical devices we depend on and transform our approach to health care equipment.
– Kevin O’Reilly is the Right to Repair Campaign Director at U.S. PIRG.
