If departments are so concerned about ongoing costs why did they not work out the total cost of ownership before buying a piece of equipment? It would be a simple process to include, in any tender, the need to provide prices for common spare parts, so the best overall life time costs could be compared and the need to use non original parts eliminated.
Using cheap non-OEM parts may seem like a good idea but are the parts really the same quality? Did the company supplying the parts obtain proper CE marking? Did they perform the required (MDD) compatibility testing?
Are all biomes really able to access the outcome of a modification? I doubt they really fully appreciate all the requirements, both technical and legal. Manufacturers employ teams of engineers and legal personnel to ensure they meet all the requirements across multiple world markets. It is easy to knock manufacturers high prices but without profits no R&D would occur.
Do those who provide cheap parts bring innovation to the market? Do 3rd parties and insurance companies design and develop new products? The answer is clearly not!
A generic drug only appears on the market after the patent has expired and only then after conforming to the required standard. This gives time for the original manufacturer to re-coup their investment and plough it back into new drugs. The manufacturers of medical equipment often do not have the luxury of a patent to protect their investment, so need spare parts income to fund investment in new products. How confident are you that the non-OEM parts you buy actually conform to the required standards?
As always in life things are not as simple as they first seem to be and the cheapest is not always the best!
