EBME Forums Forums Management Medical Equipment Management Thoughts on 'Remanufacturing Medical Devices'

OK ... one further comment:- what about "resistance" from original manufacturers (OEMs) ... loss of revenue due to reduced sales of new equipment?

Don't get me wrong, I've always been a "refurbish" - or at least "maintenance" - guy myself* ... I'm just covering all the bases here.

* And have spent a fair amount of my time over the years "fighting" the sometimes (often) restrictive practices of some of the well-known OEMs.

The value propositions of remanufacturing to the OEM is actually high. It's not only an opportunity for them to get into new markets and expand their brand into territories that were once inaccessible due to financial limitations (of the markets) but more about increasing the R&D capacity to reduce product complexity, improve equipment design for easy maintenance and grow their brand further.

An interesting fact is that remanufacturing relies on the continuous production of new devices. New devices eventually become the base materials for remanufacturing. Spare part supply through remanufacturing is another area for research and development. OEM can secure a reliable supply of spares during the useful life of their product. This increases the trust of the medical equipment experts.

Remanufacturing does not mysteriously put the OEM out of the market. From all aspects that I've looked at this, it is a win-win scenario for everyone. OEMs who are willing to expand their operations will seize the opportunity while also increasing the volume of equipment production.

[size:8pt][/size]*OEMs have been really myopic in their approach, often willing to stick with the status quo. There are some lessons to be learnt from the automotive industry. Despite increasing remanufacturing/recovery/refurbishment etc., new vehicle production volume has soared.

You make that sound as if it were a good thing.

A little bit off topic but also in the same spirit is what we have seen in regards to manufacturers hurrying to build ventilators.
My suggestion then was to allow "new manufacturers" to get blue prints of now unsupported devices. You are therefor recycling and saving a massive amount in time trying to reinvent the wheel. Had the likes of Dyson and the others had the blue prints under license for previous best sellers then i imagine we would be in a position to sell old models of ventilators to the rest of the world, rather than having something so new suddenly appear in the workshop and being asked to make it work, let alone the staff running them.
I agree that manufacturers should think outside of the box and move away sometimes from the status quo, but it has to be in their favor and with copyright protection.
I would be happy to look at your questionnaire.

It's a nice suggestion, John - especially about "licensing" (which would retain a [limited] revenue stream for OEMs), but again, I can't see the OEMs being overly keen on the idea.

The last thing the OEMs want is competition from their own good old (and in some ways, better) kit!

I believe that the Covid-19 ventilator shortage was a "one-off" situation. And where are all those ventilators now? Are (were) they ever used, or likely to be needed? Lot's of "good PR" gained, though.

I think there was some licensing - but bet those licences were limited (and may have already expired for all I know).

I disagree with Damola's assertions in post #75600 (but didn't want to sound too negative about the points made); in response I would suggest that it is new design (and therefore new manufacturing) that moves us forward, driving innovation and so forth. And new design is itself generated by the need to sell to markets world-wide, based upon what customers are asking for (or should that be "demanding"?), which is itself often brought about by changes in circumstances (research, new ways of working - and unexpected events such as Covid-19).

Meanwhile, something that hasn't been mentioned yet is the availability (or otherwise) of individual components during any attempts at remanufacturing. It is likely that substitutions would be required in some cases, thereby leading to "problems" (accusations?) regarding "modifications", re-design, Certification, "not meeting the original spec", and all the rest. In a word:- liability. Again, who carries the can?

Good words from Geoff and John.

Although remanufacturing is an active area of research, and knowledge is constantly growing, some things (which yous mentioned) are basic requirements for remanufacturing. I'll start with liability. Liability is more often covered by the extent and wordings of the warranty agreement. Thus, if remanufacturing offers a warranty similar to (or in some cases better than) that of new, then the users do not have much to worry about. However, due to the 'higher' perceived risks of using remanufactured devices, it is expected that the remanufacturer or the vendor would be willing to offer more post-sale services. Some other interesting questions we often ask (as medical experts and users) are who will be responsible for the impact of downtime of remanufactured devices, training of users, software updates, services and repairs, risk of infection, failure probability, etc. These, and many more, are the reasons I believe the original manufacturers are in the best position to kick off a remanufacturing campaign. This also reduces competition.

Have a look at GE (GoldSeal System), Philips (Diamond Select), Canon (Second Life) and Siemen's, they all offer refurbished medical systems.

Isn't it such a shame that some other manufacturers are keen on churning out newer designs and sending 'old' end of life products to landfills (or to markets that lack the capacity to use and maintain these devices)?


If you could have a look at your private message, I would appreciate your help with my research. Thank you!

To be honest I had not realised that remanufacturing had become so popular (such an option).

The leading global companies remanufacturing medical imaging equipment are reported to be:-

Carestream Health
GE Healthcare
Hitachi Medical
Hologic Inc.
Philips Healthcare
Samsung Medison
Shimadzu
Siemens Healthcare
TeraRecon
Toshiba Medical Systems

So that answers my question(s) about "who's doing it" (and even "who pays") - it's the OEMs!

PS: don't send to landfills - donate to charity.

I’m not quite sure about the others but GE, Philips, Siemens and Toshiba actually focus on refurbishing medical devices and not remanufacturing. There are a number of differences between the two terms ‘refurbished’ and ‘remanufactured’ but I’m glad you realise that some medical equipment OEMs are now thinking about the sustainability of their devices to reduce wastes sent to landfill by improving designs to enhance end of life recovery and engaging themselves in product recovery.

What we need is more involvement from the OEM when it comes to product recovery. However, one of their (OEM) many concern is market acceptance and what exactly yous (professionals and medical devices expert) think about product recovery, which factors you’ll like to prioritise and how they can recover products such that it meets your expectations. That’s where my research comes in.

Anyways, have you had time to fill out my questionnaire yet?

Ta.

I'm not sure that refurbishing -versus- remanufacturing is a distinction worth making.

Or, put another way, if those Big Players are into "refurbishing", then that's good enough for me.

Actually, I disagree with what you're saying about "product recovery". My own take is that I would like to see "old" equipment passed along (down) the food-chain into charitable donations (with the engineering emphasis applied to preparation of equipment before shipment).

I'm all for extending the useful life of equipment as far as is practicable, even to the point of cannibalization and (or) other "innovative" repair techniques - not that methods such as those are supported in the NHS, of course.

As for "expectations" ... who has time for those? Or do you mean as in "Saving The Planet" or whatever?

How many x-ray systems end up in landfill? I have never come across any in skips.

I don't intend to complete your questionnaire. For me it's too complex (and as mentioned in a message, I don't have the resources available); maybe you could consider simplifying it and posting it as a Poll in a new thread. Personally, I don't think I can make my views any clearer than I already have.

Good Luck with your research.

“My own take is that I would like to see "old" equipment passed along (down) the food-chain into charitable donations (with the engineering emphasis applied to preparation of equipment before shipment)”

This statement describes my main focus.