suneris

The official blog of Suneris, Inc. News, updates, commentary, opinion.

[suneris]

Business or Engineering Education?

Who is in a better position to succeed: an entrepreneur who comes from a business background, or one who comes from an engineering background? The businessmen argue that starting a new company is about business development. It is about capitalizing on a unique opportunity at the right point in time and seamlessly integrating sales, marketing, distribution, and of course, finding the money to realize these goals. The engineers argue that starting a new company is about the technology. It is about finding a new solution to a problem before anyone else and applying mathematics, the scientific method, data control, and of course, the laws of physics to create something that will move the world forward.

  Beneath these opinions lies a fundamental difference in what is regarded as the appropriate means of obtaining an education. Does one background allow the entrepreneur to make better decisions, understand different consequences, and create different strategies? The answer is both yes and no.

  The best entrepreneur is not the one who has the most business or engineering education. Rather, it is the one who best allows both disciplines to work together. This is where innovative companies begin and how they endure.

  A successful technology startup requires both business and engineering acumen. Many business graduates are employed by companies that utilize the skills of the engineer. And many engineers are employed by a company that translates his or her work into a commercially viable product or service. But both types of students are often educated for four to six years without understanding the importance of the other and without being given a framework to engage the other professionally.

  So, when do you teach a young engineer or a young business student about the other side of entrepreneurship? Early and often.

  Current academia takes the student and teaches him or her to be the best at their respective subject. An engineer learns the tools he needs to create solutions, and a business student learns the tools he needs to capitalize upon them. But neither is avidly taught about the other’s discipline, and one cannot truly reach its full potential without the input of the other.   

  Business students should be quickly taught the importance of engineering in the development of new technology. Without this understanding, they might advance their careers without an appreciation of this important asset. They should be taught how an engineer’s work is what allows the creation of new businesses and how on a very fundamental level each opportunity they explore (reading this post, for instance) is the result of an engineer’s work. An engineer, likewise, should be taught in parallel with his or her curriculum the role that businessmen play in their professional careers. They should understand how the businessman can help technology serve its greatest audience and be used as a foundation for creating jobs, stimulating an economy, and allowing the technology to reach its full potential and audience.

  There is not an appropriate school of thought for the entrepreneur. More important than the background of the entrepreneur is how he or she views the intersection of business and technology and includes this appreciation in his or her work. This method of thinking is often developed while earning an education. So the best thing that can be done is not choosing one or the other, but embracing both, no matter what path the entrepreneur takes. 

[suneris]

Medical Device Vulnerabilities

Networked medical devices have become indispensable to hospitals and other healthcare institutions. These devices can allow the remote monitoring of a patient’s vitals and even deliver drugs in the absence of a doctor or nurse. For example, it is common for doctors to receive real-time patient updates from their iPads or other wireless devices, or even for a nurse to the adjust the insulin dosage of a diabetic patient. Though all networks are subject to some degree of exploitation, the medical device industry is far more vulnerable than one might suspect. Often times medical institutions will ignore and even reject security updates out of fear that doing so will invalidate the approved use of their devices. Investments in IT security can be under-prioritized in favor of more direct investments in patient care, such as upgrading and replacing current medical equipment. Also, passwords and other standard security protocols have been found to be ignored in some cases for the sake of convenience. Avi Rubin, the technical director of the Information Security Institute at John Hopkins University, stated, "If our financial industry regarded security the way the healthcare sector does, I would stuff my cash in a mattress under my bed." The FDA recently identified likely reasons behind the industry’s security loopholes. Old legacy equipment is still in use for some hospitals. This older equipment was installed prior to enactment of many regulations and therefore is not obligated to comply with contemporary security protocols. FDA guidelines have also been found to be misinterpreted by healthcare providers. For example, security updates do not invalidate the approved use of medical devices. A common mindset is that the healthcare industry is not as susceptible to cyber attacks in comparison to the financial and military industries. As a result, conversations about IT security are often underweighted in importance. For consumers, a successful cyber attack could mean personal data falling into the hands of identity thieves for financial exploitation and even physical harm. In 2008, a research team was able to extract personal data and even initiate abnormal behavior in an implantable heart defibrillator, including rapidly draining the battery. In 2011, a security-hole was found in an insulin pump that if abused, could prompt the machine to inject potentially lethal amounts of insulin into a diabetic patient. These scenarios pose liabilities for hospitals who are responsible for both patient care and the confidentiality of their patient’s information. For medical device manufacturers, the discovery of a security hole in one of their products could result in a loss of consumer trust and even have legal ramifications from both private and government parties. Expensive product recalls can also occur. As a whole, patients, hospitals, and medical device manufacturers are becoming increasingly linked by the internet. Each party is uniquely vulnerable to threats: personal data loss for patients, credibility loss for hospitals, and financial loss for manufacturers can be the direct result of failed IT security. The push for digitization means that more information is being produced and is therefore liable to be stolen. This situation highlights how new problems evolve from the intersection of medicine, technology, and business. It also presents an opportunity for security and policy advancements across the board. -- Sources and Further Reading http://www.ihealthbeat.org/articles/2013/1/3/health-care-industry-vulnerable-to-hacking-security-experts-say.aspx#ixzz2IGZWZLMT http://www.scmagazine.com.au/News/329222,patient-data-revealed-in-medical-device-hack.aspx http://info.publicintelligence.net/NCCIC-MedicalDevices.pdf http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/wireless/wireless-technology-played-a-big-role-in-my-surgery/168?tag=content;siu-container http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/security/vulnerable-medical-devices-a-clear-and-present-danger/8892 http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/health-care-sector-vulnerable-to-hackers-researchers-say/2012/12/25/72933598-3e50-11e2-ae43-cf491b837f7b_print.html http://www.crn.com/news/security/206903312/heart-defibrillators-vulnerable-to-hacking.htm http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/03/epilepsy http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/25/us-medtronic-cybersecurity-idUSTRE79O8EP20111025

[suneris]

New Medical Device Tax

On January 1st, 2013, a new 2.3% sales tax went into effect for medical device companies. This new measure is part of the Affordable Care Act and will be used to provide healthcare to new customers. The Act could provide the industry with thirty million more patients and potentially offset revenue losses due to the tax. But these diverted funds could have otherwise been used for items like research, testing, product development, new hires, and general expansion. It is unclear how effective an increase in patients will be for offsetting lost company revenue in the short and long term. Some medical device companies do not sell directly to customers. They instead sell to medical professionals and hospitals, who often have contracts with medical device companies that make it difficult to offload extra costs. Some medical devices, such as blood pressure monitors and imaging equipment, can be used on multiple patients and would not immediately benefit from an increased customer base. The biggest implications come from the size of the company being affected. Larger corporations may have 2.3% less money to direct towards certain resources, including hiring capabilities, but their survival and growth is generally less dependent on the top 2% of their sales. They have a greater ability to absorb this loss because of established customer bases and revenue streams that not only keep a company healthy, but result in more readily available credit. Smaller companies are generally focused on a building a single product, establishing a market presence, competing for every sale, and finding growth capital. In order to accomplish these tasks on a regular basis, they require a constant conservation and careful allocation of resources. During the growth phase of a company, the top 2.3% of sales can mean a fulfilled inventory, an adequate amount of working capital, an extra round of testing, or the ability to begin a new product. When growth is slowed, it limits the creation of jobs. These new roles could include production, research, testing, sales, marketing, distribution, and even applications of new medical technologies. Losing this extra money may not only take away jobs, but could hinder the ability to develop new ones. This tax suggests that medical device companies fund their own customers; rather than losing 2.3%, companies are giving 2.3% to their customers, who will ultimately reinvest in medical device technologies. This logic makes the tax seem more like a loan. This is partially true, but this conclusion neglects the transactions that happen in between a customer receiving health care and a medical device company receiving a sale. It also goes to the doctors, the hospitals, the insurance companies, and the government before it goes to the top line of a medical device company. This tax benefits healthcare recipients. But it is a barrier that many medical device companies, small and large, will have to overcome.

-- Sources and Further Reading http://www.massdevice.com/news/where-do-medical-device-tax-fighters-go-now http://www.polymersolutions.com/blog/debate-over-medical-device-tax-intensifies/ http://www.beckersasc.com/asc-supply-chain-materials-management/advamed-surveys-members-on-medical-device-tax-impact.html http://www.advamed.org/MemberPortal/About/NewsRoom/NewsReleases/10-121812ImplementMedDevTax.htm http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2012/12/28/medical-device-makers-jan-tax-could-cost-jobs/zZit7s9PC8frGi0StNrDiM/story.html http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/medical-device-tax-goes-effect-despite-industry-objections