Hello tawny,
I won't post this as an answer because I don't believe there is any
one answer to your question. I also didn't want you to think this
question is being ignored.
As a Director of Marketing for a medical device manufacturer (in a
past life)
I feel that the length of time it takes for a new procedure to be
adopted hinges on several things. First is the quality of the
procedure. Is it clinically better? Easier to perform? Higher success
level? What is the learning curve?
And most critical, is it reimbursable by health insurers and medicare?
It could be the finest improvement in procedures ever, but if it can
not be billed, unfortunately, it will not be used. You must have it
approved under an ICC-9 code.
And, as I think you realize, the key is marketing. Well designed and
well placed advertising and "advertorials" which are paid ads that
appear to be editorials are noteworthy. Testimonials from the thought
leaders in the modality are also valuable, especially in medical
journals. And papers presented at national and regional meetings will
help develop a grassroots acceptance, if the procedure is an
improvement over current clinical practices.
In my case, I was introducing digital imaging to a film based
diagnosis procedure. Billing was not a problem and there were a
multitude of advantages and few disadvantages to making the change.
Cost of capital equipment and a computer learning curve were my
obsticals. However, a careful cost analysis showed that not only was
digital less expensive in the long run, it provided for instant
diagnosis AND treatment without the patient having to return for
another visit and was also ecologically friendly. Another benefit was
increased confidence in the staff photographer as they could view
their results immediately and know if the area of interest was
captured, in focus and properly exposed.
Even with all of these benefits, it took years to replace the existing
technology.
I hope this has provided some insight for you.
-=clouseau=- |
