Extremely Affordable Healthcare: $25 Incubator

No offense to the medical device manufacturers, but I wonder if $20,000 preemie incubators aren't the equivalent of those mythical $500 hammers purchased by the Department of Defense.

Consider what happened when a bunch of Stanford d. school students looked at the needs of premature newborns in developing countries like Nepal. Applying a principle of "extreme affordability," the students created a $25 incubator that does the trick. George Kembel, head of the Stanford d. school, calls the ingenuous device a $19,975 cost-savings.

The implications here are obvious. A big part of healthcare reform means cost-savings. And rather than simply looking to control treatments or reduce payments to physicians, the medical-industrial complex itself should be carefully scrutinized. In some cases, big ticket, high tech machines may not be the way to go. Imagine how different the hospitals of tomorrow would look, and how much cheaper they might be, in the hands of Kembel's students.

Watch the full program at FORA.tv.

Follow Blaise Zerega on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BeeZee

Comments

[devadasi]

You make an excellent point. Costs for seeing a specialist, testing and hospital stays are through the roof.

[PaxEterna]

Yes, and much of the equipment and its associated technology is 20 + years old.

[Downix]

See, if I was a businessman, I'd take that $25 incubator, and use it to capture the entire incubator market in the US.

[dadw5boys]

MEDICAL EQUIPMENT LAWS WOULD PREVENT YOU

[Downix]

1) No need to shout, this is a civil forum.

2) Upon doing research into the various laws, infact, no, they wouldn't. I would be required to gain certain certifications for the business, and would have to introduce certain elements for safety, but in all would not raise the cost to produce by no more than $3.10. So, total cost to produce remains under $30, still cost effective wouldn't you say?

[oldGunny]

How much would it cost to have that device approved for use in US hospitals?