Election outcomes and their implications for medical device pricing

Understanding how election outcomes influence these dynamics will be key to navigating a rapidly changing landscape. Credit: Suttipun / Shutterstock

Recent governmental elections could significantly influence the pricing landscape for medical devices, driven by anticipated changes in healthcare policies, trade regulations and reimbursement frameworks. As governments shape the economic environment for healthcare providers and manufacturers, these shifts may redefine the affordability and accessibility of medical technologies.

The pricing of medical devices is intricately linked to healthcare policy, which elections have the power to reshape. A government prioritising universal healthcare expansion may implement stricter pricing controls to curb costs, especially for essential devices such as diagnostic imaging tools or surgical implants. Conversely, administrations favouring market-driven approaches could reduce regulatory oversight, allowing manufacturers greater freedom to set prices based on demand and innovation.

In nations where medical device taxation policies change post-election, companies may face higher operational costs, potentially driving up prices. Adjustments to trade agreements or tariffs on imported medical equipment could influence pricing for internationally sourced devices, impacting everything from prosthetics to advanced diagnostic systems.

Elections often bring changes to insurance coverage and reimbursement strategies, which directly affect medical device pricing. Policies expanding public insurance programmes might increase demand for affordable, high-quality devices, pressuring manufacturers to justify costs through value-based pricing models. Reductions in government-backed reimbursement rates, however, may incentivise healthcare providers to seek cost-effective alternatives, shifting market preferences toward lower-cost solutions.

Political priorities can also influence investments in medical technology innovation. Governments emphasising cost containment might drive funding towards developing economical alternatives, such as generic implants or AI-powered diagnostic tools with lower production costs. Conversely, administrations promoting research and development in high-value areas such as robotics and biotechnology could encourage premium pricing for groundbreaking solutions, justifying costs with improved clinical outcomes and long-term healthcare savings.

On a global scale, shifts in one country or region’s healthcare policies — especially major markets such as the US or EU — can create ripple effects. For example, a significant election outcome favouring stringent price regulations in the US could prompt multinational companies to adjust pricing strategies across other regions to offset revenue impacts.

According to recent industry data, the global medical device market is projected to reach a valuation of $700 billion by 2030, growing at a compound annual growth rate of 5.4%. Changes in pricing policies driven by political transitions could either accelerate or hinder this growth, depending on the regulatory and economic landscape post-election.

As elections shape the future of healthcare, manufacturers and stakeholders in the medical device industry must adapt to evolving pricing strategies. Efforts will likely focus on balancing cost-effectiveness with innovation, conducting extensive market research to anticipate regulatory changes and collaborating with policymakers to ensure accessibility without compromising quality.

The intersection of politics and healthcare underscores the critical need for flexibility in medical device pricing. Understanding how election outcomes influence these dynamics will be key to navigating a rapidly changing landscape while maintaining competitive advantage and fostering global health improvements.

“We do this all virtually on the computer, so we can make the osteotomy in multiple different places to decide where the most appropriate place to do the correction is.”

From here, relevant standard orthopaedic plates are selected for use in the surgery.

Following these preliminaries, surgical guides, jigs, and plastic models of the patient’s anatomy, in this first case the radius, are 3D printed and then sterilised for use in surgery.

“We make sure that the guide fits the bone in the patient exactly the way we planned for it to fit on the plastic bone. Once we have made sure that’s the case, we secure the guide to the bone with wires, and then we do whatever the plan has been,” says Lattanza.

In osteotomy, such plans generally involve drilling holes and then making the necessary bone cuts.

The great thing about this approach, Lattanza states, is that all that needs to be done to ensure the correction has been completed as planned during the surgery is to line up those holes.

She explains: “If the bone is rotated off 90° and when we drill those holes, they’re off 90° on the bone, we make the cut then we rotate and line up those holes to put the plate on because the plate holes are straight, and that’s how we know that we’ve got the correction.”

Beyond making relatively common osteotomies more accurate, a 3D provision also allows for more complex cases to be worked upon. Lattanza relays a recent case in which a child had broken the radius and ulna bones in their forearm.

“During the time that she was growing, this deformity got ‘very 3D’, meaning it was off in the sagittal, coronal, and axial plane,” says Lattanza.

“You can’t see the axial plane on an X-ray, and if you can’t see it, you can’t correct it.”  

In this case, the procedure required two cuts in the radius to restore it to normal anatomy, and one in the ulna.

“In my career prior to having the 3D technology, that’s something that is difficult or impossible to plan and to execute in the operating room, because you wouldn’t even be able to see that you needed two cuts to make it normal again,” explains Lattanza.

Lattanza is keen to add that the influence of 3D printing on preoperative planning and during surgery should not be a cause for complacency, particularly given that there remain limitations to 3D visualisations of CT scans, chiefly in that the current technology cannot show soft tissue.

“Some people think that this is kind of a phone it in now, but that’s not how it works,” she says.

“This is a collaboration between an engineer and a surgeon, and it has to be that way to get a good result.” 

Australia could be one of the main beneficiaries of this dramatic increase in demand, where private companies and local governments alike are eager to expand the country’s nascent rare earths production. In 2021, Australia produced the fourth-most rare earths in the world. It’s total annual production of 19,958 tonnes remains significantly less than the mammoth 152,407 tonnes produced by China, but a dramatic improvement over the 1,995 tonnes produced domestically in 2011.

The dominance of China in the rare earths space has also encouraged other countries, notably the US, to look further afield for rare earth deposits to diversify their supply of the increasingly vital minerals. With the US eager to ringfence rare earth production within its allies as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, including potentially allowing the Department of Defense to invest in Australian rare earths, there could be an unexpected windfall for Australian rare earths producers.