From the January 2013 issue of HealthCare Business News magazine

Reprocessed devices typically cost 50 percent less than new devices. Some hospitals can save as much as $600,000 annually, according to Brian White, president of Stryker Sustainability Solutions. Sterilmed reports that in 2011, the company reprocessed nearly 5 million devices, resulting in an estimated $83.5 million in customer savings. Inova Health Systems, for one, reports that it has saved $2.5 million since beginning a reprocessing program in 2009.

Reprocessing a pricey device, such as a harmonic scalpel, can save a hospital $2,000. But it’s not just the reprocessing of more expensive items that can save facilities money.

“If I’m a hospital executive or a materials director, I’m saying, $5 is not much savings, but hospitals use several hundred thousand of these non-invasive devices every year,” says Scott Comas, CEO of Hygia. “Every patient that goes to the hospital gets a blood pressure cuff.”
The waste-reduction benefits of reprocessing also factor into hospitals’ decisions. Sterilmed says its r eprocessing helps divert 2.5 million pounds of medical waste each year.

“The beauty of our devices is that even if it fails the function test and can’t be reprocessed, we still recycle the raw materials,” says Matson of AMDR.


Questions, concerns and continued controversy
For a hospital considering starting a reprocessing program or introducing more devices into its supply chain, Lavanchy of ECRI Institute recommends taking the type of device into consideration before making a decision.

“We’ve never found any evidence of a problem related to the use of an SUD, but there is a continuum, in terms of infection or safety risk,” he says. “Electrophysiology catheters, for example, go into the heart and are fairly complex, so I would put them on the more risky end of the scale. It’s something that should be considered after a careful riskbenefit analysis.”

Some hospitals choose to start with non-invasive devices and later warm up to the idea of expanding the program.

“Oftentimes, hospitals who are either hesitant to reprocess or are exploring reprocessing find our niche to be a great first step,” says Comas of Hygia. “We’ll get in and reprocess the non-invasive devices, then if they see that going well, they’ll include invasive devices down the line.” Some manufacturers are still not on board with SUD reprocessing. Medical device manufacturer Covidien, for example, continues to refute the safety of reprocessed devices. It explains on its website that single-use devices are not built for reprocessing and so may become less effective with reprocessing. It also points out that patients are not generally notified if a reprocessed SUD is being used during a procedure.

January 2013 Magazine

Read more stories from the January 2013 issue

International Day of Radiology 2012 Homepage