Over 1150 Total Lots Up For Auction at Three Locations - WI 07/09, NJ Cleansweep 07/10, CA 07/11

MITA service standard lacks support from non-OEM community

December 20, 2017
Parts And Service

MITA has announced a further Canvass member teleconference to be held on January 12, 2018 to resolve the comments received before MITA circulates and re-ballots the standard.

Activity on Capitol Hill
During a recent visit to Capitol Hill, IAMERS learned that some of the senior staff of the two congressional committees charged with considering health care legislation, the U.S. Senate H.E.L.P. Committee and the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee had also received the MITA draft standard. It was not clear that the staff had the benefit of also receiving the Canvass Group vote results or the comments associated with the negative votes. It was also not clear in what context this information was disseminated and for what purpose. While Congress will likely be deliberating on the FDA report on servicing, due in May 2017 pursuant to Section 710 of the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, P.L. 115-52, (“MDUFA Reauthorization Act”), there is no pending legislation in the U.S. Senate. H.R. 2118 which sought to register and regulate independent servicers, is still before the House Energy and Commerce Committee to be considered.

stats
DOTmed text ad

Ensure critical devices are ready to go

Keep biomedical devices ready to go, so care teams can be ready to care for patients. GE HealthCare’s ReadySee™ helps overcome frustrations due to lack of network and device visibility, manual troubleshooting, and downtime.

stats Advertisement


It is interesting to observe that the NEMA Lobbying Report (which includes some activities of MITA) filed with the Office of the Clerk for the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, pursuant to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, disclosed expenses relating to lobbying activities for the 3rd quarter 2017 in the amount of $520,000. Among the activities listed was the MDUFA Reauthorization and H.R. 2118. The report does not specifically disclose what portion of the expenses pertained to lobbying with respect to independent servicing issues.

IAMERS has suggested in its comment responding to the draft MITA standard that it would be most appropriate to disclose to the MITA Canvass Group that they should consider the possibility of the proposed MITA standard not merely being used as a voluntary standard, but that it may well be incorporated as proposed legislation. In 2014, NEMA XR-29 standard on CT equipment relating to dose optimization and management (known as the MITA Smart Dose) was incorporated into PL 113-93.

Of course, all of this begs the question as to whether the resources being expended by MITA and other stakeholders are in fact for a QMS standard or rather for further legislation/regulation. ECRI noted that servicing has been a contributing factor in less than 0.0005% of medical equipment-related adverse events, suggesting that, at least based on history, a QMS standard or regulation would have made little or no significant impact on patient safety.
(28)

(1)

Wayne Webster

Vigilence is key

December 21, 2017 09:19

A well written article that once again demonstrates vigilance in the face of OEM strategies to monopolize the service marketplace is key to independent service providers survival. The medical equipment marketplace is ill served by these sorts of tactics mounted by the OEM's for the purpose of expanding their reach and revenue with no commensurate return to those paying the bill, medical providers and ultimately the U.S. consumer of health care services. If patient safety is the actual basis for all this activity by MITA, an OEM only club, then show the community your genuine concern and make available to those who service medical equipment the AITA information so patient safety can be assured. Without the release of the manuals, training and service keys, let's call this so call standard what it is, a means to the removal of the independent service organization and the establishment of an OEM monopoly on the service of medical devices.

Log inor Register

to rate and post a comment

(21)

(2)

Steve Arey

re: Vigilence is key

December 22, 2017 07:57

I don't know who you are Wayne and your qualifications, but if I were a manufacturer I would have a problem with you trying to make me provide you with patented information on my product under the guise of patient safety when the history of AAMI, MITA, et.al. has been complete neglect of requiring service individuals to be credentialed or "Certified" to maintain devices used in the healthcare setting, like Japan does.

Log inor Register

to rate and post a comment

(28)

(1)

Wayne Webster

re: re: Vigilence is key

December 23, 2017 04:39

You are correct. You don't know who I am. I have over 40-years in the business with consumables and equipment. And to address your issues, AIAT information is not something you patent. Manufacturers can claim that ISO's are not performing to certain standards and therefore putting patients at risk, but when they withhold the very information that is in fact what may put patients at risk, they, the OEM's, are the creators of the problem. You can't have it both ways, create the problem and then complain that there's a problem. If you missed any of the facts presented at the many forums held on this issue you may wish to familiarize yourself with the statistics reported by ECRI. According to ECRI the incidence of adverse events reported as a result of service of equipment is below 0.0005%. The statistic speaks for itself.

Log inor Register

to rate and post a comment

(21)

(2)

Steve Arey

re: re: re: Vigilence is key

January 05, 2018 12:25

I expect that service individuals, as I am, don't even know what ECRI is, much less report to them that there was an "incident" with their servicing of a manufacturers equipment. I started working for the Federal Government in 1978 and yes, we used ECRI information in purchasing and maintenance of medical devices. VA biomedical engineering was the first in creating preventative maintenance criteria for all medical devices in the hospital. Today, 30 years later, the "public sector" is just now catching up with the program and crying about it. AAMI has had 30 years to drive certification as a requirement in the industry and it failed. Again, if I were a manufacturer you wouldn't be turning a wrench on my equipment without some credentials behind your name, 40 years or not.

Log inor Register

to rate and post a comment

(28)

(1)

Wayne Webster

re: re: re: re: Vigilence is key

January 05, 2018 02:21

Manufacturers don't own the equipment. They have nothing to say about who services it. That's the responsibility of the owner of the equipment. As I stated in my earlier response, ECRI analyzed and reported on FDA data, not their own. They stated that 0.0005% of all reported events were a result of service failure that resulted in a patient safety issue. MITA is attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The only reason to do this is to restrict the service of equipment to OEM's only.

Log inor Register

to rate and post a comment

You Must Be Logged In To Post A Comment