Premature Babies Are Struggling to Breathe. Why Are Regulators Dragging Their Feet?

More automation in health care could save lives, but progress is too slow.


Heidi de Marco/TNS/Newscom

As a neonatologist, I worry about patients with pulmonary hypertension. This unforgiving disease, sometimes seen after premature birth, can end with sudden death from constricting blood vessels in the lungs. One minute a baby in the neonatal ICU may be sleeping comfortably; moments later, doctors and nurses are giving chest compressions and rescue medications.

A pulmonary hypertension crisis, as these frightening episodes are called, starts with a drop in the blood oxygen level. That drop triggers a monitor to beep. It's up to the nurse to hear the sound, come to the bedside and take action.

The first and most effective step in stopping a pulmonary hypertension crisis is simple: Give oxygen. But a nurse caring for another patient might be delayed for 30 seconds, and the loss of that time can lead to brain injury or death.

In an age of self-driving cars and 400-ton airplanes that can land themselves in blinding fog, it makes no sense that hospitalized patients are surrounded by lifesaving machinery that can be activated only by a person pressing a button or turning a knob.

Modern transportation augments human judgment and reaction times with a computer's superior ability to continuously respond to dozens of fluctuating variables. Yet in medicine, safety remains stubbornly reliant on human intervention.

FDA regulation impedes innovation

My patients with pulmonary hypertension are often attached to a respirator with adjustable oxygen settings. The respirator sits inches below the monitor that indicates how much oxygen is in the blood. But the two machines can't communicate with each other. If they could, it would be possible to increase the flow of oxygen automatically the moment a crisis is detected.

In 2009, engineers developed just this kind of closed-loop respirator and introduced it in several hospitals as part of a feasibility study. It increased the time premature babies spent at a safe oxygen level by more than two hours per day. But no biotechnology company has marketed the idea.

There are other examples of automated systems with unrealized potential to save lives, and not just in the neonatal ICU. Software that scans an ECG for subtle heartbeat variability can identify patterns—undetectable to the human eye—that indicate an elevated risk of heart attack. Hospital beds that play audible feedback during an emergency promote more effective CPR. Yet patients are not benefiting because neither of these tools has been commercialized.

Why haven't these innovations attracted the industry backing necessary to make them widely available?

One reason is that the process of getting FDA approval for new devices—particularly those deemed "life-sustaining"—is often even more complicated and expensive than getting approval for drugs. In the Journal of Public Economics, Harvard Business School professor Ariel Dora Stern recently described how FDA hurdles discourage companies from investing in innovation.

Often, the more profitable strategy is to wait for someone else to spend the time and money required to get approval for a new device, and then enter the market later with something similar that will face less scrutiny. Dr. Stern estimates that regulatory obstacles add an average of US$6.7 million to the cost of introducing a new medical device. For a company developing an ICU monitor, for instance, that will ultimately sell for less than $35,000 per unit, this up-front commitment can be prohibitive.

A consequence is that small biotechnology firms (with annual revenue less than $500 million) rarely gamble on getting new inventions approved. Dr. Stern's paper notes that less than 17 percent of novel device applications to the FDA come from small companies. This is different from new drug applications, the majority of which originate at smaller firms.

What's behind this discrepancy? Research has shown that while companies pay a steep price for pioneering new medical devices, the first firm to market a new type of drug often gets favorable treatment from the FDA. This raises the incentive for pharmaceutical startups to pursue innovation. In contrast, when it comes to medical devices, the current system discourages all but the biggest players from entering the arena.

And even when a new device has been approved, there is no strong impetus for hospitals and clinics to buy in. Even if they can afford upgrades, medical sites are free to use older equipment, with fewer safety mechanisms, long after improved versions become available.

A chance for Washington to improve health care

In contrast, a variety of government initiatives prod transportation companies to modernize. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration offers rebates to aircraft owners to offset the cost of advanced navigation technology that prevents midair collisions. The Federal Rail Administration is overseeing mandatory, nationwide installation of a GPS-based system to slow down speeding trains automatically.

There is an opportunity here—beyond the messy Obamacare debate—for the White House and congressional Republicans to stimulate economic growth in the biomedical sector while improving patient safety. Streamlining the approval process for new devices and offering financial incentives for early adopters would not threaten anti-regulatory groups, and would allow the new administration to claim progress in health care.

President Trump has expressed interest in expediting pharmaceutical approvals, something FDA commissioner nominee Scott Gottlieb also supports. But most drugs help only a small segment of the population.

The president and Dr. Gottlieb should commit to advancing commonsense technology that makes health care better for all.

I'm not suggesting that machines should take over for health professionals. As in the manufacturing industry, the medical field is experiencing mounting anxiety about job displacement. There are many perceived threats, from artificial intelligence X-ray interpretation to robot nurses.

Those things might become commonplace, but they will never supplant the human relationships and insights at the core of medical practice. Neither will the kinds of safety innovations I'm recommending. With help from our leaders, physicians can take better care of patients by bringing more automation into our wards and offices.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

NEXT: Bill O'Reilly: The Kennedy Conspiracy Years

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. There goes Reason, agitating for a capitalist, wild-west style medical system where doctors experiment on patients with no oversight.

    1. You know who else....?

    2. And forgetting that unless some one else pays the bill - equipment needs to be amortized.

  2. Oh yeah, and Democrats Give a Sh*t About People!

    1. Actually they do tend to care about people more than your average Republican who believes in taking care of kids in the womb (and not costing THEM anything) but they're on their own as soon as they pop out.

  3. Look, if a thousand babies have to definitely die in order to forestall tens of far-fetched potential deaths due to some new thing, that's a price any bureaucrat would be willing to pay.

    1. far-fetched potential deaths

      I make it a habit to murder no less than 10 statistical replicoids before going to sleep at night and upon waking first thing in the morning. Normally, I'd just pray like old people raised me too but it's a known fact that praying is pointless and future potential humanoid deaths consume more real estate on the head of a pin.

      1. Now THAT is a masturbation euphemism.

  4. "Please state the nature of the medical emergency."

  5. Well speaking as someone who was 3 months premature, spent 51 days in the hospital, and was born with Cerebral Palsy, fuck the FDA. I bet they have caused more people to die than most other natural causes combined, due to them blocking medicines and treatments that could save lives, and you never hear about that in the legacy media. And many of these treatments / medicines are already approved in other western countries; they just drag their feet while people die.

    So yes, fuck them and fuck the shills in the legacy media, because they dare not attack any government program, since we all know government is us and is always good and just.

  6. One of my favorite examples of government overreach is those emergency location devices in general aviation airplanes, you know, Cessnas and Piper Cubs. It's a radio designed to start broadcasting to satellites during a crash. As you might imagine, designing something to work IN A CRASH is kinda tricky and failure prone, not to mention these things sometimes sit in airplanes for decades without service. So they have a miserable track record, tons of false alarms and lots of failures, to the point that standard policy is to wait for a day or two before investigating. Not to mention they are expensive.

    So some companies came up with a cleve rinversion of the task. They sell a unit which broadcasts every minute or 5 minutes or 15 minutes and is i=designed to STOP WORKING in a crash, which probably isn't very hard. A company monitors your particular plane's bread crumb radio, and if it stops broadcasting, they know within minutes, try reaching out to you or your listed contacts, and can have search teams on their way within just a very few minutes, with very few false alarms, and very few unreported crashes because these are intentionally not robust enough to survive a real crash.

    Yet the FAA won't approve them, because they have no track record, etc etc etc.

    1. Dead man switches, how do they work?

      1. Impossible to know for sure.

      2. Very simple. If the dead man presses the switch, there is a problem.

    2. A true libertarian would realize that it's up to the pilot of the plane to make sure his safety equipment is working. It would be untenable to monitor a signal every 5 minutes for every single air craft in the air with current satellite technology.

  7. I dont think regulators should drag babies by their feet, especially babies who are struggling to breath.

  8. You don't need to change the FDA, you just need to make it superfluous.

    Open up medical devices, drugs, and procedures to approval by for profit competing certification agencies.

    Indemnify posters to sites that review and rate the agencies, devices, drugs, and procedures so that we can get a true feeling for how well each of these things are working. I haven't had an unexpectedly bad motel room since Tripadvisor gained prominence. It's been an incredibly long time since I bought something from Amazon where I didn't know exactly what I was getting. This isn't whatever stone age era that the FDA was designed to regulate.

    Competition works - why in the heck do we keep trying to regulate our regulators?

    1. They do it to protect the children.

  9. I am creating $100 to $130 systematically by carrying down facebook. i used to be unemployed a pair of years earlier , but currently I actually have a very extraordinary occupation with that i build my very own specific pay .I am very appreciative to God and my director .If you wish to induce a good quantity of wage per month like ME , you'll check my details by clicking the link

    >>>> http://www.JobBiz5.com

  10. "Premature Babies Are Struggling to Breathe. Why Are Regulators Dragging Their Feet?"

    What is this, the nightly news? "Babies are dying...more at 11"

    FFS, the overwrought writing in some of these articles is just sad. But the alarmist 'fake news' is worse:

    "But a nurse caring for another patient might be delayed for 30 seconds, and the loss of that time can lead to brain injury or death." 30 seconds. yeh. The one study the article links to about automated oxygen delivery states that the equipment waits 180 seconds between adjustments.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.