For some reason, I seem to be able to extract more novel ideas from the recent Siemens press releases than from those of any other companies. For example, I picked up the idea of both molecular medicine and imaging biomarker in this way. A recent press release (see: Acquisition of Bayer’s Diagnostic Division Finalized) from the company stimulated me to think about yet another concept -- the diagnostic value chain. An excerpt from it is presented below (boldface emphasis mine):
The acquisition of Bayer Healthcare’s diagnostic division by Siemens Medical Solutions has been completed....The new entity, “Siemens Medical Solutions Diagnostics...employs more than 8,000 people worldwide. Siemens Medical Solutions Diagnostics, headquartered in Tarrytown, N.Y. and Los Angeles, CA, holds a No. 2 position in the worldwide immunodiagnostics market....Bringing together the entire medical imaging, laboratory diagnostics and clinical IT value chain under one roof puts Siemens in a unique position to leverage trendsetting technologies for an improved quality of patient care at reduced costs. DPC and Bayer Diagnostics generated cumulative sales of €1.8 billion in fiscal 2005 (Dec. 31). The cost for both acquisitions totaled €5.7 billion....Anthony Bihl, previous president of the Diagnostics division of Bayer Healthcare, has been named as CEO. Sid Aroesty, who served as president and COO of DPC, was nominated COO of the new business; and Jochen Schmitz, previous CFO of the Siemens Medical Solutions Molecular Imaging division, will assume the CFO role.
The germ of the new idea that I would like to present here is that there are three basic components to the diagnostic value chain: (1) medical imaging; (2) laboratory medicine; and (3) clinical informatics. I use this latter term rather than clinical IT because it encompasses both the technology and the underlying knowledge in this discipline. One of the leading edges of medical imaging is molecular imaging which I have addressed in a number of previous notes. Similarly, molecular diagnostics is currently the leading edge of in-vitro diagnostics and laboratory medicine. I will define laboratory medicine for the purposes of this discussion to include surgical pathology, which is the gold standard for all tissue diagnoses at the present time.
As i pointed out in a previous note about tissue biomarkers, the pursuit of a deeper understanding about biomarkers can serve as the bridge between molecular imaging and molecular diagnostics (see: In-Vitro Biomarkers vs. In-Situ Biomarkers). In turn, more intensive collaboration between the departments of pathology/lab medicine and radiology can potentially lead to a merger between these units to form Departments of Diagnostic Medicine. Not now but perhaps at some time in the near future, the very tight integration of medical imaging, laboratory medicine, and clinical informatics will be viewed as a three-legged stool that will be a prerequisite in healthcare delivery for efficiently and effectively diagnosing all patients.
Dr. Friedman;
When I first read your idea concerning merging radiology and pathology several weeks ago, I was utterly shocked, but the more you write about it, the more I see your point. Just imagining the political ramifications between the medical specialists involved, however, makes me glad to be retired! (:
bev rogers, M.D.
Posted by: b h rogers | January 09, 2007 at 04:34 PM