Robert Michel of the Dark Daily reported recently on a laboratory management meeting conducted by Siemens Medical Solutions Diagnostics in Stratford-upon-Avon, England (see: Integrating In Vitro and In Vivo Diagnostics). This was the third annual Process Management Meeting convened by Siemens for its laboratory customers in the U.K. Below is an excerpt from his article:
One session at this meeting was targeted specifically at the topic of integrating in vitro and in vivo diagnostics. In a point/counterpoint discussion, [the moderator] challenged Nico Arnold, the newly- appointed Head of Europe for Siemens Medical Solutions Diagnostics, to lay out the company’s strategy and give everyone in the meeting a better understanding of how Siemens’ intends to proceed to achieve integration of these two diagnostic disciplines. Nico Arnold’s message was simple and clear. “Going forward, laboratory customers of Siemens will see a continued commitment to both the latest in lab test technology and a high level of value-added service,” he stated. “With its recent acquisitions, Siemens has become the world’s largest player in immunoassays and is one of the top three largest in vitro diagnostics (IVD) manufacturers globally. Siemens fully intends to be at the forefront of laboratory medicine, just as it is a leader in radiology and imaging.”
I have provided extensive previous coverage of Siemens and its purchase of two IVD companies -- DPC and Bayer Diagnostics. The above quotation from Nico Arnold should be reassuring to those clinical lab professionals who may be apprehensive about what Siemens has in store for them and to what extent the company may favor imaging over in-vitro diagnostics. However, let's be realistic. No one in the audience really expected him to say that Siemens intended to run its newly acquired companies into the ground.
Large multinational companies like Siemens are very focused on the bottom line as well as the contributions of corporate acquisitions to their financial well-being. The key question for lab professionals regarding Siemens going forward is the following: in what way will their professionals lives be different with Siemens as the owner of the former Bayer Diagnostics and DPC? Following are some of my current ideas about this question. I will expand the scope of my comments to include both Siemens and GE since they both seem to be moving in the same direction:
- The approach of both Siemens Medical Solutions Diagnostics and GE Healthcare to diagnostic medicine will be more integrative. This has been apparent in the molecular medicine concept coined by Siemens and the early health model theory of GE, both of which I have discussed in detail previously in this blog.
- What does more integrative mean in this context? For me, it means that the goal for the companies will be rapid, accurate, and profitable diagnostic procedures and testing. Neither company will be tightly bound by any one specific approach to medical diagnosis so I suspect that the boundary between in-vivo and in-vitro diagnosis will become increasingly permeable. As I have pointed out previously, molecular imaging provides a bridge between the in-vivo and the in-vitro worlds.
- The most interesting issue in my mind is whether one or both of these companies will tilt toward medical imaging rather than in-vitro testing. Such a tilt could be the result of one of the following factors, or a combination of them:
- A long history of involvement in imaging by both companies from both an R&D and sales perspective, leading to a subtle (or not-so-subtle) bias in this direction
- Higher profit margins from the sale of imaging equipment and services, leading to a business decision to favor medical imaging
- Increasing commoditization of lab testing, which has been discussed here previously
- Continuing higher profit margins for imaging studies in hospitals, leading to greater sales and higher profits in this sector
- An accelerated level of regulation by the FDA of emerging biomarker technology, increasing the cost of IVDMIA development and inhibiting R&D efforts in this area
Comments