It is not a secret that funding for med devices remains depressed compared to the heyday period up to 2008 —  but this may be the new normal.  What are the current groundrules?

Suggestions from the June 7 conference held by Mass Medic (the device industry council):

*focus on reimbursable solutions to unmet needs; “me-too” products are not getting financed

*venture supports products where they believe that there is an 80% chance that the device works, leaving market risk as the biggest unknown, so presentations must address both aspects

*to reduce capital needs and thus maximize IRR, investors seek companies that have learned to  minimize cash burn rates

*will the doctors like and use this device, or (notwithstanding its merits) will it eliminate significant income engines for the practitioners?

The focus of the meeting was to explore diverse sources of med device financing beyond angels and VCs.  One speaker urged overcoming the focus on equity by reframing the entrepreneur’s quest: do not start by saying your goal is to sell equity, but rather define your goal as seeking money aligned with your plan for your product.  Consider approaching customers and competitors suggesting license deals, development deals, down payments, joint venture efforts.

So, all you need is a disruptive reimbursable device addressing a major unmet need in the treatment of a chronic disease, the use of which will improve patient outcomes while protecting doctor income streams.  Sounds easy enough….