A very hard sell IYO.
Maybe so
BUT as I stated, do you absolutely believe that The U OF M Health Center would risk a law suit for using a device that would have had to be approved and was not.
Since nothing is injected into the solution what ValiMed does with the mililitre of medication is just running a check to see that some pharmacist did not screw up.
If ValiMed was not available the patient(s) would get the medication anyhow. IF ValiMed should find a discrepency in the formula,then the pharmacist can probably retraace his steps and
see if a mistake was made,or else scrap it ,depending on value of the mixture. Meanwhile nobody gets made sicker or even dies.
IT is almo a win win situation.
Now it makes sense to me that any hospital that has experienced a law suit(and as I understand it there are many)would be absolutely foolish not to consider a back up assurance system,matter not the cost.
Once ValiMed is in use in other hospitals ,and has had a chance to prove medication formula correctiveness,It woulld not surprise me to see Hospital Liability Insurance policies call for it or request a no fault clause. Dreaming I know,But what if???
I believe what raiderman was saying is that these initial reports are verification enough to assure that as more hospitals hear about the U of M success the acceptance of the ValiMed system will(if even for trials) increase.
Will it be soon, who knows, but a third party would only be window dressing ,for current use,since it is only backup to check for screwups,
What may come later is a whole nother ballgame.
Maybe even a worthy competitor,who knows!!!
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
