Time and experience...advantages
I was reading the article on PCLI and learned interesting things about the same company, its competition, and some history on LASIK.
Dr. Mark Everett attributes its competitor’s success to some factors such as favorable exchange rate and regulatory environment. But, he also implies that the very low prices that the Canadian companies charge compromise service quality.
We have to understand one thing: Laser surgery has been in the market for over ten years. According to the article laser was performed in Europe and Canada for several years before it was introduced in America. These many years of practice and research gave these competitors and advantage over America. They were able to develop better machines, and contracts with their provider so that they can apply this technology at a reduce price. It is like every new gadget in the market. The first time you see it prices are outrageous, however a year after introduction prices go down and more affordable. This is probably what Canada is doing. Management for these big companies understands that they cannot charge the same high price for a procedure that has become standard and simple. The article says this procedure does not take more five minutes per eye. I cannot imagine people wanting to pay thousand of dollars when they can pay a third of that amount for the same service. It is true it is a health issue and people have to be informed of advantages and disadvantages. But I don’ think these Canadian companies are operating people on a dropping basis without considering these health issues that could develop in the future. I would think that because they have been in the market for a longer time they understand better the implications of this kind of business and they are able to apply these strengths in their business model. They know and understand that millions of people are uninsured or underinsured but they still have a chance to improve their vision without having to go broke.
What we probably need to find more about is how they advertise, what is the rate of success for their operations, and what is the rate of health issues that were compromised with their procedure. By Exhibit 4 we know that some of these companies have achieved great revenue because they were able to do more procedures and were able to negotiate royalties with their providers.
Like I mentioned before, I don’t think people want to pay high prices for a type of technology that is becoming standard specially when they cannot afford that much. US businesses – health industry- have to realize this concept. If they want to increase their revenues, they have to make the same kind of service available to more people and now only focus on those who have excellent health insurance or those who can afford to pay from their own savings account. They have to negotiate with the government to speed up the regulatory process; they have to use technology when it is available for all.
mt
Dr. Mark Everett attributes its competitor’s success to some factors such as favorable exchange rate and regulatory environment. But, he also implies that the very low prices that the Canadian companies charge compromise service quality.
We have to understand one thing: Laser surgery has been in the market for over ten years. According to the article laser was performed in Europe and Canada for several years before it was introduced in America. These many years of practice and research gave these competitors and advantage over America. They were able to develop better machines, and contracts with their provider so that they can apply this technology at a reduce price. It is like every new gadget in the market. The first time you see it prices are outrageous, however a year after introduction prices go down and more affordable. This is probably what Canada is doing. Management for these big companies understands that they cannot charge the same high price for a procedure that has become standard and simple. The article says this procedure does not take more five minutes per eye. I cannot imagine people wanting to pay thousand of dollars when they can pay a third of that amount for the same service. It is true it is a health issue and people have to be informed of advantages and disadvantages. But I don’ think these Canadian companies are operating people on a dropping basis without considering these health issues that could develop in the future. I would think that because they have been in the market for a longer time they understand better the implications of this kind of business and they are able to apply these strengths in their business model. They know and understand that millions of people are uninsured or underinsured but they still have a chance to improve their vision without having to go broke.
What we probably need to find more about is how they advertise, what is the rate of success for their operations, and what is the rate of health issues that were compromised with their procedure. By Exhibit 4 we know that some of these companies have achieved great revenue because they were able to do more procedures and were able to negotiate royalties with their providers.
Like I mentioned before, I don’t think people want to pay high prices for a type of technology that is becoming standard specially when they cannot afford that much. US businesses – health industry- have to realize this concept. If they want to increase their revenues, they have to make the same kind of service available to more people and now only focus on those who have excellent health insurance or those who can afford to pay from their own savings account. They have to negotiate with the government to speed up the regulatory process; they have to use technology when it is available for all.
mt
posted by Lasik Eye at 5:41 PM
1 Comments:
I was reading the article on PCLI and learned interesting things about the same company, its competition, and some history on LASIK.
Dr. Mark Everett attributes its competitor’s success to some factors such as favorable exchange rate and regulatory environment. But, he also implies that the very low prices that the Canadian companies charge compromise service quality.
We have to understand one thing: Laser surgery has been in the market for over ten years. According to the article laser was performed in Europe and Canada for several years before it was introduced in America. These many years of practice and research gave these competitors and advantage over America. They were able to develop better machines, and contracts with their provider so that they can apply this technology at a reduce price. It is like every new gadget in the market. The first time you see it prices are outrageous, however a year after introduction prices go down and more affordable. This is probably what Canada is doing. Management for these big companies understands that they cannot charge the same high price for a procedure that has become standard and simple. The article says this procedure does not take more five minutes per eye. I cannot imagine people wanting to pay thousand of dollars when they can pay a third of that amount for the same service. It is true it is a health issue and people have to be informed of advantages and disadvantages. But I don’ think these Canadian companies are operating people on a dropping basis without considering these health issues that could develop in the future. I would think that because they have been in the market for a longer time they understand better the implications of this kind of business and they are able to apply these strengths in their business model. They know and understand that millions of people are uninsured or underinsured but they still have a chance to improve their vision without having to go broke.
What we probably need to find more about is how they advertise, what is the rate of success for their operations, and what is the rate of health issues that were compromised with their procedure. By Exhibit 4 we know that some of these companies have achieved great revenue because they were able to do more procedures and were able to negotiate royalties with their providers.
Like I mentioned before, I don’t think people want to pay high prices for a type of technology that is becoming standard specially when they cannot afford that much. US businesses – health industry- have to realize this concept. If they want to increase their revenues, they have to make the same kind of service available to more people and now only focus on those who have excellent health insurance or those who can afford to pay from their own savings account. They have to negotiate with the government to speed up the regulatory process; they have to use technology when it is available for all.
Post a Comment
<< Home