A new research paper published in the United Kingdom provides some valuable insights into the growing number of US healthcare organisations seeking to reduce the negative environmental impact of their operations, writes Karen Conway.
As of April 2024, 140 healthcare delivery organisations, suppliers, not-for-profits, associations, and other related businesses have voluntarily signed the White House Health Sector Climate Pledge, committing to taking specific and transparent steps to cut their carbon emissions in half by 2030. Because the supply chain has been identified as a primary contributor to healthcare’s carbon footprint (which in the US approaches 10 percent of our nation’s total emissions), the paper focuses on the impact of medical devices and how to translate a growing interest in better environmental performance into actions that achieve measurable improvements.
While the paper is focused specifically on the lifecycle of medical products in the U.K. from regulatory approval through to adoption, many findings in the paper are relevant to the United States and other developed nations. One of the paper’s recommendations is to reduce the variation in how healthcare delivery organizations evaluate the environmental impact of the devices they already use or are considering using. Even in the UK, where healthcare systems are required to give a minimum 10 percent weighting to the social value (including climate change) of procurement decisions, the approach taken by the individual organisations varies, making it hard to use their collective analyses more broadly to compare products. Further, variation increases compliance costs for suppliers who must respond to varying requests from providers.
The challenge variation poses is highlighted throughout the paper. There is variation in which factors different procurement teams prioritize when sourcing products, how new product introductions are handled, and which products are used by clinicians for the same procedures. Add in the ongoing challenges with supply continuity, and it is hard for healthcare systems to standardize the purchase and use of products that are deemed better for the environment.
Much of the literature reviewed by the authors focused on the benefits of reusable vs. single use devices. According to research cited in the paper, reusable devices on average reduce carbon emissions by 38-56 percent across the product lifecycle, and often lower costs by optimizing the use of procured resources. Despite these compelling statistics, single use devices often win out over reusable products, sometimes simply because their lower acquisition price garners less scrutiny than a reusable product that has a higher initial price tag but is lower in total costs over its longer lifespan.
When it comes to products and the environment, most discussions have focused on which products are better, but the paper also highlights some other important considerations beyond product choice. For example, when manufacturing a product, its total carbon emissions could be reduced if the factory uses renewable vs. fossil fuels. In the distribution stage, consolidating orders and using ground freight vs. air can lower emissions. And repairing damaged products for reuse is better for the environment than discarding the broken device. In the end, however, the most impactful thing we can do is to stop operating in ways that are duplicative, unnecessary, or potentially harmful. Research has estimated that the US alone could save $30 billion in healthcare spending per year just by eliminating low or no value healthcare. Further, any care that is not delivered is a 100 percent reduction in carbon emissions and other harmful environmental impacts.
Date: 1 August