We will be good, Madam Chair.
We know that patients are going to need better access to the most effective health care in the system. We understand that in Canada we're facing major issues. We need to find ways to control government spending, but at the same time to produce high-quality health outcomes. Medical technology is definitely an enabler in achieving these goals. Many of our member companies have experience in developing innovative technologies around the world. We actually do it in other countries. There are hugely untapped resources in Canada.
One of the things is that technology has been seen as a cost driver, but this misconception is changing around the world as health care systems recognize that health technology innovation is an enabler to delivering high-quality care, as John mentioned, improving access, and making health care systems sustainable. Technologies can definitely improve efficiencies in our system for us and contribute to the health of Canadians. We believe it's important that you utilize this industry as the engine of research and development.
To go specifically to health technology assessment, health technology assessment processes designed to evaluate the unique research, development, and value outcomes of medical devices are essential in the evaluation of these products. We must all play a role in ensuring that it is done correctly. Industry wants and needs to be brought to the table in the development and evaluation of these solutions.
I'll give some examples. John touched on one of them, and I'll talk about a couple more.
For the last few years, MEDEC has had ongoing interaction, by actually sitting at the table in the evaluation, with the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee in its role in making recommendations about the uptake, diffusion, or removal of health innovations in Ontario. OHTAC's recommendations are based on a review of results through the lens of decision-determinant framework. It truly is a model process in the world. We have it right here in Canada.
Alberta, through the Alberta Advisory Committee on Health Technologies and the Institute of Health Economics, is also bringing the med-tech industry directly to the table, and we are partnering. We are there at the table and we are helping develop solutions. The EXCITE process, which Ilse will mention more about and John talked about, is also in the same vein.
These are all really important steps, but these are only two provinces: Ontario and Alberta. We still have a long way to go in terms of consistency in HTA, health technology assessment, in Canada. There is definitely an opportunity for better coordination nationally on HTA.
There are some other examples that we must consider when doing HTA. It is crucial that we understand the differences between devices and drugs in terms of how the system of health technology assessment is done. HTA, in settings where it's not being conducted optimally, too often results in an excuse to say no to new technologies in an effort to curb short-term hospital and health care spending. Even when there is a positive HTA, and this is very important in a place such as Ontario where a model assessment process is in place, there are still system problems with the problem of strict hospital budget silos and cost minimization mindsets that hamper the adoption of a product, which may result in increased costs in one department's budget but overall cost savings to the hospital or the total health care system. The current process tends to silo budgets rather than look at the broader outcomes, cost savings, and better health outcomes.
As John mentioned earlier, regarding programs such as SR and ED, IRAP, and DTAPP, we'd like to thank the federal government for this support and commend you for what you've done to support the industry.
The regulatory requirements related to medical devices in many countries, including Canada, are extensive, cumbersome, expensive, and especially difficult for a small business to manage. While we understand the need for rigorous regulatory requirements, we would like to see some form of reciprocal arrangements between countries, or more streamlined processes for devices that have regulatory approval in other jurisdictions. A transition to mutual recognition between Canada and its peer jurisdictions would go a long way to reducing the regulatory burden.
The last topic I want to touch on is procurement. The increased presence of group-purchasing organizations and shared-service organizations, which are large health care product-buying groups in Canada, has created significant barriers to entry for products in the Canadian health care system.
One observation is that the current procurement environment is not conducive to the uptake of disruptive innovative technologies that have the potential to change the way patients interact with the health care system. It tends to favour the large, multinational firms that can supply hospitals across Canada. This procurement process is problematic for Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises that are unable to compete on such a large scale. It is unnecessarily bureaucratic and cumbersome. It restricts access to the end users, and there is a lack of strategic purpose in purchasing. In particular, there is no advantage to being a Canadian firm.
To build on what John was saying, in my role in this job, for the last 14 months I've travelled across the country and I've met with many firms that have sales between $5 million and $15 million. A lot of these particular organizations do not sell a single product in Canada, 90% to 100% of their sales being outside Canada. We have to realize that. As John was saying, to get them to be able to develop their products in Canada and market them in Canada would be a huge advantage.