When a ventilator stops working in an intensive care unit, every minute matters. Yet across hospitals nationwide, biomedical technicians capable of fixing broken equipment are often blocked from doing so by the manufacturers that made it. A new survey from the Public Interest Research Group paints a stark picture of how these restrictions are translating into patient care delays.
Delays embedded in the system
According to the PIRG survey released on 12 March, 83 percent of biomedical equipment technicians reported that delays in receiving parts, service keys, manuals, and other repair materials "somewhat frequently" or "most of the time" increased equipment downtime. The problem is not primarily one of incompetent technicians lacking skills. Hospital biomedical technicians are trained professionals who routinely handle complex diagnostic and life-support equipment. Rather, the barriers are deliberate: original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) either refuse to provide passwords or diagnostic software keys, or they restrict access to training courses required before technicians can do their work.
The consequences ripple outward. In the same survey, 70 percent of technicians said that diagnostic tool restrictions commonly delayed prompt patient care. A hospital cannot use equipment that is down for repair. A patient cannot receive imaging if the imaging machine sits in a storage room waiting for a manufacturer technician to travel from a distant service centre.
Competing claims about safety and service
Medical device manufacturers argue their restrictions exist to protect patient safety. They point to the complexity of modern equipment and the need for rigorous quality controls. Representatives from the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed), which represents manufacturers, contend there is "no credible evidence that providers have had any delays to medical device repairs" and maintain that proper training and oversight prevent patient harm. The industry emphasises that OEM technicians follow strict FDA Quality System Regulations, maintain detailed documentation, and are held accountable for adverse events.
Yet evidence from multiple quarters challenges this reasoning. A 2018 FDA report found little evidence of "widespread public health concern relating to servicing of medical devices." The pandemic highlighted the contradiction: when supplies ran short and hospitals faced life-or-death equipment decisions, OEMs were sometimes unable to provide parts or support quickly enough. One Massachusetts General Hospital biomedical technician was refused a simple replacement part for a federally supplied ventilator because he had not attended the manufacturer's mandatory training course, even though the repair was straightforward.
The staffing reality behind delays
Hospital administrators face a practical problem: they cannot rely solely on OEM contracts. Nathan Proctor, senior director of the right-to-repair campaign at PIRG, explained that hospitals typically use a mix of OEM service agreements, in-house technicians, and independent service organisations (ISOs). This diversity exists because it works. Yet OEM staffing shortages have become acute. Manufacturers are not consistently meeting the timelines stipulated in their own service contracts. Rural hospitals are particularly affected; biomedical staff in remote areas have reported waiting weeks or even a month for a manufacturer representative to arrive.
When an OEM cannot deliver, hospitals face a choice between expensive emergency repair services or leaving equipment offline. Neither option serves patients.
Where right to repair stands
The right-to-repair movement has gained momentum in consumer electronics and farm equipment, with multiple US states passing legislation. Yet medical devices remain notably absent from these protections. New York, Minnesota, Colorado and Oregon all exempted medical equipment from their right-to-repair laws, citing safety concerns. Manufacturers lobbied heavily for these exemptions, and legislators granted them.
Proctor and others argue this exemption is misplaced. "Right to Repair is one of the rare things that both cuts costs and improves the quality of care," he noted. The economic argument is straightforward: OEMs reserve high-margin service contracts for themselves. Allowing hospitals to maintain their own equipment with proper training and documentation would reduce costs without compromising safety.
The complexity going forward
This is a genuine tension between competing goods. Manufacturer arguments about training, quality control, and accountability are not frivolous. Complex medical equipment does demand competent technicians. But the current system fails on its own terms: equipment sits unused because OEMs cannot deliver timely service, and skilled technicians are prevented from doing work they are fully capable of doing.
Reasonable people disagree on where to draw the line. Advocates for opening repair access argue that competent in-house technicians and independent service organisations, working within existing FDA regulations and with proper training, pose no inherent safety risk. Manufacturers counter that loosening restrictions creates a competitive race to the bottom, where cost pressures override quality.
What the PIRG data makes clear is that the status quo is not cost-neutral or risk-neutral. Every hour a patient waits for a broken ventilator or imaging machine to be repaired is an hour of delayed diagnosis, delayed treatment, or delayed discharge. For now, hospital biomedical technicians remain in the middle: skilled, capable, and blocked from doing the job they were hired to do.