When the Fix Is In, Patients Lose
Last year, many statehouses across the country looked to address a growing consumer issue broadly known as “right to repair.” Now with legislative sessions kicking off in more than 40 states across the country, this policy looks like it will continue to stay at the top of the agenda for some policymakers. In fact, about ten different legislatures have already introduced some form of a right to repair bill.
The idea behind these so-called “pro-consumer” bills is that anyone should be able to repair the technical devices they own. And they do already. But the philosophy behind this movement is multifaceted, touching a wide range of products and industries, but is mostly just self-serving.
Proponents of right to repair believe government intervention is needed to ensure consumers can repair things like electronic devices, home appliances, cars, farming equipment and even medical equipment. But what many fail to acknowledge is that there are broad implications associated with such an approach and even more so when “lumping” products together under the guise of right to repair.
In fact, there are those who have criticized some of the bills already passed by states like Minnesota and New York which provide necessary carve outs for certain products. But the truth is these carve outs show that legislators don’t believe any principle is at stake and must have exceptions as not all products are created equal.
Proponents of right to repair laws in this space want the government to create their “market” for them, essentially arguing that the government should force another company to give up the tools they need to compete. For that method to work, property rights, particularly intellectual property rights, are scrapped. Intellectual property has served as the foundation for innovation in the U.S. economy for decades, incentivizing innovation by providing a developer with an opportunity to profit from their work.
This heavy-handed regulatory scheme to the status quo is simply a way to skirt intellectual property rights, regulatory procedures and sidestep certification processes often already offered by manufacturers.
Take medical device manufacturing and servicing. Currently, equipment manufacturers are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). That regulation includes the servicing of the devices they manufacture and can extend to the certified third-party repair companies they often use. But right to repair would allow anyone, trained or untrained, to be able to access the software embedded in devices however they wanted, so long as they merely assert “I fix it.”
In the medical field, patient safety is paramount. It’s why these precision instruments must remain in superior working condition, and consequently any repairperson tasked with servicing these machines must be well qualified and documented. Broad right to repair would undermine that regulatory process with the FDA and decrease transparency of people working on these devices. How would that help uphold patient safety?
The safety concerns get very real when the untrained are poking around inside of advanced technological devices our doctors and medical professionals use to diagnose and treat our vulnerable loved ones. Perhaps even worse are the potential security issues when interconnected medical devices are subject to unregulated tampering. A patient’s health and privacy could be at stake from just one mistake, mis-repair, or exposure to the wrong person.
The right to repair may be a fix for those who favor the government intervention, but only one side stands to see substantial gains, especially when it comes to high-risk products like medical devices. All others lose.
Lawmakers and regulators should be focused on security for all of us, most importantly patients. Patients should not have to gamble and second guess that the device being used to treat them was repaired correctly each time they need medical assistance.
All consumer products have unique needs and properties and cannot be grouped together for the benefit of an ideological movement that picks winners and losers in our markets. The harm that could result from the right to repair crowd might very well be measured by the harm caused to the ailing if we aren’t judicious about this crusade.
Bartlett D. Cleland is the executive director for the Innovation Economy Alliance and Institute and a research fellow with the Institute for Policy Innovation.
