	This study brings up a great amount of extremely valid points. It was extremely hard to find a point to refute and challenge. However, I worked the past 9 months on co-op in the healthcare industry. Over this time, I learned a lot regarding FDA regulations and how and why they exist. A lot of hoops need to be jumped through in order to pass the simplest piece of innovation or to protect the company from an audit. While this sounds ridiculous, and the study certainly seems to say so, there is a lot of good reason for these seemingly endless hoops.
	The specific field I worked in healthcare was anesthesia and respiratory care. This field has a lot of reason to be wary to new technologies from the FDA. The study claims this is due to a unclear understanding of the cost/benefit tradeoffs of the system. Additionally, the study claims that it should weigh the benefits of faster approval over some safety risks. 
	In my opinion, and I think rationally, many others as well, this seems a little ignorant. To put potential lives in danger in order to spawn faster innovation seems irresponsible. These machines and systems are required to go through years worth of testing and trials for a reason. These machines are built by humans, they have their flaws. The study also makes a point that it isnt just referring to imaging devices either, it mentions things like autonomous surgeries as well. If the people behind this study genuinely think that these are some safety risks that seem to be brushed off as negligible based on the tone of the article, there needs to be new people behind this study, or they need more people from the industry rather than academia. 
	The study also makes a point of how it will be important to have the adaptation from hospital staff as well, and how they will need to be accepting of these new technologies. I can speak from experience that this is extremely unlikely. The R&D team of my company was specifically told from many focus groups to not change our machines, simply because it was too high risk to change even the location of a button. It is like being trained to type on a QWERTY keyboard and then being given an ABC version for some reason. Sure, we dont really have a reason to have a QWERTY keyboard, the button layout was based on limitations of typewriters. But, the amount of problems that would cause would really make many people question the change, especially if lives were at stake. 
 	All in all, the study got a lot of things right about the healthcare industry. However, I believe their outlook is one that is a little too optimistic and lacks an understanding of why certain decisions are made. The FDA has its reasons for doing what it does, and that is to protect the lives of citizens. Mass producing a product with a bug will not only lose the company money, but could potentially leave it responsible for the deaths of many. A solution to this type of thinking would be to have a readjustment made with the personnel involved in completing these studies. 
