By Dr. Clark Turner, CEO, Turner Imaging Systems
If you walked the floor at the recent AdvaMed conference, you likely felt a specific energy. It wasn’t pessimism, exactly, but a distinct “hold” pattern. As Scott Whitaker, President and CEO of AdvaMed, recently noted in his address to the industry, MedTech remains the “backbone of healthcare.” Yet, we are navigating a “storm of politics and policy” that demands a steady hand.
Heading toward 2026, the industry is caught in a fascinating tension: technology has never been faster, but the economic gears turning it have rarely turned more slowly.
After analyzing feedback from my own peer network—where 54% of respondents cited financial pressure as their top concern—and comparing it with the broader industry dialogue, three “super-challenges” have emerged: the capital gap, the supply chain reality, and the practical integration of AI.
1. The “Valley of Death” for Hardware Innovation
The top concern among my peers is financial pressure. This isn’t just about high interest rates; it is a structural shift in how innovation is funded.
There is a narrative that “nobody wants to fund hardware.” But the data tells a more nuanced story. According to the Q2 2025 Medtech Licensing and Venture Report, the industry is seeing a “flight to quality” in which capital is concentrating on “larger, later-stage rounds.” As funds balloon to the billion-dollar mark, investors need to deploy $20 million or $50 million checks. They simply cannot justify the diligence required for the $5 million to $10 million rounds that early-stage hardware needs.
This creates a “Valley of Death” for innovation. As AdvaMed leadership has pointed out, we must ensure the government and financial markets “do not stand in the way of transforming patients’ lives.” But for the CEO on the ground, the solution for 2026 is to look beyond traditional VC hubs.
At Turner Imaging, we have become global financial hunters. We are finding success not just on Sand Hill Road but also with Family Offices in New York and with international partners in Dubai and Japan. The capital is there, but the “winning” leader of 2026 must be willing to build a global coalition to find it.
2. The Myth of “Total Reshoring.”
The second major hurdle is the global supply chain. There is immense political pressure to “reshore” manufacturing. While noble in spirit, the economics do not yet support a total decoupling.
AdvaMed has taken the high ground on this issue, consistently arguing that medical technology should be exempt from broad tariffs for “humanitarian reasons.” As Whitaker stated in his testimony to the Senate Finance Committee, “MedTech products are not optional. They are, in many respects, mandatory.”
We see this daily. Take a carbon fiber enclosure for our imaging systems: sourcing domestically costs roughly $3,000. Sourcing globally costs $700. Even with a punitive 50% tariff, the global option remains the only path to affordable healthcare.
The enemy here isn’t cost; it is uncertainty. We can plan for high costs; we cannot plan for tariffs that fluctuate monthly. As the industry advocates for “zero-for-zero” reciprocal tariffs with our allies, business leaders must focus on resilience—building margins that can absorb the geopolitical shocks we can’t control.
3. AI: Who Pays for the “Read”?
Finally, AI is the inevitable buzzword. But moving past the hype, the hurdle isn’t technology—it’s reimbursement.
AdvaMed has rightly applauded the introduction of the Health Tech Investment Act, noting that for AI to benefit patients at scale, “innovators need the clear, consistent, and stable reimbursement policy this legislation would provide.”
Until that stability arrives, we are seeing a shift toward consumer-driven models. Networks like RadNet are offering AI-assisted reads for a small out-of-pocket fee, and patients are paying it. This suggests a massive shift for 2026: the economic model for AI might not just be B2B or B2G (government), but B2C.
4. The Path Forward
As we look toward 2026, the definition of a MedTech leader is changing. Five years ago, success was defined by clinical efficacy. Today, that is merely the entry ticket.
Real success now requires a leader who is part diplomat, part global economist, and part technologist. We must navigate state regulations, manage global trade volatility, and find creative funding. The goal, as always, remains the patient. As the industry mantra goes, we innovate so that “patients can see again, walk again, and live longer.” We just have to be willing to navigate a complex new world to make that happen.