The red flags began cropping up late last year. 

New (familiar) U.S. leadership hinted at sweeping changes on the horizon: Cleaning up “corrupt, failing” federal bureaucracies, reducing waste and regulation, extending first-term tax cuts, and restoring fair trade. 

Momentous changes. Transformative changes.

The worst of times was near.

Yet unemployment was low, consumer sentiment was good, the stock market was up, and GDP was strong.

Then maybe the best of times was at hand.

Actually, it was a mix of both—the best and worst of times. Any change begets uncertainty, and the unknown can act like a fog, obscuring the path ahead. Business notoriously are averse to unknowns (and change), as it forces them to move beyond their comfort zone, explore new ideas, and adapt to evolving circumstances.

The medtech industry received a crash course in evolving circumstances adaptation this year as companies navigated the ever-shifting storyline of a new (returning) president’s first tumultuous months in office. Coupled with the constant challenges of regulatory compliance, cybersecurity risks, pricing pressures, and reimbursement complexities, the medtech sector experienced a year that seemed to come straight from Charles Dickens’ “Tale of Two Cities.”

As Sheryl Jacobson, consulting medtech practice leader at Deloitte quipped in January, “It is clearly an industry in a significant state of flux… t was a year of the best of times and the worst of times without a clear high and a low, just a lot of turmoil and change. For 2025, that is absolutely going to continue.”

And continue it did. 

---

Beauty in the Beast

The warning signs were all there.

They were simple and straightforward—void of guessing games, hidden agendas, and double entendres.

They were plain yet brash, looming unapologetically large like the pink stucco exterior of Mar-a-Lago or midtown Manhattan’s golden escalator. Missing such imposing signs would have been nearly impossible, since they replayed like a scratched record, and were about as subtle as a marching band in a library—much like their architect, President Donald J. Trump.  

During his 2024 run for the White House, Trump laid bare his domestic policy vision: securing borders, taming inflation, reducing taxes, strengthening public infrastructure, and overhauling foreign trade agreements. He toured the country, parroting only one word when discussing the latter goal’s strategy. 

Tariff.

Savannah, Ga., Sept. 24, 2024: “…the word tariff, properly used, is a beautiful word, one of the most beautiful words I’ve ever heard. It’s music to my ears.”

Chicago Economic Club, Oct. 15, 2024: “To me, the most beautiful word in the dictionary is tariff…it’s my favorite word. It needs a public relations firm to help it, but to me, it’s the most beautiful word in the dictionary.”

Auburn Hills, Mich., Oct. 18, 2024: “It’s the most beautiful word in the dictionary. You have other words that are damn nice like love. But I tell you, I think it’s more beautiful than love. The word tariff.”

Trump used his giddy affection for that word to craft an America-first trade policy that is as unpredictable as it is perplexing. At times, it seemed as if the president’s edicts were based more on the whims of a Magic 8 ball than on logic—tariff policies changed dramatically day to day, even hour to hour in the first few months of Trump’s second term. 

Amid the confusion were brief moments of clarity: a U.S.-U.K. deal in June, for example, reduced tariffs on British automobile and aerospace goods and concurrently lowered levies on American beef and ethanol. A handful of other agreements followed over the summer, arriving in bits and spurts between threats to holdouts and errant adversaries.

As the Trump administration played Deal or No Deal with America’s friends and foes, a bunch of business owners and lawyers were prepping for The Good Fight against tariffs. In April, five import companies and a dozen state attorneys general sued the Trump administration over tariffs, claiming the president exceeded his statutory authority by imposing levies under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) without congressional approval. The plaintiffs also argued the tariffs caused them financial harm by driving up costs and disrupting their business operations.

The U.S. Justice Department claimed the IEEPA is written broadly; the authority to impose tariffs, the Trump administration contended, falls within the power the Act grants the president to “regulate” imports.

Federal judges in two separate rulings disagreed with that logic, as did an Appeals court. “The statute bestows significant authority on the President to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency, but none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax,” the Appeals court decision stated. “It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs.”

The Trump administration, not surprisingly, appealed the courts’ rulings to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear oral arguments on Nov. 5. The tariffs remain in effect until the high court decides the case.

Predictably, the Appeals court ruling did not sit well with Trump. Within hours of the Aug. 29 decision, he posted on TruthSocial that “tariffs are the best tool to help workers and support companies that produce great MADE IN AMERICA products. If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the country…”

But a relief for businesses. Trump’s renewed embrace of tariffs has been a persistent headache for Corporate America since it resurfaced during the 2024 presidential campaign. Although their full impact remains unclear, the whiplash-type decisions about and ongoing uncertainty over tariffs has left many companies anxious about the financial fallout.

Anxiety levels among medtech firms were considerably higher this year as manufacturers grappled with tariff-related supply chain disruptions, reduced investment in innovation, higher manufacturing expenses (with some devices experiencing cost increases of $2,000-$8,000), and potential profit margin erosion.

Initially panicked by the potential earnings-suppressing consequences, OEMs predicted significant tariff charges, but subsequently adjusted them lower. Johnson & Johnson and Boston Scientific Corp., for example, both halved their expectations (to roughly $200 million and $100 million respectively), while Abbott Laboratories reduced its initial estimate (a few hundred million dollars) to under $200 million. Similarly, Medtronic downgraded its original $200 million-$300 million guess to $185 million; Philips lowered its forecast by 100 million euros; and Siemens Healthineers decreased its original assessment by 50 million euros-100 million euros.

As Philips chief financial officer Charlotte Hanneman told investors in July, “The tariff landscape remains dynamic.”

And unpredictable. The revised tariff charges could spike as quickly as they fell if medtech products are pulled into Trump’s tariff maelstrom. Medical technologies have historically been subjected to low tariffs or tax exemptions, thanks largely to the humanitarian need for healthcare solutions. Medtech industry leaders lobbied for such leniency as Trump began shaping his tariff policy, reminding lawmakers of medical technology’s essential role in delivering quality healthcare to patients.

In May, AdvaMed president/CEO Scott Whitaker warned a U.S. Senate finance committee that Trump’s tariff policies could put medical innovation at risk, increase costs, and complicate the medtech supply chain. He urged the committee members to consider a “zero-for-zero” reciprocal tariff policy on medical products. 

Rather than consider such an option, however, the Trump administration initiated national security investigations into imports of medical devices, industrial machinery, and robotics—a move that could possibly end medtech tax-exempt status. 

Launched Sept. 2 under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the probes aim to assess whether higher tariff rates are warranted for various medical products such as N95 respirators, syringes, surgical masks, coronary stents, heart valves, hearing aids, robotic and non-robotic prosthetics, blood glucose monitors, orthopedic appliances, electromedical apparatus (CT scanners, magnetic resonance machines), electrosurgical apparatus, X-ray/other radiation equipment, and MRI machines.

The investigation—publicly disclosed more than three weeks after its launch—will analyze current and projected demand for PPE, medical consumables, and medical devices; and whether domestic production can adequately meet that demand. The U.S. Commerce Department also is examining the role foreign supply chains play in meeting U.S. demand for medical devices and equipment, and the concentration of U.S. imports of PPE, devices, and equipment as well as associated risks.

The investigation prompted another red alert from Whitaker, who attributed medtech’s strong job growth over the past six years—three times the average rate for manufacturing—to “sound tax policies.”

“…U.S. medtech manufacturing is strong and lower tariffs will fuel more manufacturing and job growth in the U.S.,” Whitaker noted, “which means greater access to lifesaving technologies and lower costs to American hospitals and patients.”

In that regard, tariffs (or a lack thereof) could indeed be a beautiful word.  

Read more: bit.ly/4oeinQb

---

AI Acceleration

It seemed insignificant at the time, nothing more than a basic, reflexive movement. 

But the weight of that simple act echoed loudly, turning an otherwise ordinary moment into an unforgettable milestone for Minoo Press.

The 75-year-old was finally free. 

With each step, Press further distanced himself from the neurological netherbeast that confined him to a wheelchair and stole both his balance and bladder control.

While walking out of the hospital was a victory in itself, the real triumph was his doctors’ ability to crack the mystery had had haunted him for two years. Press visited numerous U.S. medical centers to discover the cause of his steady cognitive and physical decline, ultimately resulting in his inability to perform even simple tasks.

Some clinicians suspected the culprit might be normal pressure hydrocephalus, excess fluid buildup in the brain. But Press’ symptoms overlapped with those of neurodegenerative disease; since there was no way to tell the difference, clinicians could neither confirm the diagnosis nor recommend surgery. 

Press’ search for answers eventually brought him to the Mayo Clinic, where he underwent an evaluation by David Jones, M.D., a neurologist and director of the Mayo Clinic Neurology Artificial Intelligence Program. Using a tool his team developed called StateViewer, Dr. Jones ruled out Alzheimer’s and other types of dementia in Press’ case.

Using artificial intelligence (AI), StateViewer analyzes a fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scan, which shows the way the brain uses glucose for energy. It then compares the scan to a large database of scans from people with confirmed dementia diagnoses and identifies patterns linked to nine disease types—from Alzheimer’s and frontotemporal dementia to less common forms with overlapping symptoms. StateViewer displays these patterns through color-coded brain maps that highlight key brain activity areas, giving clinicians a visual breakdown of the AI’s interpretation and its role in diagnostic support.

In a recent study, StateViewer identified the correct dementia type in 88% of cases and helped clinicians interpret scans up to three times more accurately and twice as fast as standard methods. 

“When you’re looking at overlapping symptoms, it’s easy to miss the underlying cause,” Dr. Jones said in an online article. “StateViewer gave us the clarity we needed to make an informed diagnosis and take action.”

AI-integrated tools like StateViewer have become commonplace in the medtech arena as device developers and manufacturers realize the technology’s enormous potential to improve patient outcomes through pathological diagnosis, treatment guidance, continuous monitoring, and personalized care. An initial laggard, AI adoption in healthcare has surged in recent years, with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approving a record 235 AI-enabled products alone in 2024. Over the last 30 years, the agency has authorized more than 1,200 AI devices, although growth has been exponential since 2015.

The scale of such explosive growth is underscored by the vast number of active AI users. The inaugural NVIDIA State of AI in Healthcare and Life Sciences Report—released this past summer—found that two-thirds of industry professionals are actively using AI and another 31% are piloting or assessing AI initiatives. Moreover, the breadth of use cases reflects the life sciences industry’s varied needs: Foundational models, for instance, are expediting drug discovery while generative and agentic AI is lending a hand to hospital administrators, and visual AI is augmenting medical imaging to provide quicker, more accurate diagnoses.

Medical imaging, in fact, has captured the lion’s share of AI use cases (thus far), according to NVIDIA’s report. Seventy-one percent of medical technology professionals are investing in medical imaging and diagnostics, and 75% expect this branch of medicine to be most impacted by AI in the next five years. 

It likely won’t take that long, though. AI already is positively impacting medical imaging, thanks to innovations from GE Healthcare, Philips, Siemens Healthineers, Johnson & Johnson MedTech, and Medtronic, among others. 

GE HealthCare is leading the neural network charge, having outpaced its competitors in AI-related medical device authorizations for the past four years. Through July 23 (2025), the company had accrued 100 AI-enabled FDA endorsements, including AIR Recon DL, a deep learning algorithm for image reconstruction that enables radiologists to achieve pin-sharp images quicker; Precision DL, available on the Omni Legend PET/CT system; and the Venue point-of-care ultrasound systems with AI-powered Caption Guidance software.

“Our leadership in AI-enabled medical devices reflects our commitment to research and development, which is powering the creation of next-generation solutions,” Dr. Taha Kass-Hout, GE HealthCare’s global chief science and technology officer, said in a news release announcing the company’s AI authorization list milestone. “These solutions are designed to address the toughest challenges our customers are facing including care team shortages and burnout, rising costs, and inefficient workflows. We’re accelerating the pace of innovation to meet the urgency of today’s healthcare challenges.”

So are GE Healthcare’s rivals. Siemens Healthineers is not too far behind in AI-enabled product approvals, having collected 76, and Philips has garnered 32, according to the FDA’s AI-Enabled Medical Devices List. Siemens’ total includes the remote-controlled Luminos Q.namix R and the Luminos Q.namix T with tableside control, which gained FDA clearance in July, while Philips tally encompasses its EPIQ CVx, Affiniti CVx, and Compact 5500 CV AI-powered platforms, the Transcent Plus for EPIQ CVx and Affiniti CVx (launched in August), and the VeriSight Pro 3D Intracardiac Echocardiography Catheter. 

“One of the most surprising things that I’ve seen about AI in healthcare this year is the rapid pace of adoption, the willingness to try to understand it, and the interest in AI compared to last year,” Avenda Health founder/CEO Shyam Natarajan, Ph.D., told MPO. “We’ve been commercial for about a year or so and last year there was definitely more headwinds about adoption of AI. There were a lot of health systems that were really trying to understand AI’s impact on clinical care, the biases, and the trade-offs. Whereas this year, I think health systems have a better handle on what is available, what they should care about, and how to actually implement AI and deploy it.”

Avenda Health’s contribution to healthcare’s growing cache of artificial intelligence-bouyed solutions is Unfold AI, an FDA-cleared tool that combines patient-specific data and deep learning algorithms to create a personalized cancer estimation map for visualizing the size and extent of prostate cancer in 3D. Unfold AI draws on multimodal data and merges information from MRIs, prostate-specific antigen blood tests, and biopsies to make its predictions. 

Studies have shown the cancer-mapping tool predicts cancer spread better than MRI, achieving a 92% accuracy rate compared to 52% with radiologist interpretation on standard MRI.  

“… the future in healthcare is quite bright for AI in terms of how data is actually being used and deployed. Right now, it’s still a nascent [technology] because there’s not standardization in how to actually deploy it, sell it, all of that. So that needs to work itself out and that’s where the startups are actually innovating and forging the path ahead,” Dr. Natarajan noted. “I think the existing framework, both from a regulatory standpoint and CMS, etc., allow for a much more rapid change of pace—maybe even monthly or weekly in terms of new models deploying and being out there. I think we’ll see a very different state of the industry a year from now.”

It may even be unrecognizable.

Read more: bit.ly/42G827t

---

Elizabeth Holmes is Everywhere, All at Once

In the photograph, she is smiling, beaming widely as she walks briskly under a scorching Texas sun.

She seemed truly at ease, her smile echoing the confidence and charm she once carried as the belle of the medtech ball. But those days are long behind her, as evidenced by the monotone gray workout wear, the restricted walking/workout area, and the barbed or razor-wire fencing on the perimeter of her new home.

Curiously, Elizabeth Holmes appeared unfazed (albeit momentarily?) by those reminders of her carceral existence. In fact, the former Theranos founder/CEO and convicted felon looked genuinely happy in the Aug. 2 People magazine photo, taken during an outdoor work-out at Federal Prison Camp, Bryan.

Could Holmes’s newfound contentment reflect a deeper reconciliation with her current reality?

Not likely.

Might it signal a quiet acceptance of guilt? Or is it confirmation that she’s still pretending the guilt never existed in the first place?

Maybe the latter, definitely not the former. 

Perhaps—and this is a stretch—Holmes just likes the attention. Especially when it comes from the media.

And Holmes has attracted quite a bit of media attention this year—from People magazine, from The New York Times, from The Hollywood Reporter, CBS, AP (Associated Press), Nextstar Media Inc., National Public Radio, and Globe Newswire, among others. 

That’s enough to put a smile on anyone’s face.

The Holmes media parade kicked off in February with a revealing People cover story about her life behind bars in east-central Texas. She described the “pure pain” of living in a jail cell—“Human beings are not made to be in cells,” she asserted in the interview. “It goes so far beyond understanding.”

Camp Bryan’s jail cells are not the only aspect of incarceration beyond Holmes’ understanding. She also remains baffled by the basis for her imprisonment and continues to maintain her innocence. Moreover, Holmes still deems her federal fraud trial and subsequent conviction—which was upheld in February by a federal appeals court—a “miscarriage of justice,” telling People that she never expected to “be convicted or found guilty.”

Nevertheless, a federal jury convicted Holmes of wire and investor fraud, and she’s slated to spend the next 105 months in prison (barring early release), where her life has been pure “hell and torture,” according to her People interview.

It’s absolute misery for sure—Holmes’s meals are mostly veg-an, she teaches French classes, reads “Harry Potter,” and counsels rape survivors. She also holds two jobs (re-entry and law clerk), and in her spare time drafts legislation to reform the U.S. criminal justice system and writes patents for new inventions.

Utterly unbearable. 

Three months after the People interview, Holmes was back in the news, courtesy of her husband, hotel heir Billy Evans. Multiple media outlets reported in May that Evans was raising millions of dollars for an AI startup that aims to develop a diagnostic testing device based on organic material specimens (bodily fluid samples like blood, sweat, and urine).

The comparisons to Holmes’ failed blood testing startup, Theranos, were inevitable: Both entities shared the same basic mission—disease diagnosis from small biological samples—and conceived their respective names through word blending. Theranos, for example, was an amalgamation of “therapy” and “diagnosis” while Evans combined the Greek words for blood (haima) and flower (anthos) to create his company’s name, Haemanthus.

Coincidence? Possibly.

Haemanthus executives quickly shut down such conjecture, taking to X on May 11 to deny any connection to or involvement from Holmes. “Setting the record straight. Elizabeth Holmes has zero involvement in Haemanthus. We’ve learned from her company’s mistakes, but she has no role, now or future. Theranos attempted to miniaturize existing tests. Our approach is fundamentally different. This is not Theranos 2.0.”

Not everyone is convinced, however. Tyler Schultz, a scientist, diagnostics company founder, and whistleblower who exposed the fraud at Theranos, claimed in an opinion piece written for STAT that Haemanthus is only a vehicle for Holmes to exonerate herself. “I suspect that Haemanthus’ purpose is not to build a product that will improve the lives of people,” he wrote.”…The purpose is to build something that works, so she can point to it and say, ‘See, I would have figured it out. Theranos was never a fraud.’”

Holmes may not need Haemanthus for vindication, though. Miami entrepreneur and self-proclaimed medtech innovator Ryan “Egypt” El-Hosseiny is determined to prove Holmes’ innocence. He’s traveled the country promoting his Just Blood campaign, an initiative designed to paint Holmes as a misunderstood hero. Part of the campaign has featured large-scale publicity stunts, like mysterious billboards with supersized images of Holmes popping up in Los Angeles, Miami and New York City. 

El-Hosseiny re-launched the Theranos brand earlier this year, and publicly demonstrated Holmes’ replicated technology (called “Blue Magic”) in Times Square this past May. He’s also called on President Donald Trump to pardon Holmes and her co-conspirator, Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, saying his own work “proves they are both innocent and made real contributions to the United States of America.”

True patriots, indeed.

Read more: bit.ly/4q6EqtW

---

Discerning Dealmaking

Call it Paradise Lost.

Or better yet, an Eden never realized. 

Lost to the ages were such technological triumphs as traffic-busting hovercraft, ballistic rocket passenger travel (capable of reaching any point on Earth in 40 minutes), and robotic household choremasters. Other faded visions included medical marvels like remedies for blindness, deafness, memory loss, mental impairment, grouchiness, laziness, etc., as well as the elimination of all bacterial and viral disease.

It certainly sounded like—and could have been—a modern-day shangri-la, had all those life-enhancing enchantments panned out.

But the visions were just that: imagined futures—predictions rather than realities—of life in the year 2000. The prophecies came from a group of futurists nearly six decades ago, compiled in a TIME magazine essay that dubbed their prophecies “a remarkable vision.” 

“…the futurists predict an era of almost limitless change,” the magazine stated in its Feb. 25, 1966, essay. “With remarkable confidence, and in considerable detail, they present a view of man not only in total control of his environment but of his own brain and his own evolution.” 

Granted, most of the divinations within the essay were pure pipe dreams—climate control (no global warming!), desert rains, independently wealthy Americans, steak-flavored kelp, and a smog-free Los Angeles—but a few were right on target: planes nearing speed of sound velocities; a six billion world population milestone (off by only 162 million); artificial hearts; and electronic information retrieval, with “contents of libraries and other forms of information or education…stored in a computer and…instantly obtainable at home by dialing a code.”   

Although it concedes America’s enduring fascination with the future, the TIME piece also acknowledges the inherent challenges in predicting it. “Forecasting is an art that still has few textbooks,” the magazine noted. “Its basic tool is extrapolation from yesterday and today. As John McHale, executive director of World Resources Inventory puts it: ‘The future of the future is in the present.’”

That would explain the high failure rate among prognosticators. Consider, for example, the gloomy predictions earlier this year about the U.S. economy—Torsten Slok, a top economist at New York-based Apollo Global Management, presaged a 90% chance of America entering a “voluntary trade reset recession,” while former New York Federal Reserve Bank president Bill Dudley chose stagflation as the best-case scenario for the U.S. economy, and HS Dent Investment Management founder Harry Dent predicted a global stock market crash of catastrophic proportions.

These wildly inaccurate predictions are somewhat forgivable, however, considering they were grounded in McHale’s logic—having been formulated in the present, shortly after President Donald J. Trump set his tariff merry-go-round in motion.

The future of the future is in the present.

That same leniency should then be granted to medtech analysts who expected a resurgence in M&A activity this year. Although the industry’s overall financing trend was up 17%, courtesy of a $5.3 billion spike in debt financing, merger and acquisition activity was down in the 12 months ended June 30, 2025, compared to the previous year, concluded EY’s Pulse of the MedTech Industry Report 2025. 

“The number of deals were really down over the prior 10-year average,” EY Global MedTech Leader John Babitt noted in a media briefing earlier this fall. “I think we only saw about 36 deals in the first half of 2025, and that’s trending below the average trend. We have seen a number of larger small cap and mid-cap med techs be taken out…one other comment on the financing front was that we did see the IPO market open. There have been about five medtech IPOs over the last year. They’ve performed relatively well. There seems to be more of an appetite to continue do IPOs.”

There’s a healthy appetite for venture capital, too. The EY analysis calculated an $8.7 billion total for VC financing in 2024-25, which was just 5% below its record-breaking 2020-21 peak and up 13% on the five-year average. The increase defied a decline in the number of financing rounds. In the 12 months ended June 30, 2025, there were 237 VC financing rounds, a 47% decline from the previous year, and only 28% of the VC deal volume recorded at the industry’s peak in 2020-21.    

The discrepancy between VC deal value and volume reflects a rise in average VC round size to $37 million in 2024-25, which represents a 126% increase on the average financing round in 2023-24, itself a record at the time, the EY report states. Compared to the five-year mean, the average VC funding round in 2024-25 was up 221%, driven by major fundraising from a smaller number of companies.

The EY report found a shared pattern between VC investors and medtech firms looking to make deals—both players were willing to allocate capital this past year, but were selective about the target of their funding. “Companies are paying high prices for highly sought-after products and platforms, but are making fewer deals overall,” the report stated.

Among this year’s selective shoppers were Terumo and Zimmer Biomet Holdings Inc., each of which coughed up big bucks for targeted platforms. Terumo paid $1.5 billion to enter the transplantation sector, purchasing organ preservation device developer OrganOx, and Zimmer Biomet shelled out $1.2 billion for Paragon 28, bolstering its market share in the fast-growing foot and ankle arena.

Similarly, Thermo Fisher Scientific bought a $4.1 billion ticket to an expanded bioprocessing portfolio and advanced filtration technology through Solventum, and Teleflex Inc. handed over €760 million for the chance to market Biotronik’s Freesolve sirolimus-eluting resorbable magnesium scaffold technology in the United States. The Biotronic purchase also expands Teleflex’s Interventional portfolio to include a broad suite of vascular intervention devices such as drug-coated balloons, drug-eluting stents, covered stents, balloon and self-expanding bare metal stents, and balloon catheters. 

“…the industry is shifting toward fewer, bigger deals,” EY’s analysis noted. “Where companies are willing to acquire, they are focused on late-stage deals for assets that are already close to achieving profitability.”

Companies also are focused on targets that complement their own core competencies. Hence the motivation behind Stryker Corp.’s $4.9 billion purchase of Inari Medical (neurovascular portfolio augmentation); Alcon’s $1.5 million bid for STAAR Surgical (refractive surgery supplementation); and Boston Scientific Corp.’s $664 million tender for Bolt Medical Inc. (cardiovascular portfolio enhancement), and—in the year’s largest deals— Blackstone’s $18.3 billion bid for Hologic Inc. and Waters Corp.’s $17.5 billion merger with Becton Dickinson and Co.’s Biosciences & Diagnostic Solutions business (liquid chromatography, mass spectrometry, flow cytometry, and diagnostic solutions bolstering).

“…larger ‘transformational’ deals often falter due to high integration complexity, overreliance on synergy capture, and underestimation of cultural integration challenges,” EY’s analysis concluded. “Over the past decade, the deals that have returned the greatest value have been typically characterized by smaller, bolt-on acquisitions that drive revenue synergies in high-growth spaces, pose limited operational disruption, and preserve key growth levers.”

Bigger isn’t always better.

Read more: bit.ly/46UP93c