Medtronic to split diabetes business into separate entity, targets IPO
Medtronic has announced plans to separate out its diabetes business into a new standalone company.
The separation will serve to create an 'independent, scaled leader in diabetes' that boasts an ecosystem of insulin management devices including pumps and continuous glucose monitors, Medtronic said.
The split will also in turn create a wholly 'more focused' Medtronic, with a more simplified portfolio in high margin growth markets.
Medtronic's shares on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) fell by 2.27% at market close following the announcement on 21 May.
'It's going to give Medtronic some significant capital to increase their presence in other, more interventional, areas, especially in cardiovascular. They have a history of inorganic expansion, so I can see this as providing ammunition for a big acquisition in 2026-7,' said Dr Andrew Thompson, director of therapy research and analysis in medical devices for GlobalData reacting to the separation.
With a preferred path of an initial public offering (IPO) and subsequent split-off, Medtronic anticipates the split to complete within 18 months through a series of capital markets transactions.
Medtronic describes the vision for the new diabetes standalone as being a 'scaled, direct-to-consumer' business that is positioned positioned as 'the only company to commercialise a complete intensive insulin management ecosystem'.
In addition, Medtronic anticipates that the separation will enable more focused investment into the new diabetes business's pipeline and manufacturing scale and automation, thereby positioning it for success in Automated Insulin Delivery and Smart MDI as it drives margin expansion over time.
'As for the spin out, it might not remain a spin out for that long. Medtronic recently gained US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 510k approval on a new CGM sensor that is interoperable with Abbott devices, and both companies have an agreement. Abbott might be wishing to preserve that relationship. I wonder if the standalone company might be something that is a joint venture between the two,' Thompson commented.
Medtronic's diabetes business represented 8% of its total revenues in FY 2025 at around $2.75bn, denoting a 10.7% year over year rise. However, the business unit's performance has recently been hampered by the FDA Class I recall of its MiniMed insulin pump system in 2024, resulting in a dent to consumer confidence amid tightening competition and mounting operational losses for the unit since 2022.
According to a GlobalData market model, in 2024, Medtronic held respective US market share of around 6% and 7.3% in the insulin delivery and glucose monitoring segments.
Medtronic Diabetes, umbrellaed under the wider Medtronic business, currently has 8,000 employees globally, with Que Dallara currently serving as the unit's executive vice president and CEO. Dallara is set to continue in such role once the diabetes unit has spun out.
Medtronic CEO and chairman, Geoff Martha said: 'Active portfolio management is an important lever to delivering on our ongoing growth and success, and this decision shifts the Medtronic portfolio to have intense focus on our highest margin growth drivers where we have our strongest core competencies.
'I'm also excited about what the future holds for the Diabetes business. Que's impressive track record in driving growth and innovation has set Diabetes on a path to continued success, ensuring the needs of individuals with diabetes are met around the globe."
Medtronic anticipates that its diabetes business separation will improve its adjusted gross margin by around 50 basis points, adjusted operating margins by around 100 basis points, and be 'immediately accretive' to adjusted EPS.
"Medtronic to split diabetes business into separate entity, targets IPO" was originally created and published by Medical Device Network, a GlobalData owned brand.
The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
2 hours ago
- Medscape
Can Behavioral Support Enhance CGM Use in T1D?
TOPLINE: Behavioral support for first-time users of a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device showed no significant difference in reduction of A1c levels compared with CGM alone in the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D). Adults in both groups reported reduced diabetes distress. METHODOLOGY: Automated insulin delivery systems are the standard of care for adults with T1D, and using them requires both an insulin pump and a CGM device. A randomized controlled trial was conducted to assess the use of CGM among 134 adults with T1D who had not previously used CGM (mean age, 35 years; 77% women; 55% not using an insulin pump) who were recruited from clinics and T1D organizations across the United States. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: one received CGM alone and the other received CGM plus the ONBOARD behavioral intervention, both for 3 months. The ONBOARD intervention included four 60-minute virtual, 1:1 biweekly sessions to address barriers related to wearing the device, data management, social concerns, and trust. Changes in A1c levels and diabetes distress scores were evaluated using t-tests and linear mixed-effect models over 12 months. TAKEAWAY: At 12 months after initiating CGM, 80% of participants in the ONBOARD group and 71% in the CGM-only group reported using CGM. Both the CGM-only and ONBOARD groups showed significant reductions in A1c levels (P < .05), with no significant difference between the groups. Participants in both groups experienced significant and clinically meaningful decreases in diabetes distress (P < .001). The CGM-only group showed greater reductions in diabetes distress than the ONBOARD group at 3 months; reductions were similar between groups at 6 and 12 months. IN PRACTICE: "Findings highlight benefits of introducing CGM on diabetes management and diabetes distress for adults with T1D. Most participants were still using CGM 12 months after initiating use through the study, indicating durable uptake," the authors write. SOURCE: The study was led by Molly L. Tanenbaum, PhD, Stanford University School of Medicine, California. The poster will be presented on June 23 at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 85th Scientific Sessions, being held June 20-23 at the McCormick Place Convention Center, Chicago, Illinois. LIMITATIONS: No study limitations were discussed in the abstract. DISCLOSURES: One author disclosed consulting roles with Sanofi and Havas Health, an advisory role with MannKind Corporation, and receiving research support from embecta. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
The Hill
5 hours ago
- The Hill
Food and Drug Administration staff cuts may hinder US biomedical innovation
President Trump has rightly emphasized restoring America's economic and strategic independence — from reshoring pharmaceutical production to cutting regulatory red tape. But not all reforms are created equal. Recent restructuring efforts at the Food and Drug Administration may have been well-intentioned, but they risk undermining the very innovation and domestic capacity the president seeks to promote. In March, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced a sweeping reorganization of the agency, which in part included the elimination of 3,500 full-time employees at the Food and Drug Administration — many of them senior scientific staff and experienced regulators who served as institutional pillars across drug review divisions. While we all support government efficiency and the secretary's efforts to create a gold-standard regulatory agency, the loss of this institutional memory risks hobbling the expedited pathways that small biotech firms rely on to deliver therapies for rare and life-threatening diseases. Unfortunately, the impact of these cuts is not theoretical. The Wall Street Journal has reported that some biotech firms have had to delay or cancel clinical trials due to lack of timely Food and Drug Administration guidance. One California biotech firm facing unpredictable delays has even turned to European regulators to move forward with a clinical trial — effectively offshoring American capital, investment and jobs. Others have reported receiving conflicting and confusing feedback from inexperienced FDA staff or no response at all on time-sensitive requests. But such issues don't just affect companies; they hurt patients, too. Innovation in gene therapies, cancer immunotherapies, and treatments for rare diseases depend on regulatory clarity and speed. Without senior staff to help clarify agency positions, decisions are either delayed or driven by less-experienced personnel unfamiliar with long-standing scientific standards. It's no surprise then that over 200 biotech CEOs, patient advocates and investors — many of them strong supporters of FDA modernization — have expressed their concerns in a letter to Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy (R-La.). As a former member of Congress who sat on the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the FDA, I have long supported targeted reforms to make the agency more nimble and responsive. But there is a fine line between streamlining operations and cutting the institutional capacity necessary to do the job. Removing experienced drug reviewers before an adequate backup plan can be put into place not only jeopardizes U.S. safety standards but also undermines our competitive edge. This matter is not merely a domestic problem; it's a global race. Since 2014, the number of biomedical drugs under development in China has grown twelvefold. Meanwhile, innovation in the U.S. has remained relatively flat. If trends continue, China could match or surpass the U.S. in biomedical innovation within the decade. We have seen this movie before — in semiconductors, in telecommunications, in clean energy. We cannot afford to let biotech go the same way. The Trump administration's tariff policy was designed to bring pharmaceutical manufacturing back to U.S. shores. But how can we expect capital to stay in the U.S. if our regulatory infrastructure cannot deliver? Delays and unpredictability at the FDA don't just slow down science — they push investors to look elsewhere. Even the user fee system — critical to funding timely drug reviews and a source of government revenue — has been impacted by the reduction in force. Staff who oversaw the reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act have been laid off, raising questions about whether the agency will even be able to continue to collect user fees and whether these government cuts will actually end up costing taxpayers in the long run. Of course, Kennedy has long been a vocal advocate for health reform. His Make America Healthy Again agenda's focus on combatting chronic diseases and enhancing nutritional standards deserves attention. His focus for such reform is where his background and passion can lead to meaningful improvements. But when it comes to regulating complex biologics and therapeutics, we must be careful about taking actions that could inadvertently stymie scientific progress. President Trump's vision for American self-reliance will only succeed if it's built on a foundation of regulatory competence and stability. Swift actions should therefore be taken to restore the FDA's core functions, rehire critical staff and unfreeze the hiring of roles essential to America's leadership in biomedical science. The stakes — for patients, for innovation and for national security — are simply too high to ignore. John T. Doolittle is a former member of Congress who served on the Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA, and Related Agencies subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations.
The Hill
6 hours ago
- The Hill
Thanks to imported drugs, America has lost control of its medicine cabinet
America is facing a growing crisis in its medical system — not from a lack of talent or innovation, but from a breakdown in the control, safety and supply of essential medicines. Our growing reliance on imports is now driving serious drug shortages, destabilizing supply chains and increasingly making medications unsafe. At the root of it is a hard truth: We no longer have control of the medicines we depend on every day. In 2002, America manufactured 83.7 percent of the pharmaceuticals it consumed. By 2024, that number had dropped to just 37.1 percent. Meanwhile, the U.S. pharmaceutical trade deficit has soared, reaching a record $118.3 billion in 2024. We didn't just outsource manufacturing — we outsourced the sovereignty and safety of our health care system. This means that nearly two-thirds of America's pharmaceutical supplies are now imported. Most critical medications, such as generic drugs, now come from China and India. China controls 80 to 90 percent of the global supply of active pharmaceutical ingredients — the chemical building blocks of modern medicine. Even drugs labeled 'Made in the USA' often chemically originate in China. And India, which produces about half of America's finished generic drugs, relies on China for up to 80 percent of its active pharmaceutical not a supply chain — it's a ticking time something goes wrong, American patients suffer. In 2023, the Food and Drug Administration shut down a single Indian plant responsible for 50 percent of the U.S. supply of cisplatin, a critical chemotherapy drug, after uncovering a 'cascade of failure' in safety practices and shredded documents soaked in acid. With no domestic backup, patients nationwide had their treatments delayed. That wasn't a fluke. 40 percent of U.S. generic drugs have only one FDA-approved manufacturer. Because of that single chokepoint, when one factory fails, the whole system can crack. We are now seeing widespread drug shortages across the medical system. Hospital pharmacists report an average of 301 critical drug shortages at any given time. And 85 percent say these shortages are moderately or critically affecting care. Doctors often lack crucial medicines such as antibiotics, sedatives and cancer drugs. These aren't obscure drugs. They're foundational medicines. But America no longer makes them. Even when imported drugs do arrive, they're not always safe. A 2025 study found that Indian generics are 54 percent more likely to cause serious side effects than their U.S.-made counterparts. Indian factory violations have also been tied to at least eight U.S. patient deaths. China's record is equally disturbing. In 2008, dozens of Americans died after receiving contaminated heparin from Chinese suppliers. This isn't what the American people want. In a national survey, 85 percent of hospital pharmacists said they would pay more for safer generics. But under today's rules, price overshadows quality. Hospitals have little oversight of drug quality — and foreign producers face few consequences for cutting corners. Even the federal government is flying blind. A 2023 Department of Defense review found that 22 percent of essential military-use drugs had unknown ingredient sourcing. That's a national security April, the Trump administration took a necessary step by launching an investigation into generic pharmaceutical imports that correctly frames the issue as a national security threat. But that recognition alone isn't enough. To address this crisis, Washington should impose targeted tariffs on generic drugs from adversarial nations. It must also rebuild domestic pharmaceutical production through tax credits and long-term contracts. America urgently needs full transparency in drug labeling to disclose where drugs and their ingredients are made. The FDA must step up — with stronger enforcement abroad and a ban on imports from repeat safety violators. And to secure critical ingredients during market disruptions, Washington must pursue a long-term vision that includes a 'strategic pharmaceutical reserve.' This isn't just protectionism. It's a restoration of America's medical security. No nation can call itself sovereign if it can't produce its own medicines, and no patient is safe if their health care depends on quality control in a factory 8,000 miles decades, we were told that offshoring production would make things cheaper, smoother and more efficient. But America can no longer depend on unstable foreign suppliers. It's time to restore our pharmaceutical independence and take back control of our medicine cabinet. Andrew Rechenberg is an economist at the Coalition for a Prosperous America.
