"There has been a lot of thinking that they should go after [the medical device] industry, which has been strong in the past and has a high cost of devices overall," says John McLean, vice president and co-leader of the Life Sciences Practice at the executive search firm Witt/Kieffer. "I think it's incredibly unfair."
Manufacturers, surgeons and patients are demanding a certain level of care, and the device tax is spawning concerns for the future of medical devices in the U.S., he says.
Eric Olson, president and CEO of Salt Lake City-based device company Amedica, says he is also highly disappointed that the tax was not repealed, as many industry officials anticipated. Amedica will continue to be a vocal opponent of the tax, he says.
Meanwhile, device developers and surgeons are trying to cope with the excise tax. Here are Mr. McLean and Mr. Olson's six predictions for how the tax will affect the medical device industry.
1. Innovation may take a hit. The process for securing FDA clearance is already a long and costly one. With increased costs, developers will have harder choices to make before seeking new device or incremental improvement clearance.
For instance, Amedica has developed a new interbody fusion device for the spine market that is made of silicon nitride which is an alternative to PEEK, a plastic material. Several PEEK devices were recently recalled, and few viable alternatives are available. However, Amedica's device has been proven to provide strong, anti-infective and osteopromotive properties, Mr. Olson says.
The tax could reduce the company's resources to promote and distribute its innovative technology, which would impact overall care to U.S. patients.
"It could have a negative impact on spine surgeons who are seeking alternatives to a less-than-optimal interbody device," he says. "If we were an earlier stage company, this tax would significantly impact sustainability and impede the development of innovative technology. Ultimately, that results in a lower standard of care for patients.”
2. Broad languages means an unclear impact. The language of the legislation is meant to be broad, and industry experts are still not clear on exactly what devices are included, Mr. McLean says.
The unclear language could mean that not only are medical implants and devices taxed, but also supplies, such as wheel chairs. Unintended consequences may follow, he says.
"It will impact a wide range of industries and populations," he says. "It's still not clear what exactly is included, and as it states now, the legislation is meant to be broad."
3. It will force budget cuts and possible closures. The language of the legislation implies that companies are not to pass off the expense of the tax to consumers through increased device price tags, Mr. Olson says. Companies will be forced to cut budgets and streamline efforts to cope.
Research and development, marketing, sales and human resources are the typical targets for internal budget cuts. Budget cuts in these areas often translate to future projects being canceled or delayed.
Cutting costs can be particularly worrisome for start-up device companies, which do not make a profit for several years, Mr. McLean says. "If you tax every sale on the revenue side, it hits profitability that is already slim or none," he says. "We say we want this industry to be innovative, but the 2.3 percent federal excise tax is coming off of revenue. The vast majority of new ideas are from up-and-coming, struggling firms. [This tax] hits profitability so it's not good to invest in innovative ideas."
Even large spine and orthopedic device developers, such as Medtronic and Stryker, have announced they will reduce employees or close facilities to streamline business. As more companies experience the impact, closures and layoffs may follow.
"In terms of how many people are directly affected, it's close to 400,000," Mr. McLean says of the number of employees in medical device companies nationwide. "If those companies cut costs, the natural reaction will create a ripple across a wide range."
4. Patients and surgeons will suffer. Orthopedic and spine devices particularly thrive on continual upgrades and improvements, and the device tax may alleviate incentives to produce better devices that can handle an increasing spectrum of ailments, Mr. McLean says.
"My guess would be that surgeons want to have the best and the greatest technology to treat their patients. This will impact their access [to that technology]," he says.
Fewer device clearances and releases will impact patients, who expect to have choices in how their diagnosis is treated. Less innovation brings less choice in treatments.
5. Overseas innovation will grow. The United States has always been a leader in medical device innovation, Mr. Olson says, but increased regulations and taxes have shifted much of that innovation to countries in the European Union.
"A lot of companies are inclined to take innovation overseas to Europe [rather] than to the U.S.," he says. "It's not a positive direction for the domestic market."
Given that the European market is more attractive for revenue-generation, companies may focus efforts on revenue-generation in Europe rather than fueling ongoing development, Mr. Olson says.
"There is no potential upside [to this tax] domestically," he says.
6. The effects won't be known for years. Device companies have already altered their budgets for 2013 in anticipation of the tax, but until it has been in effect for a longer period of time, companies cannot fully anticipate the effects.
While this tax may be limiting or stifling, industry members will have to adjust to survive in the future.
"I have great faith in the industry itself," Mr. McLean says. "I think long term they will figure out ways to work with it."
However, he says, in the next three or so years all companies will take a hit. To stay viable, manufacturers will need to make sure their device is the absolute best in the marketplace or risk losing too much revenue.
"It's hard to say how this will play out long term, but from a hypothetical sense we are forced to make some very difficult decisions," Mr. Olson says. "Across the board this will have an impact on all aspects of our organization and the spine industry."
More Articles on Devices:
Dr. David Chao Sues Smith & Nephew for $2.2M After Failed Hip Surgery
FDA Issues New Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant Communication
Stryker Offers to Buy Trauson Holdings in China for $764M
6 Potential Effects of the Medical Device Tax on Orthopedics Companies FeaturedWritten by Heather Linder | Friday, 18 January 2013 18:17
As of Jan. 1, all sales on medical devices will be taxed an additional 2.3 percent, as the federal government looks to make $20 billion in 10 years to pay for programs within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Exactly which programs has not yet been defined.
© Copyright ASC COMMUNICATIONS 2016. Interested in LINKING to or REPRINTING this content? View our policies here.
Most Read - Devices & Implants
- Stryker, RTI Surgical, Medtronic & more: 15 key notes
- Novel technologies make a splash in outpatient spine setting — Dr. Nick Shamie weighs in
- Where global spine market leaders are headed: 7 key notes on Medtronic, DePuy Synthes, Stryker & more
- Sen. Al Franken requests further information on Medtronic's Infuse — But has anything changed since YODA?
- Rush Health partners with United Airlines to provide orthopedic, spine procedures: 4 observations
Top 40 Articles from the Past 6 Months
- 336 spine surgeons to know — 2016
- Rumors of a Stryker acquisition of Smith & Nephew swirl once again: 6 key notes
- Google and Johnson & Johnson to form new surgical company — 4 highlights
- Transparency in healthcare can work today — Hoag Orthopedic Institute proves it
- Stryker director sells 18k shares, following Smith & Nephew acquisition rumors: 7 points
- Did Loma Linda's orthopedic device rep-less strategy work? 5 things to know
- 5 huge reputation management mistakes for surgeons
- Medtronic, Stryker, Zimmer Biomet, DePuy Synthes, Smith & Nephew: Who had the best 2015? 32 things to know
- Smith & Nephew acquires Blue Belt Technologies — Will Stryker make its move soon? 5 key notes
- The theory behind Geisinger's spine surgery refund
- Physician receives second-degree murder sentence for overprescribing pain medication: 6 key points
- Is the Johnson & Johnson job cut an ominous sign for the medical device industry? 5 key thoughts
- Population health on a budget: How one orthopedic surgeon succeeded in Chicago's most impoverished neighborhoods
- Justice Department investigates pain compounding cream for $500M potential fraud: 5 things to know
- 10 Things to know about the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) Model
- 32 hospitals to pay $28M in spine surgery false claims settlement: 5 things to know
- Looking ahead to 2016: What excites spine surgeons most?
- ProDisc-C vs. spinal fusion: Which has better results? 5 key notes
- Dr. R.J. Meagher joins Laser Spine Institute: 5 things to know
- 5 most common reasons orthopedic surgeons are sued
- 10 spine, neurosurgeons on the move in January 2016
- Reducing the cost of spine care: Key thoughts from 4 spine surgeons
- Dr. James Andrews #5 among richest doctors in the world: 6 points
- Dr. Robert Blok joins Laser Spine Institute — 4 key points
- 5 ways big data will affect healthcare providers in 2016 & beyond
- North Carolina physician group creates orthopedic bundled payment system — 5 takeaways
- 5 things to know about wearable technology in medicine
- Zimmer Biomet, Stryker, J&J & more: 26 key notes — AAOS edition
- Surgical tech sues Yale-New Haven Hospital surgeon after OR altercation — 5 key notes
- 15 statistics on orthopedic surgeon starting salaries
- Does universal healthcare in Massachusetts equalize treatment between races in cervical spinal trauma? 5 key notes
- Stryker, Titan Spine, ConforMIS & more: 16 key notes
- The best way to prepare for the future in spine: Dr. Hyun Bae
- CJR bundles to pay $25k per episode: 8 statistics on cost breakdown
- Bundled payments, consolidation & more: How OrthoVirginia is building a future-facing empire
- Top 10 highest-earning physician specialties — Orthopedics leads for 6th consecutive year
- Orthopedic surgeons generate $2.7M for affiliated hospitals; 5.5 times what they make — 5 survey findings
- From cost to patient care — The many ways orthopedic bundled payments help hospitals
- 13 statistics on neurosurgeon salary in 2016
- 6 statistics on orthopedic surgeon compensation — Which practice setting pays most?