Yet, the question must be asked; Are medical devices far behind? I know everyone thinks this idea is far fetched because as it stands "gainsharing" is illegal under Medicare statutes since it represents an opportunity for physicians to be financially induced to deliver substandard care. The physicians financially induced? The hospital that they practice at? The company that they consult for? Increasingly, policymakers view this practice as a way to reduce the growth rate of Medicare because when paired with controls it ensures quality aligning the physician with the hospital.
Many device manufacturers (the CEO's) have urged caution because they believe that these types of arrangements will inhibit surgeons' to choose the best tools to treat patients and to influence purchasing decisions, especially when it comes orthopedic and spine surgeons. PLEASE!!!!!!! Considering that so many surgeons have consulting agreements who is kidding whom, when our illustrious CEO's frown upon this platform. How many physicians use products from companies that their children or relatives work for? Is that not an inducement? As long as the physicians are involved in the decision making process, including monetary incentives to drive down cost, this has a chance of eventually coming to fruition. As the healthcare delivery model continues to evolve, how many surgeons are becoming employees of the hospital? Let's face it, with modern technology many of the products that we sell are equal in producing results. A pedicle screw is a pedicle screw, a cervical plate is a cervical plate, a TLIF is a TLIF etc, etc..... I know, some of you will argue that it's the instrumentation that makes a system, but how much of a difference does it really make? The Spine Blogger wants to know what you worker bees on the street think?