IBJNews

Gloomy outlook for medical device makers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The next four years could be rough for makers of medical devices, such as Bloomington-based Cook Medical Inc., and the Warsaw-based makers of orthopedic implants Zimmer Holding Inc. and Biomet Inc.

And it’s not because of the 2010 health reform law.

According to projections by Deloitte Consulting LLP, health reform’s new taxes on medical device makers will be roughly offset by new business from the law’s expansion of consumers with health insurance.

But medical device makers as a whole will lose 10 percent of their current revenue by 2015, according to Deloitte analysts Sanjay Behl, Terry Hisey and Ralph Marcello. That’s because indirect changes in the health care marketplace are going to shift market power from producers of medical products to hospitals and large physician groups, which will be under tremendous financial pressure from health plans and consumers to save costs.

And the health care providers will be armed with enormous amounts of data—from their electronic medical record systems—to show which products are helping them do so and which are not.

Not only that, but now that hospitals are employing more and more physicians, they are no longer allowing, say, each orthopedic surgeon to chose his or her favorite implants. Instead, those purchasing decisions are made as a group, allowing hospitals to command lower prices and often shutting out some brands of implants entirely. The same goes for stents, pacemakers and other kinds of devices.

“The impact of health reform on medical devices comes primarily from pricing pressure as physicians lose purchase decision-making power especially over devices that are more readily substituted,” wrote Behl, Hisey and Marcello in an article in Deloitte Review research journal. “Hospitals and patients will increasingly make decisions about these products.”

That means medical device companies, instead of sending sales people around the surgeons' offices, will increasingly have to make bids to the centralized purchasing officials of hospitals and large physician groups.

“As their products get more commoditized, life sciences companies can soon be dealing with the procurement department or medical administrator,” the Deloitte analysts wrote. “However, most manufacturers may not be structured to compete on price.”

The Deloitte analysts suggest one strategy for medical device makers: pitch not merely products, but solutions, by bundling all manner of support services into a contract to supply devices to a hospital. The only problem with that, however, is that services profit margins run about 40 percent, compared with the 90-percent margins of most medical devices themselves.

And that’s why Deloitte concludes the medical device makers cannot avoid a big hit to their revenue.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How much you wanna bet, that 70% of the jobs created there (after construction) are minimum wage? And Harvey is correct, the vast majority of residents in this project will drive to their jobs, and to think otherwise, is like Harvey says, a pipe dream. Someone working at a restaurant or retail store will not be able to afford living there. What ever happened to people who wanted to build buildings, paying for it themselves? Not a fan of these tax deals.

  2. Uh, no GeorgeP. The project is supposed to bring on 1,000 jobs and those people along with the people that will be living in the new residential will be driving to their jobs. The walkable stuff is a pipe dream. Besides, walkable is defined as having all daily necessities within 1/2 mile. That's not the case here. Never will be.

  3. Brad is on to something there. The merger of the Formula E and IndyCar Series would give IndyCar access to International markets and Formula E access the Indianapolis 500, not to mention some other events in the USA. Maybe after 2016 but before the new Dallara is rolled out for 2018. This give IndyCar two more seasons to run the DW12 and Formula E to get charged up, pun intended. Then shock the racing world, pun intended, but making the 101st Indianapolis 500 a stellar, groundbreaking event: The first all-electric Indy 500, and use that platform to promote the future of the sport.

  4. No, HarveyF, the exact opposite. Greater density and closeness to retail and everyday necessities reduces traffic. When one has to drive miles for necessities, all those cars are on the roads for many miles. When reasonable density is built, low rise in this case, in the middle of a thriving retail area, one has to drive far less, actually reducing the number of cars on the road.

  5. The Indy Star announced today the appointment of a new Beverage Reporter! So instead of insightful reports on Indy pro sports and Indiana college teams, you now get to read stories about the 432nd new brewery open or some obscure Hoosier winery winning a county fair blue ribbon. Yep, that's the coverage we Star readers crave. Not.

ADVERTISEMENT