IBJNews

Ortho firms pull back on doc payments

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The orthopedic implant industry dialed back its payments to orthopedic surgeons after settling a federal lawsuit in 2007 that accused the companies of paying kickbacks to the surgeons for using the companies' hip and knee implants.

A total of 939 orthopedic surgeons received $198 million in 2007, according to a new report in the Archives of Internal Medicine. A year later, 526 surgeons received payments worth $119 million, plus $109 million in royalty buyouts from Zimmer.

Researchers analyzed data released by the three industry giants based in Warsaw—Biomet Inc., DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. and Zimmer Holdings Inc.—as well as their rivals Stryker Corp., based in Kalamazoo, Mich.; and Smith & Nephew plc, based in the United Kindgom.

The orthopedic companies describe their payments—made to a fraction of the 25,000 orthopedic surgeons nationally—as compensation for consulting, research and clinical trials, or as royalties on products they helped develop.

The number of payments in excess of $1 million didn’t change substantially from year to year, but the companies sharply cut their fees to surgeons who received the smallest amounts, lead researcher Jason Hockenberry, a professor of health policy and management at Emory University, told Bloomberg News.

In 2007, the orthopedic device makers agreed to pay $311 million to settle U.S. Department of Justice claims that they paid kickbacks to surgeons in exchange for exclusively using their products. Prosecutors deferred criminal charges against the companies and required them to disclose the amounts they pay doctors on their corporate websites.

Bill Kolter, Biomet’s vice president for government and public affairs, told Bloomberg that manufacturers can’t develop or evaluate new devices without working with orthopedic surgeons.

“The contributions that result from such collaborations add tremendous value to the health of patients and to the economics of the health-care system,” Kolter wrote in an e-mail.

 

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. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.

ADVERTISEMENT