dismiss

Clean Sweep Live Auction on Wed. February 27th. Click to view the full inventory

DOTmed Home MRI Oncology Ultrasound Molecular Imaging X-Ray Cardiology Health IT Business Affairs
News Home Parts & Service Operating Room CT Women's Health Proton Therapy Endoscopy HTMs Mobile Imaging
SEARCH
当前地点:
>
> This Story

starstarstarstarstar (1)
注册记数器 to rate this News Story
Forward Printable StoryPrint Comment
advertisement

 

advertisement

 

U.S. Healthcare Homepage

Kaiser Permanente School of Medicine to go tuition-free for first 5 years Aiming to reduce impact of debt on graduating students

Asheville Radiology Association joins Strategic Radiology The latest expansion by the imaging coalition brings 43 new physicians to the table

Maybe competition is good for what 'ails' hospitals Mergers may be good for business, but what about patients?

MITA proposes framework for defining 'service' versus 'remanufacturing' Also points to the need for quality management systems to be implemented

Radiologists key in identifying intimate partner violence IPV victims undergo four times more imaging exams than the general population

RI ED physicians subpoenaed over imaging order errors Three scans on wrong side, one on wrong patient

Rosemary Shull AMRA Medical welcomes senior vice president of global business development and marketing

Now hospitals must post prices online, how is that working out? Complex figures and codes, and little insight into out-of-pocket costs

Healthcare investment booming in Richmond, Virginia area Roughly $500 million in development planned or underway

Bozeman hospital settles fraud suit for $10 million Resolution after whistleblower fraud lawsuit three years ago

The benefits of repealing the medical device tax

An editorial by Wayne Winegarden

As part of the Affordable Care Act, a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices and products was passed. The tax was levied on devices such as pacemakers, advanced imaging technologies (CT, MR and ultrasound equipment), artificial joints, surgical gloves, and dental instruments. Devices that the public generally buys for individual use, such as eyeglasses, hearing aids, and wheelchairs, were explicitly exempted from the tax.

The medical device tax was never an economically sound policy. In recognition of this tax’s many flaws, both the Senate and House of Representatives have separately passed repeal legislation. While the repeal attempts have been unsuccessful, Congress has twice implemented a moratorium that suspended the tax. Passing a series of moratoriums is insufficient, however. The optimal policy permanently repeals the medical device tax.
Story Continues Below Advertisement

Free Marketplace where Lenders Compete Get Pre-Approved for up to $500,000

Get financing today. We say YES more! Easy, Fast, Application. Pick the payment that best works for you. Tax Benefits + Leasing = Huge Savings! NEVER BE OBSOLETE. NO DOWN PAYMENT. FIXED MONTHLY PAYMENT. MRI, CT, Ultrasound, Digital X-ray, Dental Equipment


Taxing medical devices is unsound tax policy
Excise taxes such as the medical device tax create unwanted economic inefficiencies. Perhaps more important, the typical arguments used to justify the imposition of an excise tax do not apply to medical devices. Proponents often justify excise taxes as a means to discourage consumption of the taxed product. Regardless of this argument’s merits, it clearly does not apply to medical devices.

Take imaging technologies as the example. Imaging technologies help physicians detect diseases in their earliest stages when they are most treatable. Clearly, policy should not discourage greater use of these crucial medical technologies nor increase their price. Yet, introductory economics teaches that this is precisely the expected result from the imposition of the medical device tax.

If the medical device tax were not suspended, then an imaging device company with $10 million in revenues would have additional costs of $230,000 (the 2.3 percent medical device tax multiplied by the $10 million in gross revenues). How the company will deal with these costs is unknown. Perhaps some of these costs will be passed along to patients through higher costs for medical equipment, harming patients welfare. Or some of these costs will be absorbed by the company, which would reduce their profitability. If the costs that cannot be passed along are high enough, then the 2.3 percent tax on revenues could turn a company with minimal profits into a money loser.

The precise allocation of these costs will vary depending upon the specific price sensitivities of the patients and producers. It could be that patients bear all of the costs, producers bear all the costs, or some combination of the two. The only outcome that is not possible is that the tax does not distort the imaging technology market. Policies that lead to some combination of higher medical costs and less availability of medical technologies worsens the problems facing the U.S. healthcare system.
  Pages: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 >>

U.S. Healthcare Homepage


You Must Be Logged In To Post A Comment

做广告
提升您的品牌知名度
拍卖+私人销售
获得最好的价格
买设备/配件
找到最低价格
每日新闻
阅读最新信息
目录
浏览所有的DOTmed用户
DOTmed上的伦理
查看我们的伦理计划
金子分开供营商节目
接收PH要求
金子服务经销商节目
接收请求
提供保健服务者
查看所有的HCP(简称医疗保健提供商)的工具
工作/训练
查找/申请工作
Parts Hunter +EasyPay
获取配件报价
最近证明
查看最近通过认证的用户
最近额定
查看最近通过认证的用户
出租中央
租用设备优惠
卖设备/配件
得到最划算
服务技术员论坛
查找帮助和建议
简单的征求建议书
获取设备报价
真正商业展览
查找对设备的服务
对这个站点的通入和用途是受期限和条件我们支配 法律公告 & 保密性通知
物产和业主对 DOTmed.com,公司 Copyright ©2001-2019 DOTmed.com, Inc.
版权所有