Featured Product
This Week in Quality Digest Live
Health Care Features
Jón Bergsteinsson
Understanding the standard is essential
Rob Moorey
Efficient processes and technology are key
Stephanie Ojeda
The FDA’s new QMSR will harmonize with ISO 13485 for medical device quality management
Steve Thompson
An excellent technological tool that improves quality and compliance
Delivering quality to the health industry

More Features

Health Care News
Study of intelligent noise reduction in pediatric study
Streamlines annual regulatory review for life sciences
The company is also facilitating donations to the cause
Mass spectromic analysis from iotaSciences
Showcasing the latest in digital transformation for validation professionals in life sciences
An expansion of its medical-device cybersecurity solution as independent services to all health systems
Purchase combines goals and complementary capabilities
Better compliance, outbreak forecasting, and prediction of pathogens such as listeria or salmonella
Links ZEISS research and capabilities in automated, high-resolution 3D imaging and analysis

More News

Michael Causey

Health Care

Steady Medical Device Profit Climb, Especially for the Big Boys

A medical device tax may, or may not, affect profits

Published: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 - 09:32

A new Government Accounting Office (GAO) report, designed to shed light on what effect the medical device tax will have on the industry in the future, might have done a better job of taking us under the industry’s financial hood.

The GAO, the nonpartisan counting-house arm of the federal government, is often called upon by lawmakers to assess the financial impact or cost of compliance for potential regulations and taxes. These folks at GAO are mostly career bureaucrats. On top of that, they’re mostly career accountants. In other words, they aren’t known for cooking the books to benefit either side.

But where a 2014 Congressional Research Service study suggested a medical device tax would not impact company profits, the GAO seemed to play it more neutrally in the report made public July 30. That’s why their overall assessment of the medical device industry just might be the most interesting thing they produced. The GAO defined 30 of the companies as large-sized, including 3M, Baxter, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. It defined 35 as medium-sized, including Accuray, Biolase, Luminex, and Utah Medical Products. The GAO defined 37 of the medical device companies as small, including Bovie Medical, Fonar, Urologix, and Zynex.

Here’s a little of what they found:
Net sales and profits were up between 2005 and 2014—but it was better to be a big device company. Of the 102 surveyed, the 30 large-sized companies garnered more than 95 percent of the total net sales gains. Overall the industry enjoyed a 43-percent increase over the period, rounding out at about a 4-percent increase annually.
Profits usually went up, except when they didn’t. While the overall trend was north rather than south, there were three periods where overall net profit decreased: 2005–2006, 2007–2009, and 2011–2012.
The device industry still doesn’t know how bad it thinks a device tax will be. According to the GAO, 75 of the 102 companies in the report were uncertain about the full effect on their business.

While AdvaMed and others have slammed the device tax, saying it threatens jobs and funds for medical device innovation, others, including The Washington Post, have shrugged those job claims off as more about hype than fact.


About The Author

Michael Causey’s picture

Michael Causey

James Michael Causey’s been a journalist since he started his own neighborhood newspaper in the 1970s. In addition to quizzing FDA officials for the past 10+ years, he’s also interviewed political satirist Art Buchwald, FCC Chairman Reed Hundt, SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro, and is the past president of the Washington Independent Writers. Causey is the editor and publisher of eDataIntegrityReport.com and is a contributing writer on the AssurXblog.