LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Company News/NuVasive Beats Expectations but Subpoena Gets Attention
Company News

NuVasive Beats Expectations but Subpoena Gets Attention

August 5, 2013 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

NuVasive Beats Expectations but Subpoena Gets Attention
NuVasive Booth Exhibit / Source: NuVasive Facebook
Secondary

NuVasive, Inc. reported higher than expected second quarter revenue on July 30, 2013. But a disclosure that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services issued a subpoena in connection with a probe of false Medicare and Medicaid claims put a temporary halt to the company’s “Onward and Upward” mantra as the company’s stock dropped around 15% the next day.

Revenue Up 7%

It didn’t matter that total revenue for the quarter was up over 7% to $165.7 million, $ 3.8 million above Piper Jaffray analyst Matt Miksic’s estimate.

U.S. core fusion revenue of $118.1 million was $6.3 million above his estimate. Sales outside the U.S. (OUS) of approximately $16.5 million and U.S. biologics sales of $21.9 million came in slightly below estimates.

Company Chairman and CEO Alex Lukianov,   said, “Results in the first half of 2013 demonstrate solid execution against a multi-year plan, and give us increased confidence in our ability to execute to the full year guidance we have outlined.”

Miksic said he viewed second quarter operating performance as encouraging and slightly ahead of his expectations. “Importantly, management also came through on its commitment to drive improving margins on an apples-to-apples basis, coming in around 15.7% on an adjusted basis compared to expectations of around 14%. While the near-term market reaction to the subpoena is likely to be abrupt, we believe the long-term impact will be less severe.”

Subpoena and Device Tax

But analysts wanted to talk about the subpoena.

Advertisement

“As you know, Lukianov told analysts, “OIG subpoenas have been fairly common in med tech and in our industry. Audits and investigations have been increasingly common, as demonstrated by recent press related to investigations of physician-owned distributorships, potential off-label marketing of devices and many other topics. We have an exceptionally strong internal compliance team who have built, managed and overseen all of our compliance programs. We expect to work through this process over the coming quarters.”

Lukianov was asked if there are any particular parts of the business being investigated, asking about monitoring in particular. Lukianov added that the subpoena is a very broad document request, “focused on interbody with regard to Quadrant and biologics, both Osteocel and FormaGraft, but it’s very broad.”

The company also reported that it only expects to pay rough $5 million for the medical device tax, down from the previously expected $9.5 million. The company also booked approximately $840, 000 in tax credits the first half of the year.

Spine Market and Reimbursement

Then analysts got around to talking about Lukianov’s favorite subject—the spine market.

“The market just feels stable. I wouldn’t say that the market is dramatically improving. It feels stable. For us, it’s really market share gains, I think as a result of all the segments that we’ve done well in. Obviously, especially lumbar and cervical. I wouldn’t really say that there’s a huge difference in the marketplace. As we’ve talked with regard to reimbursement, there is less negative buzz on reimbursement. I think that it’s been appropriately consumed by the surgeons. Not to say that there isn’t ongoing pressure, there is, but it seems to be less a topic of conversation with the surgeons of late.”

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy