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/Spine/OIG: PODs Don’t Save Money
Spine

OIG: PODs Don’t Save Money

October 25, 2013 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

OIG: PODs Don’t Save Money
POD Spinal Devices Overview / Source: www.oig.hhs.gov
Secondary

PODs do not supply devices at a lower cost than other suppliers and may increase the cost of spinal surgery to Medicare over time.

That’s the conclusion drawn by the long overdue report of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) requested by Congress last year on physician-owned distributorships.

The OIG concluded in the 31-page report released on October 24, 2013, that PODs are a substantial presence in the spinal device market. Said the report:

“Our findings raise questions about PODs’ claim that their devices cost less than those of other suppliers. Surgeons performed more spinal surgeries at hospitals that purchased from PODs, and those hospitals experienced increased rates of growth in the number of spinal surgeries performed in comparison to the rate for hospitals that did not purchase from PODs.

“Taken together, these factors may increase the cost of spinal surgery to Medicare over time. Finally, hospitals’ policies varied in whether they required physicians to disclose ownership interests in PODs to either the hospitals or their patients. Thus the ability of hospitals and patients to identify potential conflicts of interest among these providers is reduced.”

Medicare and Spine Surgery

In fiscal year 2012, Medicare paid hospitals a total of $3.9 billion for 178, 789 spinal surgeries. Medicare reimbursed hospitals an average of $21, 613 for each of these surgeries. On average, Medicare reimbursed hospitals $10, 289 for the least complicated spinal surgeries and $34, 676 for the most complicated surgeries, according to the report.

The OIG selected a sample of 1, 000 claims billed to Medicare in fiscal year 2011 that included spinal fusion surgery. They then asked each hospital associated with these claims to complete a questionnaire about its knowledge of physician ownership of spinal device suppliers. They also asked each hospital to complete a worksheet with details about the spinal devices used in each surgery in the sample.

Advertisement

In 2011, finds the report, PODs supplied devices used in nearly one in five spinal fusion surgeries billed to Medicare. Spinal surgeries that used POD devices used fewer devices but did not have lower per surgery device costs than surgeries that did not use POD devices. Among the hospitals in the sample, about a third reported buying spinal devices from PODs. When hospitals in the sample began buying from PODs, their rates of spinal surgery grew faster than the rate for hospitals overall.

Impact on Major Spine Manufacturers

Wells Fargo analyst Larry Biegelsen says the major spine players could benefit from a retrenchment in PODs. “We previously estimated that PODs have captured about 10-15% of the $5.7 billion U.S. spinal hardware market; however, the OIG report suggests that PODs may have captured almost 20%.

Although the impact of the OIG report is unclear at this time, Biegelsen estimates that if PODs went away completely, NuVasive, Inc., Globus Medical, Inc. and LDR would benefit the most among the major spine players with potentially 6-10% upside to their annual sales because they do not sell to PODs. “At the very least, the OIG report should curtail the growth of PODs, which would be good for the large spine players, in our view.”

Court Challenge

The POD debate has headed to court, as Reliance Medical Systems, LLC, has challenged the constitutional basis for OIG’s determination that legally doing business with PODs is “inherently suspect”?

To read the entire OIG report, click here.

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