COCHLEAR IMPLANTS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disability Rights
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sitemap
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
Manufacturer Payments to Physicians
-
Among the top complaints of cochlear implant users is that they were denied a choice of cochlear implants by their physician.
Very often, this is a result of the fact that all cochlear implant manufacturers make direct payments to physicians in efforts to influence referrals for their brand of cochlear implant devices. This issue was a stated concern and focus of Federal laws such as the Anti-Kickback Statute (Social Security Act, Section 1828) and the "Stark II" Prohibitions on Physician Self-Referrals (Social Security Act 1877(b)). For example, Stark II regulations (see below)specifically stated that it is "not uncommon" for physicians to accept payments from prosthetic device companies in exchange for an agreement to market that device exclusively.
These illegal financial inducements primarily take the following forms:
1. Consulting fees
2. Payments for failed devices
3. Discounted or free goods and services (Partners Program)
4. Gifts, honoria, travel expenses.
However, manufacturers and physicians are required by Federal law to disclose any financial relationships. Though it may be a touchy subject, patients have every right to ask their physician if they receive any of these payments from a manufacturer. Likewise, patients can also seek the same information from audiologists and the manufacturers.
Take our poll on this issue and let everyone know if you believe manufacturers should publicly disclose this information on their websites so that it is readily accessible for all.
| | | |
|
|
|
