When it comes to the $20 billion medical-device industry tax contained in the healthcare reform legislation, we could, however incongruous it would be, quote a 1970s cigarette ad campaign: We’ve come a long way baby! Or, perhaps it would be better to paraphrase the Rolling Stones with these encouraging words:  You can’t always [stop] what you [don’t] want. But if you try sometimes, you might find you get what you need.

It’s true that the tax is a long way from the original $40 billion proposal that would’ve started this year. Instead, thanks to the efforts of AdvaMed, its member companies, and House and Senate members from California, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York , we ended up with an across-the-board 2.3% point-of-sales excise tax that won’t take effect until 2013; is deductible from corporate income; and excludes hearing aids, contact lenses, and other products, regardless of FDA Class, used by individuals and purchased in retail settings.

Still, if device makers had their way, there wouldn’t be a tax at all. As one industry source put it, “We fought to eliminate this highly regrettable tax, which could slow research and development, drive up costs, and result in lost jobs.”

However, reform did pass, and if our industry tries, we might find we get what we need – a revamped reimbursement system that rewards physicians for quality and efficiency, rather than for tests and procedures.

“W ith healthcare reform passed, and regulation writing about to begin, now is the time to work toward putting into place policies that reward quality,” says Wanda Moebius, AdvaMed’s vice president of policy communications. “From our perspective, this is an exciting time. The goal is to avoid policies that inadvertently choke off new technologies before they can be widely diffused and adopted.”

For example, giving an aspirin to a stroke patient within a given amount of time is currently a quality standard for care. But what happens if a groundbreaking technology usurps aspirin in effectiveness while the aspirin standard remains?  If that happens, the new technology isn’t likely to be used by physicians for fear of penalties by private insurers and CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services). But if policy is done correctly, we might find we get what we need. Oh yeah!

So stay tuned and stay engaged.  Cheers!

For a good book on the pluses and minuses of healthcare systems throughout the world and how they address this topic of reimbursement, read “The Healing of America,” by T.R. Reid.  And, as always, I look forward to your comments and insights.