SEARCH
Current Location:
>
> This Story


Log in or Register to rate this News Story
Forward Printable StoryPrint Comment

Never Miss a Story

Sign up for email alerts

 

More Industry Headlines

Royal Philips appoints Robert Cascella new executive VP to head imaging businesses He brings thirty years of health care experience to the company

National Association for Proton Therapy updates its model insurance policy Incorporates findings from 15 studies over the last year to determine best use of proton treatment.

Baxter gets CE nod for home-use APD system Brings simple interface to patients conducting peritoneal dialysis at home

Royal Philips sells off $2.8 billion lighting business, eyes growth in HealthTech Will invest capital in building up its health care and consumer lifestyle business

Best to use ultrasound before CT and MRI for female pelvic imaging: experts Recent advances bring ultrasound up to other modalities’ level

FDA, FTC finding their way on medical, health app frontier As the FDA narrows focus on medical apps, FTC fact-checks benefits of health apps

North Dakota sets licensure standards for radiologic technologists RTs can now enter physician orders in EHRs

An overview of contrast agents today Changes and challenges in the contrast imaging industry

Measuring malignancy via the sugar levels of 'cellular slime' with MRI Researchers at Johns Hopkins hope to pave the way to a non-invasive cancer diagnosis

CHLA and USC create first fully-implantable micropacemaker for fetuses May prevent miscarriages and premature births in fetuses with congenital heart block

Why do veterinarians care about repealing the medical device tax?

by Loren Bonner , DOTmed News Online Editor
Momentum to repeal the medical device tax is growing on Capitol Hill. Veterinarians are the latest group to join the push to eliminate the 2.3 percent excise tax that was included in the Affordable Care Act to help pay for the cost of reform.

It might be a different story if animals were actually benefiting from the law. But it's clear that the tax is intended to subsidize the cost of human health care, and not the animals that veterinarians treat.

Story Continues Below Advertisement

We want to buy your Siemens Symphony or Avanto MRI -- today!

Top Dollar Paid, Fixed or Mobile. Call our Siemens Specialist for a Quote today -- 212-558-6600 Ext. 250 DOTmed Certified



According to the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), which includes more than 84,000 veterinarians nationwide, the tax will increase the cost of medical devices that are "intended for humans," but are also used in veterinary medicine. This would potentially increase costs for veterinarians — or lead some to pass the cost on to patients, which could translate into upping the price on procedures.

Under existing U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations, devices exclusively labeled for veterinary medicine are excluded from several pre-market and post-market provisions, according to Dr. Mark Lutschaunig, director of AVMA's governmental relations division. They are also free from being "taxable medical devices". But many veterinarians purchase human X-ray and ultrasound machines, which are taxable under the law, and adapt them for their practices. Many of the expensive human imaging modalities used in veterinary medicine, such as X-ray, ultrasound, MRI, CT, are purchased second hand.

Lutschaunig believes that if the medical device tax stays, veterinarians might buy devices that are marketed exclusively for veterinarians. He also thinks that the device manufacturers will work to get more devices approved for the veterinary market.

"The AVMA does not believe that Congress intended the tax to impact veterinary medicine and has been clear that it does not support this tax, but we are now in a position where we must do what is best for both our members and the patients that we treat," said Lutschaunig.

Related:


Interested in Medical Industry News? Subscribe to DOTmed's weekly news email and always be informed. Click here, it takes just 30 seconds.
(1)

Nancy Ball

Medical Tax

October 11, 2013 09:41

As a small business owner I don't understand why a 2.3% tax would stop someone from purchasing a piece of equipment. Assuming the purchase is something that is not only needed but will be used enough and priced to turn a profit it would be very easy to add the cost of the tax into the charge for its use. At 2.3% it would add little to what you would need to charge for its use.

Log inor Register

to rate and post a comment

You Must Be Logged In To Post A Comment

Advertise
Increase Your
Brand Awareness
Auctions + Private Sales
Get The
Best Price
Buy Equipment/Parts
Find The
Lowest Price
Daily News
Read The
Latest News
Directory
Browse All
DOTmed Users
Ethics on DOTmed
View Our
Ethics Program
Gold Parts Vendor Program
Receive PH
Requests
Gold Service Dealer Program
Receive RFP/PS
Requests
Healthcare Providers
See all
HCP Tools
Jobs/Training
Find/Fill
A Job
Parts Hunter +EasyPay
Get Parts
Quotes
Recently Certified
View Recently
Certified Users
Recently Rated
View Recently
Certified Users
Rental Center
Rent Equipment
For Less
Sell Equipment/Parts
Get The
Most Money
Service Technicians Forum
Find Help
And Advice
Simple RFP
Get Equipment
Quotes
Virtual Trade Show
Find Service
For Equipment
Access and use of this site is subject to the terms and conditions of our LEGAL NOTICE & PRIVACY NOTICE
Property of and Proprietary to DOTmed.com, Inc. Copyright ©2001-2015 DOTmed.com, Inc.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED