Scare Talk on Medical Device Tax Doesn’t Square with Reality

October 1, 2013 at 5:12 pm

Although the Senate rebuffed the House’s attempt to attach a repeal of health reform’s excise tax on certain medical devices to the fiscal year 2014 funding bill, the issue will likely resurface.  We recently updated our paper explaining why the 2.3 percent tax, which helps pay for extending health coverage to millions of uninsured Americans, is sound and why the arguments against it do not withstand scrutiny.  Here are some key facts to keep in mind.

  • The medical device tax isn’t a tax on wheelchairs, as some commentators have mistakenly reported.  The tax does not apply to eyeglasses, contact lenses, hearing aids, mechanical and powered wheelchairs, and any other medical device that the public generally buys at retail for individual use.  It does apply to such devices as coronary stents, artificial knees and hips, cardiac pacemakers, irradiation equipment, and imaging technology.
  • Health reform will boost sales of medical devices, largely offsetting the effect of the tax. By extending health coverage to 25 million more Americans, health reform will raise demand for medical devices and boost the revenue of device manufacturers.  The medical device industry correctly notes that older patients, who use a disproportionate number of medical devices, already have coverage through Medicare.  However, some of the previously uninsured people who get health coverage under health reform will undergo elective medical procedures, which in turn will expand the use of medical devices.  A study by Wells Fargo Securities finds that health reform will increase device sales by 1.5 percent in 2014 and by 3.6 percent cumulatively through 2022.  This increase, the study concludes, “will be sufficient to offset” the tax.
  • Top device manufacturers are highly profitable and can easily absorb the tax. A new report by Consumers Union examines the financial statements of 18 leading device companies and finds that they are all well situated to absorb the tax without a significant effect on their bottom line.  Investors apparently agree.  Since the tax took effect in January 2013, the stock prices of the top device manufacturers have generally outperformed the market averages.  For example, Medtronic is up 29 percent, Johnson and Johnson 24 percent, Boston Scientific 104 percent, and St. Jude Medical 46 percent — compared to a 19 percent increase in the S&P 500 stock index.

Clearly, the medical device tax is not having the dire effects that its critics predicted.

Print Friendly

More About Paul N. Van de Water

Paul N. Van de Water

Paul N. Van de Water is a Senior Fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, where he specializes in Medicare, Social Security, and health coverage issues.

Full bio | Blog Archive | Research archive at CBPP.org

2 Comments Add Yours ↓

Comments are listed in reverse chronological order.

  1. 1

    Almost every column I have read from supporters of the Medical Device Tax are in a similar position as this gentleman of having a severe lack of knowledge of how the medical device industry operates.

    Such articles almost always trot out the same old tune – industry giants like Medtronic and J&J are affected by the tax and so are high profit products like pacemakers and hip implants.

    If he did any research he would know that 80% of medical device companies in the USA are small businesses. Many are innovative, with new and emerging products. These companies are genuinely struggling to pay this tax and it is really harming the potential to grow. Furthermore the vast majority of medical devices are more commonly things like latex gloves, syringes, non-woven swabs etc. These products have tiny profit margins. 2.3% tax on sales is a huge relative burden on such products.

    I am a small medical device business owner and would be very happy to give an actual view on how this tax has affected my business.

    • Paul Van de Water #
      2

      Thanks for your comment. In my paper on the medical device tax, I cite the heads of two small firms who say that the tax will have little effect on their sales, hiring, or R&D.”



Your Comment

Comment Policy:

Thank you for joining the conversation about important policy issues. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters and are subject to approval and moderation. We reserve the right to remove comments that:

  • are injurious, defamatory, profane, off-topic or inappropriate;
  • contain personal attacks or racist, sexist, homophobic, or other slurs;
  • solicit and/or advertise for personal blogs and websites or to sell products or services;
  • may infringe the copyright or intellectual property rights of others or other applicable laws or regulations; or
  • are otherwise inconsistent with the goals of this blog.

Posted comments do not necessarily represent the views of the CBPP and do not constitute official endorsement by CBPP. Please note that comments will be approved during the Center's business hours. If you have questions, please contact communications@cbpp.org.




nine − = 0

 characters available