NacreousFink

NacreousFink t1_iqrphy5 wrote

There is no question that the robot provides better outcomes. The problem is that it costs $3k-$5k just to open one up to start a procedure. This has to be paid for by someone. Even though healing is easier, less loss of functionality, and chances of infection are lower, the insurers just won't pay for it.

I am not aware of M&A in the regional provider space. Hopefully someone can make the insurers cover this huge advance in medical treatment.

0

NacreousFink t1_iqrk5id wrote

The person who opens a surgery center without consulting with the insurance companies who will not allow the more expensive procedure will find himself with a wasted investment.

These systems have been around for more than a decade. Their slow acceptance has everything to do with insurance companies refusing to pay for procedures using them. The surgery centers that did use them were almost all exclusively on the out of network model, which requires much more expensive PPO insurance to cover the procedures.

1

NacreousFink t1_iqrjela wrote

These robots have been around for quite a while. They provide much more precise incisions, meaning less trauma, faster healing, much lower chance of infection, and so on. Surgeons were excited to use them, and hospitals bought them.

Then the insurers said they wouldn't pay for the extra cost and would only cover old style operations using rusty spoons for scalpels.

And the machines sat there, under dust covers, not being used.

0