EP technology manufacturers focus a lot of attention on the EP lab, given the rapid increase in demand and the profitability of devices. EP doctors tend to rely on technologies they have been trained on and grown accustomed to, and since they spend all week in the lab, not in an R&D facility, they are frequently introduced to technologies that they don’t understand, as well as the well-educated sales rep. The time between new innovations just isn’t long enough to catch up. This means that the doctor becomes the student and the device rep the teacher, who can spin the training to benefit his/her product.
The fact that most doctors are not employees of the hospital and the lab means that the “EP marketplace” doesn’t simply consist of a buyer and a seller. Instead, there is a buyer, a seller, and a third party (the doctor), whose role is often to act as an extension of the seller, effectively “rep-ing” the devices in negotiations with lab management. The doctor usually has no direct interest in ensuring the device choice is an economical one, and frequently is not knowledgeable about and engaged in cost-benefit analyses. In all fairness, this is changing a lot these days, with more and more doctors taking an active interest in the financial situation of the lab and participating in value analysis committee meetings.
Medical device manufacturers do not advertise their prices in catalogues, brochures, or online. If you were to ask yourself, “what is the price of a diagnostic ultrasound catheter?", you would quickly get lost and give up. The answer is not available. Instead, sales reps will have target prices that they push in a tailored discussion with the individual lab/hospital, which will, due to the lack of comparison power, end up with very different prices. We have seen devices with an average sales price of $2,500 sell for $1,700 at some hospitals and $3,500 at other hospitals. The price perception becomes even more opaque due to the effective bundling of devices with capital equipment, devices with devices, devices with service contracts, etc.
It is common knowledge that the presence of the sales rep during procedures probably increases the cost of those procedures, because they can successfully sell newer and more expensive devices to the doctor, who will demand them from the lab in which they are practicing. It’s not exactly that the device rep acts as a brood parasite in the nest of the EP lab, but his/her interests - at least at the superficial level – run counter to the EP lab’s interest in being profitable.
So what can EP lab management do to control costs and balance new technology adoption with overall operational effectiveness? Some hospitals have experimented with kicking the device rep out of the lab/hospital. Loma Linda is a classic example. We hear little, but I understand they went back to the old model. Let’s be clear: It is not a good idea to kick the device rep out of the EP lab to lower costs. It will probably anger the EP doctor who relies on the sales rep’s support, and the lab will quickly get behind in terms of software updates and technology development.
Instead, there is a new approach for a “new deal” in the EP marketplace, and we have seen it successfully negotiated in some labs:
There are no silver bullets that fix the EP sales rep dilemma for the EP lab. However, there are proven roadmaps to a new deal, where interests are better balanced and fewer games are played.