OBJECTIVES: To determine the role of generic orthopaedic trauma implants in the current orthopaedic trauma market, as perceived by OTA members, and investigate potential hurdles to the use of generic implants and other cost-containment measures. DESIGN: Survey study. SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: All active OTA members with valid e-mail addresses were invited to participate. INTERVENTION: Participants completed a brief online survey with questions regarding participation in cost-containment and incentive programs, industry relationships, generic implant use, and the role of surgeons in cost containment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Survey data. RESULTS: Participation in cost-containment programs (comanagement agreements, bundled payment for care improvement, and gainsharing) was found to be very low among participants (17%, 36.5%, 17%, respectively). Industry sales representatives were present in a majority of participants' cases (76.9%) the majority of time, but relatively a few surgeons (21.2%) felt their presence was necessary. Most surgeons were aware of the availability of generic implants (72.6%), but a few had adopted the use of such implants (25.5%), despite 50/52 (96.2%) prescribing generic drugs and 45/52 (86.5%) using generic products in their own households. CONCLUSIONS: Most participants agreed that generic orthopaedic implants have a role in cost containment, but a few have adopted these implants. The presence of sales representatives does not seem to be necessary for most surgeons, and minimizing or eliminating their presence may result in substantial savings for health care institutions. Increased education and the use of financial incentive programs may encourage improved surgeon participation in cost containment and adoption of generic implants and may help reduce health care spending. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the role of generic orthopaedic trauma implants in the current orthopaedic trauma market, as perceived by OTA members, and investigate potential hurdles to the use of generic implants and other cost-containment measures. DESIGN: Survey study. SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: All active OTA members with valid e-mail addresses were invited to participate. INTERVENTION: Participants completed a brief online survey with questions regarding participation in cost-containment and incentive programs, industry relationships, generic implant use, and the role of surgeons in cost containment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Survey data. RESULTS: Participation in cost-containment programs (comanagement agreements, bundled payment for care improvement, and gainsharing) was found to be very low among participants (17%, 36.5%, 17%, respectively). Industry sales representatives were present in a majority of participants' cases (76.9%) the majority of time, but relatively a few surgeons (21.2%) felt their presence was necessary. Most surgeons were aware of the availability of generic implants (72.6%), but a few had adopted the use of such implants (25.5%), despite 50/52 (96.2%) prescribing generic drugs and 45/52 (86.5%) using generic products in their own households. CONCLUSIONS: Most participants agreed that generic orthopaedic implants have a role in cost containment, but a few have adopted these implants. The presence of sales representatives does not seem to be necessary for most surgeons, and minimizing or eliminating their presence may result in substantial savings for health care institutions. Increased education and the use of financial incentive programs may encourage improved surgeon participation in cost containment and adoption of generic implants and may help reduce health care spending. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.