ASCs around the country are now using surgical robots at their facilities — but is it really necessary?
Here are five leaders' thoughts on robotics in the ASC space:
Michael Boblitz. CEO of Tallahassee (Fla.) Orthopedic Clinic: A robotic portfolio in orthopedics especially is really important. It provides a minimally invasive solution, but also the younger physicians coming out, that's just how they're trained. So if we really want to attract the best and be the best, and have the comprehensive service delivery of all the options and techniques, then a very robust robotic surgery platform is important.
Alfonso del Granado. Administrator and CEO of Covenant High Plains Surgery Centers (Lubbock, Texas): I'm wary of the increasing incursion of robotics into procedures that could be done laparoscopically. Although we have robots for our total joints program and our general surgery service line, these were necessary to bring new volume into our centers, especially total joints. But of course the added expenses are not accompanied by concomitant increases in reimbursement rates, so we work with our surgeons to limit the number and types of cases that get scheduled on the robots. I should note that our general surgeons have been excellent partners in communicating the rationale for every robotic case, but it behooves everyone to keep an eye out to protect against robotic mission creep.
Raghu Reddy. Administrator at SurgCenter of Western Maryland (Cumberland): The role of robotics will continue to evolve in the coming years in the ASC space. The very word "robotics" will bring capital investment costs to the forefront of decision-making. Currently, there is not a lot of evidence proving that robotics significantly improves clinical results, especially in orthopedics, where some ASCs are adopting robotics. We could see the competitive advantage the robotics bring to an ASC, but the thing to keep in mind is the reimbursement from the payers to cover the entire capital and maintenance costs of the robotic program in the ASC. We should continue to study the evolving clinical evidence for the outcomes before a justification can be made to include robotics and the footprint needed to accommodate this program.
Sam Romeo, MD. General Partner at Tower Health & Wellness Center (Turlock, Calif.): You have to consider the surgeon's commitment and number of cases. Robots raise costs without payers offsetting revenue. Do robots add cases and surgeon's commitment? Added quality is still in question.
Kern Singh, MD. Co-director of the Minimally Invasive Spine Institute at Rush (Chicago): If you become too heavily reliant on expensive technology, then the transition to the outpatient arena will be very difficult. ASCs don't have the resources or capital to spend a million dollars on the robot when the procedures can be performed without that system. Unless the price drops, which I doubt since hospitals are willing to pay it, the transition will be more painful.