As election season approaches, opponents of the 2.3% medical device sales tax grow ever more emphatic in efforts to strike the measure, and for good reason – it may take a change in the Oval Office to successfully repeal the tax, which is contained in President Barack Obama’s landmark Affordable Care Act.
Fervent calls for repeal came from various corners of the U.S. over the last week, warning that the tax will "wreck" the industry and calling the measure an "economic boondoggle."
House Representative and vocal medtech industry advocate Erik Paulsen (R-Minn.) joined forces with Florida Medical Manufacturers Consortium chairman Geary Havran in warning Floridians that the tax, which takes effect at the start of next year, will harm one of the state’s bright spots.
"Florida’s med-tech job multiplier factor guarantees that for every job in Florida’s medical technology sector, 2.8 other jobs are created as a result," according to their editorial, published on Tampa Bay Online. "These jobs are responsible for more than $1.1 billion in payroll and $6.4 billion in sales for Florida."
The pair didn’t offer an calls to action, but said they were hopeful that "the president and our colleagues in the Senate recognize that the medical device tax will thwart innovation, job creation and patient care."
A more impassioned plea came from Arizona’s White Hall Journal, where right-leaning writer Jerry Jackson labeled the medtech tax the worst feature of the Affordable Care Act, beating the 10% tax on tanning services, the individual health insurance mandate and the Independent Payment Advisory Board, among others.
Jackson didn’t mince words as he warned that the tax, which applies to every medical device sale, will have the greatest impact on small businesses, especially those that aren’t yet profitable.
"This industry has been a great American success story and now the bumbling socialists that dictate our health policy want to stifle innovation and future development," he wrote. "The only people who would not be concerned about this type of confiscatory tax would be those that are opposed to competition and capitalism."
Editors at Indiana’s News-Sentinel offered a more tempered look at the tax, calling on voters to consider the impact that the levy will have on the state’s medtech industry when deciding how to vote in November.
"The consequences of this tax are already being seen," according to an editorial published last week. "Cook Medical announced that because of it, plans are being scrapped that would have built five new plants and added hundreds of jobs to the Indiana economy. Multiply that by all the other employers in the field who will alter their plans, and the blow to the economy is obvious."
Although a vote for presidential candidate Mitt Romney "doesn’t mean an automatic and immediate scrapping" of the Affordable Care Act, it will at least ensure a "serious look a the law and major revisions," according to the paper.
"Elections have consequences," they added. "It matters who we send to Washington."
The election-season fervor isn’t without merit. A MassDevice.com analysis published earlier this week showed that, although repeal efforts could garner enough Democratic support to clear the Senate after the election, the movement is unlikely to muster the votes to override a presidential veto.
That’s because a veto override requires a ⅔ majority in both chambers. Although the House last June approved a repeal bill on a 270-146 vote that left 19 votes in play, even assuming that all 19 are swayed to repeal that’s still 1 vote shy of the 290 needed for a ⅔ majority.
