Replies to "who pays the labor for repairs to replace mfr's warranted parts"
Description
Collection
Title:
Replies to "who pays the labor for repairs to replace mfr's warranted parts"
Text:
In a message dated 10/3/2003, I posed the following questions along with a
sob story about our difficulties with unreliable Otto Bock/TEC Harmony PRS
pumps. After my synopsis and commentary are the replies to my original posting.
> Two Questions:
> 1. Should prosthetic offices charge patients and/or their insurance carriers
> for their labor associated with repair or replacement of manufacturer's
> components that fail while on warranty?
> 2. Or should the manufacturer reimburse the prosthetic office for the labor
> required to remove defective components that are still on the mfr's warranty
> as well as the labor to install interim loaner units, and the labor to then
>
In reading the following responses, you will discover that there is a general
outcry re. the labor costs incurred by P & O offices when components fail
that are still on manufacturer's warranties. The general assumption seems to be
that, if a component is still covered by a mfr.'s warranty, the P & O office
does not typically charge for the labor required to remove the defective part,
install a loaner unit and replace the repaired/replacement unit. Many cited
the risks associated with trying new technology and gave that as a reason for
not doing so. If manufacturers wonder why there is hesitation in O & P
community to using cutting edge technology, this fact may offer some explanation.
I believe the most intriguing response was by a practitioner who claimed that
he often negotiates with manufacturers to compensate him for his labor costs
associated with removing and reinstalling the mfr.'s failed components that
are still on warranty. What a concept! It would be interesting to hear from
any others of you who have done the same. I was surprised when the Otto Bock
customer satisfaction rep. hinted at just such an arrangement when I recently
gave her an accounting of my labor costs incurred while dealing with defective
Harmony pumps.
It seems, from some of the comments, there is a concern that manufacturers
would charge more for their components if they were required to compensate for
labor costs associated with replacing failed components still on warranty. If
so, it would be a better way for practitioners to assess the true cost of
choosing a particular component than the built-in surprise-waiting-to-happen
that was not originally factored into the equation.
Perhaps, AOPA (since it represents both suppliers and O & P businesses)
should sponsor a program whereby manufacturers/suppliers who belong to AOPA must
agree to compensate O & P practices for their labor costs that are incurred
removing and replacing failed components (as well as loaner units) that are still
on warranty. Such a program, of course, would include parameters such as the
practitioner or tech that performs the labor must have attended the mfr.'s
instructional course, if applicable.
Compensation to the O & P practice for labor costs does not address the cost
of time, frustration, and inconvenience to the patient. Clearly, only better
testing and more dependable components can avoid the losses for the patient.
Perhaps, AOPA should establish a clearinghouse to whom manufacturers are
required to report component failure frequency. Patients could then be informed of
the reliability of a given component that is proposed for their new devices.
Currently, practitioners can only inform patients of their own office's
experience with the component's dependability.
What is AOPA's official response to these suggestions? While we are asking,
what are the manufacturers' position on this question? They all have been
very silent on this issue in this LISTSERV. For starters, Otto Bock, Ossur and
Endolite are cited in the replies as having had reliability problems with one
or more components.
As the replies to my original posting demonstrate below, I am not alone in my
frustration regarding this issue. I don't doubt that each practitioner
reading these will identify as well with many of the sentiments expressed.
David Varnau, LPO, CPO
sob story about our difficulties with unreliable Otto Bock/TEC Harmony PRS
pumps. After my synopsis and commentary are the replies to my original posting.
> Two Questions:
> 1. Should prosthetic offices charge patients and/or their insurance carriers
> for their labor associated with repair or replacement of manufacturer's
> components that fail while on warranty?
> 2. Or should the manufacturer reimburse the prosthetic office for the labor
> required to remove defective components that are still on the mfr's warranty
> as well as the labor to install interim loaner units, and the labor to then
>
In reading the following responses, you will discover that there is a general
outcry re. the labor costs incurred by P & O offices when components fail
that are still on manufacturer's warranties. The general assumption seems to be
that, if a component is still covered by a mfr.'s warranty, the P & O office
does not typically charge for the labor required to remove the defective part,
install a loaner unit and replace the repaired/replacement unit. Many cited
the risks associated with trying new technology and gave that as a reason for
not doing so. If manufacturers wonder why there is hesitation in O & P
community to using cutting edge technology, this fact may offer some explanation.
I believe the most intriguing response was by a practitioner who claimed that
he often negotiates with manufacturers to compensate him for his labor costs
associated with removing and reinstalling the mfr.'s failed components that
are still on warranty. What a concept! It would be interesting to hear from
any others of you who have done the same. I was surprised when the Otto Bock
customer satisfaction rep. hinted at just such an arrangement when I recently
gave her an accounting of my labor costs incurred while dealing with defective
Harmony pumps.
It seems, from some of the comments, there is a concern that manufacturers
would charge more for their components if they were required to compensate for
labor costs associated with replacing failed components still on warranty. If
so, it would be a better way for practitioners to assess the true cost of
choosing a particular component than the built-in surprise-waiting-to-happen
that was not originally factored into the equation.
Perhaps, AOPA (since it represents both suppliers and O & P businesses)
should sponsor a program whereby manufacturers/suppliers who belong to AOPA must
agree to compensate O & P practices for their labor costs that are incurred
removing and replacing failed components (as well as loaner units) that are still
on warranty. Such a program, of course, would include parameters such as the
practitioner or tech that performs the labor must have attended the mfr.'s
instructional course, if applicable.
Compensation to the O & P practice for labor costs does not address the cost
of time, frustration, and inconvenience to the patient. Clearly, only better
testing and more dependable components can avoid the losses for the patient.
Perhaps, AOPA should establish a clearinghouse to whom manufacturers are
required to report component failure frequency. Patients could then be informed of
the reliability of a given component that is proposed for their new devices.
Currently, practitioners can only inform patients of their own office's
experience with the component's dependability.
What is AOPA's official response to these suggestions? While we are asking,
what are the manufacturers' position on this question? They all have been
very silent on this issue in this LISTSERV. For starters, Otto Bock, Ossur and
Endolite are cited in the replies as having had reliability problems with one
or more components.
As the replies to my original posting demonstrate below, I am not alone in my
frustration regarding this issue. I don't doubt that each practitioner
reading these will identify as well with many of the sentiments expressed.
David Varnau, LPO, CPO
Citation
“Replies to "who pays the labor for repairs to replace mfr's warranted parts",” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 26, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/221962.
