"Consultation fees"

The final frontier. Deciding when, if and how.
User avatar
Positivemofo
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2026 1:40 pm

"Consultation fees"

Postby Positivemofo » Tue Mar 24, 2026 6:31 am

If you wonder why a surgeon would have a preference for one brand over another, here is why.

​Based on Open Payments data for the period of 2018–2024, here is how much each surgeon has taken from Coloplast (Colo), Boston Scientific (BS), or Rigicon (Rigi):

​Paul Perito: $3.8M (Colo) | $67k (BS)
​Steven K. Wilson: $1.1M (Colo) | $230k (Rigi)
​Brian S. Christine: $304k (BS) | $25k (Colo)
​Jonathan Clavell: $230k (Colo) | $152k (BS)
​Alex Tatem: $220k (BS) | $16k (Colo)
​Tariq Hakky: $203k (Colo)
​Andrew Kramer: $78k (BS) | $43k (Rigi) | $12k (Colo)

https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/

cbinspok
Posts: 1008
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2021 7:45 pm

Re: "Consultation fees"

Postby cbinspok » Tue Mar 24, 2026 8:13 am

you really can leave this site, you ware a thin vale
71 years now,Ed twenty years. A sever break to penis, vit E, pataba, Viagra, massage Ved cilas, exhausted, I tossed in my towel, Op for implant Mar 18, 2021 AMS LGX 18 x12 + 1 3cm RTE,yep standard size, happily gained girth and length,.. stay hwp!

User avatar
GoodWood
Posts: 1572
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 1:07 pm

Re: "Consultation fees"

Postby GoodWood » Tue Mar 24, 2026 10:06 am

The CMS data you cited shows a correlation, but it does not prove causation. You’ve implied that compensation dictates Dr. A’s choice, ignoring the more logical explanation: he likely uses the product because he finds it superior, and the financial data simply reflects that high volume of use.
To suggest that medical professionals make life-altering decisions for their patients based on greed is a reach. It’s also curious that a 'new' user is already performing this level of technical research on CMS.gov for only their second post. It gives the impression that you are well-acquainted with these boards—perhaps from a previous account—and are simply continuing an old argument under a new name.
57yo, NYC. ED started at 40. Pills, then shots for 10 years. 24cm Coloplast Titan XL w/classic pump by Dr Eid 3/25/2025. Will meet for show & tell.
Implant journal: [url] viewtopic.php?f=6&t=26225[/url]

1sfman
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2025 9:12 am
Location: Central Illinois

Re: "Consultation fees"

Postby 1sfman » Tue Mar 24, 2026 10:08 am

Spot on GoodWood!
75 YO (1951). Happily married since 1972 (A couple since 1968). ED since age 60. Viagra, then Cialis, Trimix & Quadmix, VED. AMS 700 with 21cm CX (+ 1cm RTE left side) implanted using Infrapubic procedure Jan 21, 2026.

whatevery
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2025 3:10 pm

Re: "Consultation fees"

Postby whatevery » Tue Mar 24, 2026 10:44 am

I do want to add something to this.

I live in Boston, home of of Boston Scientific (surprise surprise). At this point I'm still in the process of doctor shopping so I see and virtually speak to many doctors. There are patterns.

It seems like most surgeons in Massachusetts again, home of Boston Scientific, prefer AMS-700. I'm yet to find a urologist that works in one of the local hospitals (besides the VA) that would implant anything other than AMS. Granted they're not high volume famous ones but still.

Kramer who used to prefer Coloplast when he was in Maryland, now since he moved to Mass, prefers AMS-700. He still would implant Coloplast if asked but still.

Most doctors outside of Mass seem to prefer Coloplast.

Is it a coincidence? I don't think so. The goto reasons for preferring one brand over another can be ignored imo. You know, Coloplast is more rigid, while AMS-700 is safer infection wise. I think of them as nothing more than excuses. AMS-700 CX is very rigid while Titan is more than sufficiently infection proof. LGX is a separate matter but its main focus is different from the other two.

I tend to think that main reasons are incentives. Do I have proof? No. I just don't believe in coincidences much.
64 yrs old.
atrophied to 4" erect.
ED since about 2000.
Edex but moving to Trimix.
Implant doctor shopping now.

jwdetails
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2023 4:43 pm

Re: "Consultation fees"

Postby jwdetails » Tue Mar 24, 2026 11:56 am

GoodWood wrote:The CMS data you cited shows a correlation, but it does not prove causation. You’ve implied that compensation dictates Dr. A’s choice, ignoring the more logical explanation: he likely uses the product because he finds it superior, and the financial data simply reflects that high volume of use.
To suggest that medical professionals make life-altering decisions for their patients based on greed is a reach. It’s also curious that a 'new' user is already performing this level of technical research on CMS.gov for only their second post. It gives the impression that you are well-acquainted with these boards—perhaps from a previous account—and are simply continuing an old argument under a new name.


This is well put. I don't know how valuable this information is here on FT. If you look at data for different cancer treatments docs often get paid similar for doing ancillary work like running conference, training sessions, advisory roles.

I will point out that this is only the case for private practice urologists - many of the high volume urologists at big "non-profit" hospitals are not allowed to consult to that degree ie. Dr Patel at UCSD, Dr. Mills at UCLA, Tobias Kohler at Mayo clinic, Dr. Carrion at USF, etc.
62 year old, ED+PD, Coloplast Titan 22 cm no RTE in 2019 with Dr. Irwin Goldstein => failure, now with plaque excision/tunical expansion to Coloplast Titan 26 no RTE in 2022 by Dr. Darshan Patel, now with classic pump 2024 :D


Return to “Implants”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: amazonbot, ClaudeBot, Google [Bot], Humpback, jwdetails and 80 guests