Getting paid is the hard part | The Lattice Brief (8/30/26):

blank blank Aug 30, 2026

This week: why clearing the FDA is not the same as getting paid for a 3D-printed stent, a world-first metamaterial bone prosthesis out of Madrid, fresh bioprinting and bone-repair research, and 3DHEALS’s Biomaterials Frontier event on September 10.

The big thing

A better 3D-printed stent is the easy part. Getting paid is the hard part.

New York University’s newest stent, BRIDGE, is a good device. It is 3D-printed and biodegradable, built to drain gastric leaks after weight-loss surgery. Its lattice drains about twice as much, bends far tighter without kinking, then dissolves with no removal endoscopy. So, if I am the patient, this is a better device. In US medical devices, being “better” is just the price of admission, not the payout. As our recent piece focusing on reimbursement puts it, better isn’t billable. Entrepreneurs beware.

Start with who gets paid. Medicare pays for the procedure, not the stent. A better bundled supply inherits the price of the thing it replaces. Endoscopic leak drainage doesn’t even have a billing code that fits, with cases falling back on a pseudocyst code or an “unlisted” one. A 3D-printed stent adds “nothing extra” just for being better. Furthermore, a stent that dissolves removes the retrieval endoscopy that a doctor currently bills. So, the first buyers are integrated, bundled-payment systems that keep the savings, and not fee-for-service proceduralists. Healthcare economics in America is complicated. A regular mental exercise on reimbursement early in a device’s life cycle could protect innovators and investors from future heartaches. Similar evaluation will be equally important to a device’s viability in other global markets, depending on the target patient population. With a trend toward point-of-care 3D printing in healthcare systems, in-house production of small batches of innovative devices could be economically viable. Read our case study on this and let us know what you think.

One hero of this story we did not talk much about is the biodegradable feature of this drainage stent. The combination of 3D printing design plus a stereolithography-printable biodegradable resin made the stent a differentiated device with a defensible “moat.” However, this moat also carries the most risk. Acidity, degradation profile, mechanical properties, softness versus hardness, immunogenicity, and thrombogenicity are all intricately related to the materials science within a new device. The industry learned that the hard way with Abbott’s Absorb bioresorbable coronary stent, which was withdrawn in 2017 after safety signals. Granted, something in the heart carries higher risk than in the gut. Ultimately though, what earns payment and what earns trust are the same thing: good outcomes across real patients.

That said, we will highlight the exciting advancements made in 3D printable biomaterials in 3DHEALS’s next virtual event, Biomaterials Frontier, on September 10. This world-class panel covers topics not just on bioabsorbable materials and relevant applications (like breast implants for lumpectomy), but also metamaterials for orthopedic implants, human collagen produced in bioreactors for bioprinting, ML/AI for new biomaterial development, and more.

Biomaterials Frontier - 3DHEALS virtual event, September 10. Register on Zoom.

Regulatory watch

No new FDA 510(k) clearances for additive-manufactured devices this week.

Clinical & research

Also this week

From 3DHEALS

Subscribe to The Lattice Brief

Comments