Amen and it's about time. That's what surgery center managers are saying about the planned merger of the American Association of Ambulatory Surgery Centers and FASA, according to an online survey of Outpatient Surgery Magazine readers.

"I applaud the leadership of both organizations for making this move," writes Dorothy Zimdahl, RN, BS, CNOR, CASC, administrator of the Buffalo Ambulatory Surgery Center in Cheektowaga, N.Y. "The resulting organization should have a positive impact on the clinical and business aspects of ambulatory surgical care, and will hopefully increase the strength of our voice in regard to government affairs."

According to the groups' joint announcement, posted late last week, the merger is slated to take effect on Jan. 1, 2008. The new group will be known as the Ambulatory Surgery Center Association, or ASCA, with FASA president Kathy Bryant serving as its CEO. Following the transition, AAASC's executive director Craig Jeffries is expected to depart the group.

Of the 170 readers who responded to our survey, 31 (18.2 percent) were members of both AAASC and FASA. Only 13 (7.7 percent) belonged solely to AAASC while 53 (31.2 percent) were strictly FASA members. Another 73 respondents (42.9 percent) reported belonging to neither national group.

"The two societies seem to be competing for membership," says Patricia Lombardo, RN, BS, administrator of the Eastern Pennsylvania Endoscopy Center in Allentown, Pa. "We can all come together to form a more powerful and cohesive group which would be advantageous to everyone."

When asked to choose the single biggest advantage of this merger, 57.5 percent selected "a unified voice supporting ASCs" while 21.9 percent cited "a more effective lobbying effort."

Here are some other comments:

Most cataract patients wear their street clothes into surgery and the top-performing eye facilities can turn over procedure rooms in less than seven minutes, according to the results of the Outpatient Ophthalmic Surgery Society's baseline benchmarking survey of 62 ophthalmic ASCs. The organization officially released its survey's results at a symposium held Oct. 5 and Oct. 6 in Atlanta, Ga.

Kent Jackson, PhD, CPCU, director of research and training for Lance Jackson Associates, a business development firm in Denver, Colo., led the research team. Dr. Jackson says he analyzed data to focus on two primary benchmark criteria: First, business operations activities that contribute directly to gross profit and net profit as a percent of gross revenue, and second, clinical performance as it relates to key questions pertaining to established best clinical practices or protocols.

The research team isolated the best performing respondents based on business operations and clinical data, grouping the data according to relative size of the surgery center based on square footage and number of procedures performed. Here are a few of the survey's findings:

From patient check-in to checkout

Five hip- and knee-implant manufacturers have reached an arrangement with federal authorities by which they'll pay a total of $310 million to settle charges that the companies used fake consulting agreements and other techniques to get surgeons to use their products.

"This industry routinely violated anti-kickback statutes by paying physicians for the purpose of exclusively using their products," says Christopher J. Christie, the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. "Prior to our investigation, many orthopedic surgeons in this country made decisions predicated on how much money they could make, choosing which device to implant by going to the highest bidder."

The U.S. Department of Justice's investigation began in 2005 when Mr. Christie's office sent subpoenas to the companies requesting information about their consulting and "professional service" agreements. The attorneys found many instances since 2002 where physicians did little or no work for the financial gains but did agree to exclusively use the paying company's products. The physicians also failed to disclose the existence of these relationships with the companies to the facilities where the procedures were performed or to the patients they treated.

The companies involved in this case were Zimmer, which will pay $169.5 million; Depuy Orthopaedics, which will pay $84.7 million; Smith & Nephew, which will pay $28.9 million; Biomet Orthopedics, which will pay $26.9 million; and Stryker Orthopedics, which was not assessed a penalty on account of a non-prosecution agreement it negotiated when it voluntarily cooperated with the U.S. Attorney's Office before any of the other companies.

Under the terms of the settlement, no company admitted wrongdoing, but each will be placed under federal supervision for 18 months.

"With these agreements in place, we expect doctors to make decisions based on what is in the best interest of their patients, not the best interests of their bank accounts," says Mr. Christie.