Many procedures historically performed inpatient have shifted to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) as CMS expanded the ASC-payable procedure list and as physician-owned ASC economics drove adoption - most visibly in orthopedics (total joints) and cardiology. CMS adds procedures to the ASC covered list through the annual OPPS and ASC rule, and removed total knee and hip replacement from the inpatient-only list in 2018 and 2020. The shift changes who buys devices, puts more pressure on price and inventory, and makes outpatient data and site-of-service economics more important in sales planning.

Why it matters

Site-of-service shift compresses device pricing power: ASC payments are typically 60% of HOPD rates. Capital, capital-equipment, and disposables strategies must adapt to ASC budgets.

Common pitfalls

•Assuming that regulatory requirements for devices change based on the site of service, rather than remaining consistent across all approved clinical settings.
•Failing to consider the impact of reimbursement policies on product development and market access strategies.
•Overlooking the need for a quality management system that supports devices used in various healthcare settings, including ASCs.

Sources

CMS ASC payment · CMS
42 CFR 416.166: Covered surgical procedures · eCFR

Open full page

Select term B to compare.

Why compare MedTech terms side by side?

MedTech terminology is full of pairs that look interchangeable but carry very different regulatory, clinical, and commercial consequences. Picking the wrong framework, pathway, or standard early in a project can add months to a submission, invalidate clinical evidence, or trigger an audit finding. Side-by-side comparison is the fastest way to surface those differences before they become costly mistakes.

Each comparison on this page pulls from the same vendor-neutral, sourced definitions used throughout the MedTech Terms glossary. You see the one-line summary, the formal definition, why it matters in practice, common pitfalls, and the primary sources (FDA guidance, EU MDR/IVDR articles, ISO/IEC standards, MDCG documents, IMDRF principles) that back each entry. That makes the comparison defensible in regulatory strategy memos, design reviews, and submission narratives.

Common comparison patterns

Regulatory pathway choice - 510(k) vs PMA, 510(k) vs De Novo, Abbreviated vs Special 510(k).
Quality systems - QSR vs ISO 13485, QMSR vs QSR.
Software classification - SaMD vs SiMD, Locked vs adaptive AI.
EU frameworks - MDR vs IVDR, CE Mark vs UKCA.
Cybersecurity artifacts - SPDX vs CycloneDX SBOM, CVE vs CVSS.
Post-market actions - Recall vs field action, Removal vs correction.

How to use this tool

Pick term A and term B from the dropdowns, or click a preset above. The URL updates with both slugs so you can bookmark or share the exact comparison with a colleague, a notified body reviewer, or your regulatory consultant. Click Open full page on either side for the complete entry, including FAQs, related terms, and the full citation list. If you are not sure which term to start with, browse the Categories view or the A-Z index.

MedTech Terms is a vendor-neutral community resource sponsored by Blue Goat Cyber. Definitions are written for educational use and are not legal or regulatory advice.