Written and maintained by CASRAI Editorial Board
Last updated
This page describes how sales commissions work for medical device and medical supply sales, and what two U.S. federal sources say about paying sales representatives and agents. It is general information, not legal advice and not medical advice.
Who this is for: supply buyers, clinic and lab procurement staff, and new sales or distribution staff who need to understand how a rep’s commission differs legally depending on whether the rep is an employee or an independent agent, and what to ask a supplier about it.
What is a sales commission?
A sales commission is pay to a salesperson or sales agent that depends on the sales that person makes, usually calculated as a share of the sale. It can be paid on its own or alongside other pay. A “medical device sales rep commission” or “medical supply sales commission” is the same idea applied to selling medical products, either by a manufacturer’s own employees or by an outside agent who represents a manufacturer or distributor. How a commission is structured does not change what the product is; it changes who is paid, by whom, and on what basis.
Medical sales commission structure: what the sources define
The structure most relevant to compliance is the percentage-of-sales commission. In a 1998 federal advisory opinion, a manufacturer paid an independent sales agent “a monthly commission of between 1% and 1.25% of invoiced amounts, the specific percentage being set in advance for each Purchaser” (HHS Office of Inspector General, Advisory Opinion 98-10, issued 31 August 1998). Those figures describe that single arrangement only; they are not a typical or recommended rate. Pay levels, quotas, tiers and draws vary by employer and are set in private compensation plans, so this page gives no salary or rate figures.
Employees versus independent agents: two different federal safe harbors
The federal Anti-Kickback Statute makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully offer, pay, solicit or receive any remuneration to induce referrals of items or services reimbursable by federal health care programs (OIG Advisory Opinion 98-10, Part II). Regulations at 42 CFR 1001.952 list “safe harbors” for payments that are not treated as remuneration. Two matter for sales pay. For background on how safe harbors work, see the Anti-Kickback Statute in healthcare.
| Situation | Safe harbor | What the regulation text says |
|---|---|---|
| Rep is an employee of the seller | 42 CFR 1001.952(i), employees | “Remuneration” does not include any amount paid by an employer to an employee who has a bona fide employment relationship with the employer, for employment in the furnishing of any item or service payable in whole or in part under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal health care programs. |
| Rep is an independent agent paid by a principal (manufacturer or seller) | 42 CFR 1001.952(d)(1), personal services and management contracts | Among several standards: the agency agreement is in writing and signed; it covers all services the agent provides for the term and specifies them; the term is at least 1 year; and the methodology for determining compensation is set in advance, is consistent with fair market value in arm’s-length transactions, and is not determined in a manner that takes into account the volume or value of referrals or business otherwise generated between the parties for which federal health care programs may pay. |
Source: eCFR, 42 CFR 1001.952, text of the 2025-12-01 version, checked 2026-11-01. Failing to meet a safe harbor is not by itself a violation; the safe harbors are voluntary protections, and the statute turns on intent.
What did OIG Advisory Opinion 98-10 flag?
In 1998 OIG reviewed a commission paid to an independent manufacturers’ representative who negotiated contracts for a manufacturer of disposable medical supplies with hospital systems and group purchasing organizations. OIG said the arrangement did not fit the personal services safe harbor because the nature of the services precluded specifying the schedule of services and total aggregate compensation in advance. It then listed “suspect characteristics” it associates with increased potential for program abuse:
- compensation based on percentage of sales;
- direct billing of a federal health care program by the seller for the item or service sold by the agent;
- direct contact between the agent and physicians in a position to order items or services paid for by a federal health care program;
- direct contact between the agent and federal health care program beneficiaries;
- use of agents who are health care professionals or in a similar position to exert undue influence on purchasers or patients; and
- marketing of items or services that are separately reimbursable by a federal health care program.
OIG called the list “illustrative, not exhaustive”, said the absence of these factors “certainly does not mean that a sales arrangement is permissible”, and said “the more factors that are present, the greater the scrutiny we ordinarily will give an arrangement”. In that case only the percentage-of-sales factor was present: neither the manufacturer nor its subsidiary billed any payer, and the agent had no contact with patients or physicians, dealing only with purchasing departments and group purchasing organizations. OIG concluded it would not seek sanctions, provided the compensation was fair market value as the requestor certified. OIG did not itself determine fair market value.
The opinion is limited by its own terms: it was issued only to the requestor, cannot be relied on by anyone else, and applies only to the arrangement described. Read it as an example of how OIG reasoned in 1998, not as a rule that percentage commissions are permitted.
Questions a buyer can ask about a supplier’s rep compensation
These questions follow directly from the sources above; they are not a legal checklist.
- Is the person selling to us an employee of the seller, or an independent agent? The applicable safe harbor differs (1001.952(i) versus 1001.952(d)(1)).
- If an independent agent, is there a written, signed agreement that specifies the services and has a term of at least one year? (1001.952(d)(1)(i) to (iii))
- Is the compensation methodology set in advance, and is it described as consistent with fair market value and not tied to the volume or value of federal program business? (1001.952(d)(1)(iv))
- Does the product sold get billed to a federal health care program, and does the agent deal directly with the clinicians who order it? These were among OIG’s listed scrutiny factors.
For how distributors and agents fit into the supply chain, see distributor agreements, medical supply wholesalers, distributors and manufacturers, and how a wholesale business operates. For vendor-fee arrangements handled under a separate safe harbor, see the GPO safe harbor.
Common mistakes
- Treating the 1% to 1.25% range in Advisory Opinion 98-10 as an industry norm. It describes one arrangement.
- Assuming an advisory opinion applies to your arrangement. By its terms it binds and protects only the requestor.
- Reading a safe harbor failure as proof of a violation, or reading an absent scrutiny factor as proof of compliance. OIG says neither is correct.
- Treating employee and independent-agent pay as one rule. They sit in different paragraphs of 42 CFR 1001.952.
FAQ
What is a commission?
A commission is pay to a salesperson or agent that depends on the sales made, often a percentage of the sale. In the arrangement OIG reviewed in Advisory Opinion 98-10, it was a monthly percentage of invoiced amounts, set in advance for each purchaser.
Is a medical device sales rep commission legal?
Paying sales staff is common, and the federal rules turn on the facts. For employees, 42 CFR 1001.952(i) excludes bona fide employee pay from “remuneration” under the Anti-Kickback Statute. For independent agents, the conditions in 1001.952(d)(1) apply if the arrangement is to fit that safe harbor. Whether a specific arrangement is lawful is a question for qualified legal counsel.
How is a medical supply sales commission different?
The commission concept is the same. In distribution, the payer may be a distributor or manufacturer and the payee an outside agent, which is the independent-agent case in the table above.
What commission rate do medical device reps earn?
The federal sources cited here give no general rate. The only figure is the 1% to 1.25% in one 1998 OIG opinion, which describes that arrangement alone.
Sources
- eCFR, 42 CFR 1001.952 (Exceptions), paragraphs (d)(1) and (i): ecfr.gov/current/title-42/section-1001.952, checked 2026-11-01.
- HHS Office of Inspector General, Advisory Opinion 98-10, posted 8 September 1998 (issued 31 August 1998): oig.hhs.gov/documents/advisory-opinions/385/AO-98-10.pdf, checked 2026-11-01.
