PRP usually costs cash while other care may be covered

PRP is commonly paid from your own pocket

PRP, or platelet-rich plasma, starts with blood drawn at the clinic. Spinning separates a liquid that holds extra platelets.

The body uses platelets to begin repairing a cut. Health plans often leave patients paying the full PRP bill themselves.

Cortisone is often covered, while coverage for medical gel depends on the plan. Physical therapy, braces, and common medicine may also have better coverage.

Coverage doesn’t show which care will ease soreness. It changes what you owe and whether the plan must approve care first.

A written quote should state what the price includes

Have the clinic list the exam, blood preparation, shot, and follow-up included in its price. Check whether the quote covers one visit or a package of three.

Research has tested both single PRP visits and groups of three. The provider should say why the quoted number fits the sore joint.

Ask what happens to prepaid money if care stops after the first visit. Get the answer in writing before paying any part of the total.

Insurance questions are best settled before the visit

Ask the clinic for the treatment name and billing code, then give both to the plan. Check coverage, prior approval, your deductible, and the share left for you.

The clinic can give its price but can’t promise what a plan will pay. Keep the written quote with the plan’s answer.

Lower cost doesn’t make repeat cortisone right forever. The exam should cover past relief, current soreness, and other care that may help.

Sources

1. Medicare's national coverage policy covers autologous platelet-rich plasma ONLY for patients with chronic non-healing diabetic, pressure and/or venous wounds, and only within an approved coverage-with-evidence-development clinical study. There is no Medicare national coverage for PRP in osteoarthritis or tendinopathy, which is why these injections are billed to the patient as cash-pay.

   Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services — Autologous Platelet-rich Plasma (Coverage with Evidence Development). CMS.gov, 2024.

2. The devices used to spin PRP at the point of care are cleared by FDA as clinical centrifuges, product code JQC, a Class I device under 21 CFR 862.2050 - for example the Biomet GPS Platelet Separation Kit (K030555, cleared 2003) and the Harvest SmartPrep2 / SmartPrep Platelet Concentration System (K103340, cleared 2010). That clearance covers the equipment that separates blood. It is not an FDA approval of platelet-rich plasma as a treatment for osteoarthritis, tendinopathy or any other orthopedic condition, and copy must never blur the two.

   U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Center for Devices and Radiological Health) — 510(k) Premarket Notification database and Product Classification: JQC, Centrifuges (Micro, Ultra, Refrigerated) For Clinical Use, 21 CFR 862.2050. FDA accessdata (CDRH device databases), 2003.

3. A Bayesian network meta-analysis restricted to LARGE randomized trials (at least 100 patients per group; 57 trials, 22,795 participants, 18 intra-articular interventions) found treatment effects were larger in the 35 high-risk-of-bias trials than in the 22 low/unclear-risk trials. Excluding high-risk trials, the effects of 16 of the 18 intra-articular interventions in knee or hip OA were smaller than the minimal clinically important difference and most were consistent with placebo effects; triamcinolone had the highest probability of exceeding the MID at weeks 2-6.

   Pereira TV, Saadat P, Bobos P, et al. — Effectiveness and safety of intra-articular interventions for knee and hip osteoarthritis based on large randomized trials: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2024.08.014.

4. In a 2-year double-blind randomized trial, intra-articular triamcinolone every 12 weeks produced significantly greater cartilage volume loss than saline (mean change in index compartment cartilage thickness -0.21 mm versus -0.10 mm; between-group difference -0.11 mm; 95% CI -0.20 to -0.03) and no significant difference in knee pain (-1.2 versus -1.9). The authors concluded the findings do not support this treatment for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis - which is the honest reason a patient may want an alternative to repeat steroid shots.

   McAlindon TE, LaValley MP, Harvey WF, et al. — Effect of Intra-articular Triamcinolone vs Saline on Knee Cartilage Volume and Pain in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA, 2017. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.5283.

5. A systematic review and meta-analysis in the BMJ concluded that strong conclusive evidence indicates viscosupplementation (hyaluronic acid) leads to only a small reduction in knee osteoarthritis pain compared with placebo - less than the minimal clinically important between-group difference - and that based on 15 large placebo-controlled trials in 6462 participants it is associated with a statistically significant higher risk of serious adverse events (relative risk 1.49; 95% CI 1.12-1.98). The findings do not support broad use of viscosupplementation.

   Pereira TV, Juni P, Saadat P, et al. — Viscosupplementation for knee osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 2022. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-069722.

6. A meta-analysis of 34 randomized trials (1403 PRP knees, 1426 control knees) found WOMAC favoured PRP over placebo at 12 months (P=.02) and over hyaluronic acid at 6 and 12 months (P<.001), and favoured PRP over steroids on VAS pain and KOOS at 6 months. Critically, the authors reported that the superiority of PRP did NOT reach the minimal clinically important difference for any outcome, and graded the quality of evidence as low.

   Filardo G, Previtali D, Napoli F, et al. — PRP Injections for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Cartilage, 2021. DOI: 10.1177/1947603520931170.

7. The AAOS third-edition clinical practice guideline for non-arthroplasty management of knee osteoarthritis contains 29 recommendations, and the work group explicitly identified intra-articular corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid AND platelet-rich plasma as areas needing better research - including osteoarthritis characterisation, severity stratification, clinically relevant outcomes with controls for bias, and cost-effectiveness analysis. PRP is presented as an open research question in this guideline, not as a settled treatment.

   Brophy RH, Fillingham YA — AAOS Clinical Practice Guideline Summary: Management of Osteoarthritis of the Knee (Nonarthroplasty), Third Edition. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 2022. DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-21-01233.

8. The 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation osteoarthritis guideline makes STRONG recommendations for exercise, weight loss in people with overweight or obesity, self-management programmes, tai chi, cane use, tibiofemoral bracing, topical and oral NSAIDs and intra-articular glucocorticoid injections for knee OA. Its conditional recommendations cover balance exercises, yoga, CBT, acupuncture, thermal modalities, radiofrequency ablation, acetaminophen, duloxetine and tramadol. Anything offered before a course of the strongly recommended options is being offered out of order.

   Kolasinski SL, Neogi T, Hochberg MC, et al. — 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation Guideline for the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hand, Hip, and Knee. Arthritis & Rheumatology, 2020. DOI: 10.1002/art.41142.

9. The OARSI non-surgical management guideline places intra-articular corticosteroids, intra-articular hyaluronic acid and aquatic exercise at Level 1B/Level 2 for KNEE osteoarthritis depending on comorbidity status, and specifically does NOT recommend them for hip or polyarticular osteoarthritis. Oral and transdermal opioids are strongly not recommended and acetaminophen is conditionally not recommended.

   Bannuru RR, Osani MC, Vaysbrot EE, et al. — OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2019.06.011.

10. A meta-analysis of 73 articles covering 5,895 patients quantified the PLACEBO response to intra-articular injection in knee osteoarthritis: statistically and clinically significant improvements in pain, function and quality of life at 1, 3 and 6 months, with responder rates above 50% at each of those points, declining by 12 months. The placebo response was stronger in trials with more female participants and in more recently published trials. This is why an uncontrolled 'our patients improved' figure carries almost no information.

    Previtali D, Boffa A, Di Laura Frattura G, et al. — Placebo response to intra-articular injections in knee osteoarthritis: magnitude, evolution over time, and influencing factors. A systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression. EFORT Open Reviews, 2025. DOI: 10.1530/EOR-2025-0022.