Dataset Information

Ophthalmology Patient Perceptions of Open Payments Information.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Since 2014, medical industry payment data to physicians have been public via the Open Payments database. Patient opinions regarding these data help us to understand concerns and policymakers to improve reporting mechanisms for such payments.

Objective

To assess patient perceptions of Open Payments information.

Design, setting, and participants

This cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was conducted in 3 ophthalmology clinic sites of an academic institution in Manhattan, New York City, New York. All patients older than 18 years who were waiting for appointments were eligible. Data were collected from January to June 2016 and analyzed from June to September 2016.

Exposures

Participants answered 27 questions about the Open Payments database in English or Spanish. Demographic information was also collected.

Main outcomes and measures

Key questionnaire results included patient awareness of the Open Payments database and perceptions of physicians' financial relationships. Cronbach α validation of the survey was performed, and Poisson multivariable regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association between patient characteristics and responses.

Results

A total of 407 individuals participated. The mean (SD) age of study participants was 58.8 (17.9) years, and 220 (54.2%) were women. Of these, 30 (7.3% [95% CI, 5.1%-19.4%]) were aware of the Open Payments database, and 109 (26.8% [95% CI, 24.8%-34.0%]) planned to access it. More than half (n = 212; 53.5% [95% CI, 48.6%-58.5%]) wanted to know if their physician receives industry payments. Regarding payments of any kind valuing $100, 161 (41.9% [95% CI, 37.0%-46.9%]) disapproved. Similarly, 178 (45.8% [95% CI, 40.8%-50.7%]) disapproved of $500 payments, and 221 (57.0% [95% CI, 52.0%-61.9%]) disapproved of $25 000 payments. Poisson multivariable regression analysis demonstrated that participants who took the survey in Spanish were 38% more likely to approve of physicians receiving payments than were those who took the survey in English (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.38 [95% CI, 1.19-1.59]; P < .001). For every 1 year of age, the likelihood of approval for a physician receiving payments decreased by 1% (IRR, 0.995 [95% CI, 0.99-1.00]; P = .007). Participants with graduate degrees were 20% less likely to approve of physicians receiving payments, compared with those with less than a high school degree (IRR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.66-0.97]; P = .02).

Conclusions and relevance

If the survey is validated, and if these results are generalizable outside of the 3 academic centers in ophthalmology surveyed, the findings suggest that many patients disapprove of physicians receiving payments from industry. However, few patients had accessed the Open Payments database or planned to access it. Further investigation is required to determine if these results can be generalized for other settings.

SUBMITTER: Stein GE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6583691 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:An increased awareness of the interactions between the medical industry and health care professionals may lead to lower health care costs and more effective health care practices. To assess the characteristics of industry payments made to ophthalmologists between 2013 and 2017. This analysis included data reported in the June 29, 2018, update of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database (OPD). The OPD contains public records of industry payments made to physicians and teaching hospitals from August 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017, as reported by the medical industry. All general or research payments distributed to US ophthalmologists and contained in the OPD were included in this study. Data are summarized by practitioner, manufacturer, payment category, and geographic location. Main outcomes were the distribution, quantity, and value of payments made to ophthalmologists practicing in the United States or US territories. The financial characteristics of payment category, manufacturer, product, and location were also assessed. This analysis revealed that the OPD showed industry reporting a total of 20 943 ophthalmologists receiving 736 517 payments worth $543 679 603.53 (1.67% of all industry-reported funds in the OPD). The median payment value was $22.44. Most payments were for food and beverages (581 588 [78.96%]), whereas most funds were allocated toward research ($310 142 151.88 [57.05%]) and consulting fees ($73 565 327.71 [13.51%]). The median payout to each ophthalmologist was $637.75 (interquartile range, $167.33-$2065.54). California was the highest-grossing state, receiving $101 135 980.34 (18.60%) of all payments. Fifteen companies were responsible for 87.68% of all funds distributed ($476 719 470.11) and were mostly involved in the production of pharmaceutical agents (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents, glaucoma eyedrops, and ocular lubricants) and surgical devices (cataract and glaucoma). Although there is no way to know the veracity of these reports, the findings suggest the financial ophthalmologist-industry relationship is substantial. These relationships may be adding to health care costs and affecting the quality of care, although those associations were not evaluated in this study.

Project description:ImportanceThe ophthalmology residency application process is critical for applicants and residency programs, and knowledge about the preferences of applicants would assist both groups in improving the process.ObjectiveTo evaluate the experiences and preferences of ophthalmology residency applicants.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional, nonvalidated survey was conducted online. All applicants to the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute ophthalmology residency program during the 2018-2019 application cycle were invited to complete the survey. Data collection occurred from April 1, 2019, to April 30, 2019.Main outcomes and measuresApplicant demographics, application submissions, interview experiences, financial considerations, match results, and suggestions for improvement of the application process.ResultsResponses were received from 185 applicants (36.4%), including 77 women (41.6%). A successful match into an ophthalmology residency was achieved by 172 respondents (93.0%). There was a mean (SD) US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 score of 245.8 (13.3) points. Respondents applied to a mean (SD) of 76.4 (23.5) ophthalmology residency programs, received 14.0 (9.0) invitations to interview, and attended 10.3 (4.4) interviews. Choices regarding applications and interviews were based mostly on program reputation, location, and advisor recommendation. A usual lead time of at least 3 weeks between the invitation and interview was reported by 126 respondents (69.2%), which was reduced to 14 respondents (15.1%) when a wait-list was involved. The ophthalmology residency application process cost a mean (SD) of $5704 ($2831) per applicant. Respondents reported that they were most able to reduce costs through housing choices (hotel stays or similar arrangements) and least able to reduce costs by limiting the number of programs to which they applied or at which they interviewed.Conclusions and relevanceThe ophthalmology residency application process is complex and poses substantial challenges to applicants and residency programs. These findings suggest that many current applicants have difficulty selecting programs to apply to, and most respondents desired changes to the current system of interview invitations and scheduling.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The financial relationship between physicians and industries has become a hotly debated issue globally. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act of the US Affordable Care Act (2010) promoted transparency of the transactions between industries and physicians by making remuneration data publicly accessible in the Open Payments Program database. Meanwhile, according to the World Health Organization, the majority of all noncommunicable disease deaths were caused by cardiovascular disease. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to investigate the distribution of non-research and non-ownership payments made to thoracic surgeons, to explore the regularity of financial relationships between industries and thoracic surgeons. METHODS:Annual statistical data were obtained from the Open Payments Program general payment dataset from 2014-2016. We characterized the distribution of annual payments with single payment transactions greater than US $10,000, quantified the major expense categories (eg, Compensation, Consulting Fees, Travel and Lodging), and identified the 30 highest-paying industries. Moreover, we drew out the financial relations between industries to thoracic surgeons using chord diagram visualization. RESULTS:The three highest categories with single payments greater than US $10,000 were Royalty or License, Compensation, and Consulting Fees. Payments related to Royalty or License transferred from only 5.38% of industries to 0.75% of surgeons with the highest median (US $13,753, $11,992, and $10,614 respectively) in 3-year period. In contrast, payments related to Food and Beverage transferred from 93.50% of industries to 98.48% of surgeons with the lowest median (US $28, $27, and $27). The top 30 highest-paying industries made up approximately 90% of the total payments (US $21,036,972, $23,304,996, and $28,116,336). Furthermore, just under 9% of surgeons received approximately 80% of the total payments in each of the 3 years. Specifically, the 100 highest cumulative payments, accounting for 52.69% of the total, transferred from 27 (6.05%) pharmaceutical industries to 86 (1.89%) thoracic surgeons from 2014-2016; 7 surgeons received payments greater than US $1,000,000; 12 surgeons received payments greater than US $400,000. The majority (90%) of these surgeons received tremendous value from only one industry. CONCLUSIONS:There exists a great discrepancy in the distribution of payments by categories. Royalty or License Fees, Compensation, and Consulting Fees are the primary transferring channels of single large payments. The massive transfer from industries to surgeons has a strong "apical dominance" and excludability. Further research should focus on discovering the fundamental driving factors for the strong concentration of certain medical devices and how these payments will affect the industry itself.

Project description:Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess the self-perceived preparedness of incoming postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) and postgraduate year 2 (PGY2) ophthalmology interns/residents to carry out core competencies in ophthalmology. Methods An online survey was created using the Survey Monkey survey platform and distributed to all ophthalmology resident applicants to the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute from the 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023 application cycles. The survey contained questions pertaining to demographics, prior ophthalmic experience, online resources that were used to prepare for ophthalmology, and self-perceived preparedness to carry out key clinical skills in ophthalmology. Results A total of 170 responses were obtained (16.1% response rate). Of those, 119 (70%) were incoming PGY1 interns and 51 (30%) were incoming PGY2 residents for the 2022 to 2023 academic year. Most respondents (90.6%, n = 154) reported that their ophthalmology residency was affiliated with an integrated ophthalmology intern year. Incoming PGY2s moderately agreed with the statement that they felt as prepared to see patients in ophthalmology as they do in other surgical subspecialties, whereas incoming PGY1s only mildly agreed with that statement ( p = 0.003). Both incoming PGY1s and PGY2s felt most prepared to obtain histories relating to basic ophthalmic complaints and felt least prepared to read and interpret ophthalmic imaging studies. The most popular online resources used by respondents in order of popularity were EyeGuru (35.2%, n = 60), EyeWiki (32.9%, n = 56), Tim Root/OphthoBook (26.5%, n = 45), American Academy of Ophthalmology (13.5%, n = 23), and EyeRounds/University of Iowa (13.5%, n = 23). Conclusion A major challenge in integrating ophthalmic education into the medical school curricula is the gradual shift toward shorter preclinical curricula. However, having a core foundation of ophthalmic knowledge is critical for incoming ophthalmology residents to be able to maximize their specialty-specific training. Integrated ophthalmology intern years likely play a significant role in the increased self-efficacy of incoming PGY2s compared with incoming PGY1s. Adopting nontraditional teaching methods like flipped classroom learning, utilizing online medical education resources, and continuing to increase ophthalmology exposure during PGY1 year may better prepare incoming PGY2s to operate independently in ophthalmology settings.

Project description:Background Providing appropriate medication information to patients is of utmost importance for optimal pharmacotherapy. (Un)intentional miscommunication and information gaps resulting in unmet needs could negatively affect patient's ability to use their medication properly. Objective To identify the information needs and patient perceptions of the quality of medication information available in hospitals in the Netherlands. Setting Cardiology, oncology, or rheumatology department of five hospitals. Methods Adult cardiology, oncology, and rheumatology patients participated in this mixed-method study. Focus groups and individual interviews were held to identify patients' views on the medication information and their information needs. Outcomes were used to construct a questionnaire that was used in a survey among patients to compare existing medication information with patients' needs, and to judge the quality of the provided information. Main outcome measure Patients needs with medication information. Results Four themes derived from interviews with 44 patients: (1) Content; almost all patients acknowledged to receive insufficient information not meeting their personal needs. (2) Moment of delivery; patients were dissatisfied with the timing. (3) Method of delivery; patients highly preferred verbal and written information. (4) Contextual quality prerequisites that should be met according to patients; medication information should be accessible, comprehensive, reliable and understandable. A total of 352 patients completed the questionnaire. Almost all patients reported all items as important, whereas up to 74.6% patients were not informed. Up to half of the patients perceived verbal information from healthcare providers, written information of leaflets and folders of insufficient quality. Conclusion Patients attending Dutch hospitals have needs for extensive medication information, which should be tailored to their individual needs. According to patients the quality of medication information available in hospitals can be improved.

Project description:BackgroundIn the United States, attention has been focused on "open notes" and "open results" since the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology implemented the 21st Century Cures Act Final Rule on information blocking. Open notes is an established best practice, but open results remains controversial, especially for diseases associated with stigma, morbidity, and mortality. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with all three of these effects and represents an ideal disease for the study of open results for sensitive test results.ObjectivesThis study evaluates patient perspectives related to receiving COVID-19 test results via an online patient portal prior to discussion with a clinician.MethodsWe surveyed adults who underwent COVID-19 testing between March 1, 2020 and October 21, 2020 who agreed to be directly contacted about COVID-19-related research about their perspectives on receiving test results via a patient portal. We evaluated user roles (i.e., patient vs. care partner), demographic information, ease of use, impact of immediate release, notification of results, impact of viewing results on health management, and importance of sharing results with others.ResultsUsers were mostly patients themselves. Users found the portal easy to use but expressed mixed preferences about the means of notification of result availability (e.g., email, text, or phone call). Users found immediate access to results useful for managing their health, employment, and family/childcare. Many users shared their results and encouraged others to get tested. Our cohort consisted mostly of non-Hispanic white, highly educated, English-speaking patients.ConclusionOverall, patients found open results useful for COVID-19 testing and few expressed increased worries from receiving their results via the patient portal. The demographics of our cohort highlight the need for further research in patient portal equity in the age of open results.