Open data on industry payments to healthcare providers reveal potential hidden costs to the public.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mejia J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6754508 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Open data on industry payments to healthcare providers reveal potential hidden costs to the public.
Mejia Jorge J Mejia Amanda A Pestilli Franco F
Nature communications 20190920 1
Healthcare industry players make payments to medical providers for non-research expenses. While these payments may pose conflicts of interest, their relationship with overall healthcare costs remains largely unknown. In this study, we linked Open Payments data on providers' industry payments with Medicare data on healthcare costs. We investigated 374,766 providers' industry payments and healthcare costs. We demonstrate that providers receiving higher amounts of industry payments tend to bill hig ...[more]
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.
| S-EPMC6613310 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6294877 | biostudies-other
Project description:ImportanceTransparency of industry payments to physicians could engender greater public trust in physicians but might also lead to greater mistrust of physicians and the medical profession, adversely affecting the patient-physician relationship.ObjectiveTo examine the association between nationwide public disclosure of industry payments and Americans' trust in their physicians and trust in the medical profession.Design, setting, and participantsSurvey study using difference-in-difference analyses of a national longitudinal survey comparing changes in states where industry payments were newly disclosed by Open Payments with changes in states where payments information was already available because of state sunshine laws. The US population-based surveys were conducted in September 2014-shortly before the initial public disclosure of industry payments-and again in September 2016. Final analyses were conducted September through December 2018. Participants were adults 18 years and older (n = 1388).ExposuresNational public disclosure through Open Payments of payments made by pharmaceutical and medical device firms to physicians.Main outcomes and measuresWake Forest measure of trust in one's own physician and Wake Forest measure of trust in the medical profession.ResultsOf the 3542 original survey respondents, 2180 (61.5%) completed the second survey 2 years later, and 1388 named the same most frequently seen physician in both surveys. The mean age of respondents at the time of the first survey was 53 years, and 749 (54.0%) were women. Race/ethnicity was white in 76.6% (1063 of 1388) and non-Hispanic black in 8.0% (111 of 1388). Public disclosure of payments was associated with lower trust in one's own physician regardless of whether respondents knew their physicians had received payments (decrease in Wake Forest measure of trust in one's own physician of 0.56 point; 95% CI, -0.79 to -0.32 point; P < .001). Open Payments was also associated with lower trust in the medical profession (decrease in Wake Forest measure of trust in the medical profession of 0.35 point; 95% CI, -0.58 to -0.12 point; P = .004).Conclusions and relevanceNationwide public disclosure of industry payments may be associated with decreased trust in physicians and in the medical profession. More judicious presentation of payments information may counteract unintended negative trust and spillover consequences of public disclosure.
| S-EPMC6481437 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The U.S. Physician Payments Sunshine Act mandates the reporting of payments or items of value received by physicians from drug, medical device, and biological agent manufacturers. The impact of these payments on physician prescribing has not been examined at large scale. METHODS:We linked public Medicare Part D prescribing data and Sunshine Act data for 2013. Physician payments were examined descriptively within specialties, and then for association with prescribing costs and patterns using regression models. Models were adjusted for potential physician-level confounding features, including sex, geographic region, and practice size. RESULTS:Among 725,169 individuals with Medicare prescribing data, 341,644 had documented payments in the OPP data (47.1%). Among all physicians receiving funds, mean payment was $1750 (SD $28336); median was $138 (IQR $48-$394). Across the 12 specialties examined, a dose-response relationship was observed in which greater payments were associated with greater prescribing costs per patient. In adjusted regression models, being in the top quintile of payment receipt was associated with incremental prescribing cost per patient ranging from $27 (general surgery) to $2931 (neurology). Similar associations were observed with proportion of branded prescriptions written. CONCLUSIONS:While distribution and amount of payments differed widely across medical specialties, for each of the 12 specialties examined the receipt of payments was associated with greater prescribing costs per patient, and greater proportion of branded medication prescribing. We cannot infer a causal relationship, but interventions aimed at those physicians receiving the most payments may present an opportunity to address prescribing costs in the US.
| S-EPMC4868346 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Open Payments program implements Section 6002 of the Affordable Care Act requiring medical product manufacturers to report payments made to physicians or teaching hospitals as well as ownership or investment interests held by physicians in the manufacturer. To determine the characteristics and distribution of these industry payments by specialty, we analyzed physician payments made between August 1, 2013, and December 31, 2013, that were publicly disclosed by Open Payments. We compared payments between specialty types (medical, surgical, and other) and across specialties within each type using the Pearson χ(2) test and the Kruskal-Wallis test. The number of physicians receiving payments was compared with the total number of active physicians in each specialty in 2012. We also analyzed physician ownership interests. Allopathic and osteopathic physicians received 2.43 million payments totaling $475 million. General payments represented 90% of payments by total value ($430 million) (per-physician median, $100; interquartile range [IQR], $31-$273; mean ± SD, $1407±$23,766), with the remaining 10% ($45 million) as research payments (median, $2365; IQR, $592-$8550; mean ± SD, $12,880±$66,743). Physicians most likely to receive general payments were cardiovascular specialists (78%) and neurosurgeons (77%); those least likely were pathologists (9%). Reports of ownership interest in reporting entities included $310 million in dollar amount invested and $447 million in value of interest held by 2093 physicians. In conclusion, the distribution and characteristics of industry payments to physicians varied widely by specialty during the first half-year of Open Payments reporting.
| S-EPMC4739814 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Physician Payments Sunshine Act, part of the Affordable Care Act, requires pharmaceutical and medical device firms to report payments they make to physicians and, through its Open Payments program, makes this information publicly available.ObjectiveTo establish estimates of the exposure of the American patient population to physicians who accept industry payments, to compare these population-based estimates to physician-based estimates of industry contact, and to investigate Americans' awareness of industry payments.DesignCross-sectional survey conducted in late September and early October 2014, with data linkage of respondents' physicians to Open Payments data.ParticipantsA total of 3542 adults drawn from a large, nationally representative household panel.Main measuresRespondents' contact with physicians reported in Open Payments to have received industry payments; respondents' awareness that physicians receive payments from industry and that payment information is publicly available; respondents' knowledge of whether their own physician received industry payments.Key resultsAmong the 1987 respondents who could be matched to a specific physician, 65% saw a physician who had received an industry payment during the previous 12 months. This population-based estimate of exposure to industry contact is much higher than physician-based estimates from the same period, which indicate that 41% of physicians received an industry payment. Across the six most frequently visited specialties, patient contact with physicians who had received an industry payment ranged from 60 to 85%; the percentage of physicians with industry contact in these specialties was much lower (35-56%). Only 12% of survey respondents knew that payment information was publicly available, and only 5% knew whether their own doctor had received payments.ConclusionsPatients' contact with physicians who receive industry payments is more prevalent than physician-based measures of industry contact would suggest. Very few Americans know whether their own doctor has received industry payments or are aware that payment information is publicly available.
| S-EPMC5481229 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10664436 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFinancial ties between physicians and the pharmaceutical and medical device industry are common, but little is known about how patient trust is affected by these ties.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate how viewing online public disclosure of industry payments affects patients' trust ratings for physicians, the medical profession, and the pharmaceutical and medical device industry.DesignThis was a randomized experimental evaluation.ParticipantsThere were 278 English-speaking participants over age 18 who had seen a healthcare provider in the previous 12 months who took part in the study.InterventionsParticipants searched for physicians on an online disclosure database, viewed payments from industry to the physicians, and assigned trust ratings. Participants were randomized to view physicians who received no payment ($0), low payment ($250-300), or high payment (>$13,000) from industry, or to a control arm in which they did not view the disclosure website. They also were asked to search for and then rate trust in their own physician.Main measuresPrimary outcomes were trust in individual physician, medical profession, and industry. These scales measure trust as a composite of honesty, fidelity, competence, and global trust.Key resultsCompared to physicians who received no payments, physicians who received payments over $13,000 received lower ratings for honesty [mean (SD): 3.36 (0.86) vs. 2.75 (0.95), p < 0.001] and fidelity [3.19 (0.65) vs. 2.89 (0.68), p = 0.01]. Among the 7.9% of participants who found their own physician on the website, ratings for honesty and fidelity decreased as the industry payment to the physician increased (honesty: Spearman's ρ = -0.52, p = 0.02; fidelity: Spearman's ρ = -0.55, p = 0.01). Viewing the disclosure website did not affect trust ratings for the medical profession or industry.ConclusionsDisclosure of industry payments to physicians affected perceptions of individual physician honesty and fidelity, but not perceptions of competence. Disclosure did not affect trust ratings for the medical profession or the pharmaceutical and medical device industry. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02179632 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02179632 ).
| S-EPMC5653550 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceReported transfers of value (TOV) from pharmaceutical companies have been associated with greater use of branded anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents by ophthalmologists, but payment under the Medicare Part B buy-and-bill model includes a financial incentive to choose costlier agents, potentially confounding analyses of pharmaceutical TOV and prescribing patterns. How these reported TOV are associated with prescribing patterns for prescription eye drops, not subject to the incentives created by Part B payments, should be considered.ObjectiveTo assess the association between prostaglandin analog (PGA) eye drop prescribing and reported nonresearch TOV by makers of branded PGAs to US vision care professionals.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort analysis used a 20% nationally representative sample of 2018 Medicare Part D claims and industry TOV reported to the Open Payments program. Optometrists and ophthalmologists who had more than 10 claims for PGA drops in the 20% sample were analyzed. Analysis took place from June 2021 to February 2022.Main outcomes and measuresMultivariable logistic regression assessing the association between membership in strata of reported TOV and branded PGA prescribing rate, controlling for prescriber demographic factors, local area practices, total PGA prescribing volume, and plan formularies involved.ResultsA total of 20 612 ophthalmologists and 5426 optometrists (7449 [29%] female and 18 589 [71%] male) prescribed PGA eye drops. Of these, 9685 (37%) were reported to have received TOV from manufacturers of branded PGAs in 2018, totaling $5 060 346. The median (IQR) reported TOV was $65 ($24-$147). Multivariable logistic regression showed that the predicted probability of primarily prescribing branded PGAs among prescribers who reported receiving no TOV was 12.9% (95% CI, 12.4%-13.4%). This figure increased to 19.6% (95% CI, 18.8%-20.4%) among prescribers receiving TOV, a 50% increase. There was a dose-response association, such that the top 10% of TOV recipients had a 29.2% probability (95% CI, 26.4%-31.9%) of preferential branded use.Conclusions and relevanceWhile the median reported TOV to a PGA prescriber was relatively low in this study, there was a positive association between amount of reported nonresearch TOV received from PGA makers and the frequency of branded PGA use. This shows that small reported TOV were associated with differences in prescribing. High rates of branded PGA prescribing may pose a cost burden to patients that affects adherence. Clinicians and policy makers should be aware of these associations.
| S-EPMC9335252 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceRising pharmaceutical costs in the United States are an increasing source of financial burden for payers and patients. Although topical steroids are among the most commonly prescribed medications in dermatology, there are limited data on steroid-related spending and utilization.ObjectiveTo characterize Medicare and patient out-of-pocket costs for topical steroids, and to model potential savings that could result from substitution of the cheapest topical steroid from the corresponding potency class.Design, setting, and participantsThis study was a retrospective cost analysis of the Medicare Part D Prescriber Public Use File, which details annual drug utilization and spending on both generic and branded drugs from 2011 to 2015 by Medicare Part D participants who filled prescriptions for topical steroids.Main outcomes and measuresTotal and potential Medicare and out-of-pocket patient spending. Costs were adjusted for inflation and reported in 2015 dollars.ResultsMedicare Part D expenditures on topical steroids between 2011 and 2015 were $2.3 billion. Patients' out-of-pocket spending for topical steroids over the same period was $333.7 million. The total annual spending increased from $237.6 million to $775.9 million, an increase of 226.5%. Patients' annual out-of-pocket spending increased from $41.4 million to $101.8 million, an increase of 145.9%. The total number of prescriptions were 7.7 million in 2011 and 10.6 million in 2015, an increase of 37.0%. Generic medication costs accounted for 97.8% of the total spending during this time period. The potential health care savings and out-of-pocket patient savings from substitution of the cheapest topical steroid within the corresponding potency class were $944.8 million and $66.6 million, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceMost topical steroids prescribed were generic drugs. There has been a sharp increase in Medicare and out-of-pocket spending on topical steroids that is driven by higher costs for generics. Use of clinical decision support tools to enable substitution of the most affordable generic topical steroid from the corresponding potency class may reduce drug expenditures.
| S-EPMC5817604 | biostudies-literature