Project description:BackgroundPersonal payments from the pharmaceutical industry to US physicians are common and are associated with changes in physicians' clinical practice and interpretation of clinical trial results. We assessed temporal trends in industry payments to oncologists, with particular emphasis on payments to authors of oncology clinical practice guideline and on payments related to immunotherapy drugs.MethodsWe included US physicians with active National Plan and Provider Enumeration System records and demographic data available in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician Compare system who had a specialty type of medical oncology or general internal medicine. Medical oncologists serving on NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) Panels were identified manually. Industry payments, and the subset associated with PD-1/PD-L1 drugs, were identified in Open Payments, the federal repository of all transactions of financial value from industry to physicians and teaching hospitals, from 2014 to 2017.ResultsThere were 13,087 medical oncologists and 85,640 internists who received payments. The mean, annual, per-physician value of payments to oncologists increased from $3,811 in 2014 to $5,854 in 2017, and from $444 to $450 for internists; the median payment increased from $152 to $199 for oncologists and remained at $0 for internists. Oncologists who served on NCCN Guidelines Panels received a greater value in payments and experienced a greater relative increase: mean payments increased from $10,820 in 2014 to $18,977 in 2017, and median payments increased from $500 to $1,366. Among companies marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs, mean annual per-oncologist payments associated with PD-1/PD-L1 drugs increased from $28 to $773. Total per-oncologist payments from companies marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs experienced a 165% increase from 2014 to 2017, compared with a 31% increase among similar companies not marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs.ConclusionsPharmaceutical industry payments increased for US oncologists from 2014 to 2017 more than for general internists. The increase was greater among oncologists contributing to clinical practice guidelines and among pharmaceutical companies marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs. The increasing flow of money from industry to US oncologists supports ongoing concern regarding commercial interests in guideline development and clinical decision-making.

Project description:BackgroundIndustry-physician collaboration is critical for anticancer therapeutic development, but financial relationships introduce conflicts of interest. We examined the specialty variation and context of physician payments and ownership interest among oncologists.MethodsWe performed a population-based multivariable analysis of 2014 Open Payments reports of industry payments to US physicians matched to physician and practice data, including sex, specialty, practice location, and sole proprietor status. Payment data were aggregated per physician and compared by specialty (medical, radiation, surgical, and nononcology), and practice location linked with spending level (low, average, and high). Primary outcomes included likelihood, mean annual amount, and number of general payments. Secondary outcomes included likelihood of holding ownership interests and receipt of royalty/license payments. Estimates for each outcome were determined using multivariable models, including logistic regression for likelihood and linear regression with gamma distribution and log-link for value, adjusted for physician specialty, sex, sole proprietor status, and practice spending. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsIn 2014, there were 883 438 physicians, including 22 712 oncologists, licensed to practice in the United States. Among oncology specialties, 52.4% to 63.0% of physicians received a general payment in 2014, totaling $76 million, $4 million, and $5 million to medical, radiation, and surgical oncology, respectively. The median annual per-physician payment to medical oncologists was $632 (IQR = 136-2500), compared with $124 (IQR = 39-323) in radiation oncology and $250 (IQR = 84-1369) in surgical oncology. After controlling for physician and practice characteristics, oncologists were 1.09 to 1.75 times as likely to receive a general payment compared with nononcologists (overall P < 001). There was a 67.6% difference (95% confidence interval [CI] = 63.6 to 71.5, P < .001) in the mean annual value of payments between medical oncology and nononcology specialties (vs -92.7%, 95%CI = -100.2 to -85.0, P < .001] for radiation oncology). Medical and radiation oncologists were more likely to hold ownership interest (adjusted OR = 3.72, 95% CI = 3.22 to 4.27, and 2.27, 95% CI = 1.65 to 3.03, respectively, P < .001 both comparisons).ConclusionsIn 2014, industry-oncologist financial relationships were common, and their impact on oncology practice should be further explored.

Project description:IntroductionThe emergence of popular online rating websites, social media platforms, and public databases for industry payments and scholarly outputs provide a complete physician online presence which may guide choice and satisfaction.MethodsWebsites of all U.S. otolaryngology academic institutions were queried for fellowship-trained rhinologists. Additional well-known and academically active rhinologists were identified by the senior author. Online ratings and comments were collected from Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, and RateMD websites, and weighted rating scores (RS) were calculated on a 1-5 scale.ResultsA total of 210 rhinologists with 16 ± 9 years of practice were included, where 6901 online ratings (33 ± 47 per rhinologist) provided an average RS of 4.3 ± 0.6. RS was not different according to gender (p = 0.58), geographic quartile (p = 0.48), social media presence (p = 0.41), or attending top-ranked medical school (p = 0.86) or residency programs (p = 0.89). Years of practice negatively correlated with RS (R = -0.22, p<0.01), and academic ranking significantly influenced RS, with professors, associate professors, and assistant professors scoring 4.1 ± 0.6, 4.3 ± 0.4, and 4.4 ± 0.6, respectively (p = 0.03). Of the 3,304 narrative comments analyzed (3.1 ± 11.6 per rhinologist), 76% (positive) and 7% (negative) had elements of clinical knowledge/outcomes, 56% (positive) and 7% (negative) of communication/bedside manner, and 9% (positive) and 7% (negative) of office staff, cost, and wait-time. All negative comment categories had moderate negative correlation with RS, while positive comment categories regarding knowledge/competence and bedside manner weakly correlated with higher RS. Number of publications (48 ± 54) positively correlated with 2018 industry payments ($11,384 ± $19,025) among those receiving industry compensation >$300 (n = 113). Attending a top-ranked medical school was associated with higher industry payments (p<0.01) and H-index (p = 0.02).ConclusionAcademic rhinologists' online RS was not associated with gender, geographic location, or attending a top-ranked training program, and their scholarly productivity was significantly correlated with total industry payments.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To investigate the association between physician characteristics and the value of industry payments. DESIGN:Observational study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:Using the 2015-2017 Open Payments reports of industry payments linked to the Physician Compare database, we examined the association between physician characteristics (physician sex, years in practice, medical school attended and specialty) and the industry payment value, adjusting for other physician characteristic and institution fixed effects (effectively comparing physicians practicing at the same institution). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Our primary outcome was the value of total industry payments to physicians including (1) general payments (all forms of payments other than those classified for research purpose, eg, consulting fees, food, beverage), (2) research payments (payments for research endeavours under a written contract or protocol) and (3) ownership interests (eg, stock or stock options, bonds). We also investigated each category of payment separately. RESULTS:Of 544 264 physicians treating Medicare beneficiaries, a total of $5.8 billion in industry payments were made to 365 801 physicians during 2015-2017. The top 5% of physicians, by cumulative payments, accounted for 91% of industry payments. Within the same institution, male physicians, physicians with 21-30 years in practice and physicians who attended top 50 US medical schools (based on the research ranking) received higher industry payments. Across specialties, orthopaedic surgeons, neurosurgeons and endocrinologists received the highest payments. When we investigated individual types of payment, we found that orthopaedic surgeons received the highest general payments; haematologists/oncologists were the most likely to receive research payments and surgeons were the most likely to receive ownership interests compared with other types of physicians. CONCLUSIONS:Industry payments to physicians were highly concentrated among a small number of physicians. Male sex, longer length of time in clinical practice, graduated from a top-ranked US medical school and practicing certain specialties, were independently associated with higher industry payments.

Project description:BackgroundIn 2016, orthopaedic surgeons received nearly USD 300 million from industry, with the top 10% of recipients making more than 95% of the total amount. The degree to which gender may be associated with industry compensation has not been well explored; however, this may be confounded by a number of variables, including academic productivity, experience, and other factors. We wished to explore the variability in payment distribution by gender after controlling for these factors.Questions/purposes(1) Do men or women academic orthopaedic surgeons receive more payments from industry? (2) To what degree do any observed differences between the genders persist, even after accounting for identifiable factors, including academic rank, scholarly productivity, regional location of university, subspecialty selection as identified by fellowships completed, and years since completion of residency?MethodsThis study was a cross-sectional retrospective analysis of surgeons practicing in orthopaedic surgery academic departments in the United States. Academic orthopaedic surgery departments were identified using the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database. Publicly available data on gender, academic rank, scholarly productivity, regional location of university, fellowships completed, and years since residency graduation were collected from institutional websites. Industry funding data for 2016 were obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database, and scholarly productivity data through 2017 were collected from Scopus. A total of 2939 academic orthopaedic surgeons, 2620 (89%) men and 319 (11%) women from 126 programs were identified. Men and women surgeons were different in most of the variables collected, and all except region of university were associated with differences in industry payments.ResultsThe median payment for men surgeons was greater than that for women (USD 1027 [interquartile range USD 125-USD 9616] versus USD 177 [IQR USD 47-USD 1486]; difference of medians, USD 850; p < 0.001]. After accounting for potentially confounding variables like faculty rank, years since residency, H-index and subspecialty choice, women faculty members still received only 29% of payments received by otherwise comparable men orthopaedists (beta coefficient for gender = 0.29 [95% CI 0.20 to 0.44; p < 0.001]).ConclusionsWomen academic orthopaedic surgeons received only 29% of the industry payments received by men, even after controlling for faculty rank, years since residency, H-index, and subspecialty selection. This gender-related disparity may hinder the career advancement of women orthopaedic surgeons.Clinical relevanceIncreased transparency by companies can help guide orthopaedic surgeons who wish to receive industry funding.

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:ImportanceThose responsible for medical education-specialties, sponsoring institutions, and program directors (PD)-are independently associated with the professional identity formation of the trainees with respect to potential conflicts of interest.ObjectiveTo identify the relative degree to which factors in the training environment are associated with resident acceptance of payments from pharmaceutical and medical device companies.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional, retrospective study of residents enrolled in the 3 largest primary-care specialties (internal medicine [IM], family medicine [FM], obstetrics and gynecology [OBGYN]) and 3 largest surgical disciplines (general surgery [GS], orthopedic surgery, and urology) during academic year 2020 to 2021. All analyses were conducted January through August 2023.ExposuresSpecialty, sponsoring institutions' ownership (nonprofit, for-profit, federal government, local government, or state government), and the number of payments PDs accepted.Main outcomes and measuresModified Poisson regression assessed the relative risk of ownership, specialty, and PD behavior on residents' acceptance of industry payments as recorded in the Open Payments Program (OPP) database.ResultsIn total, there were 124 715 residents in all training programs during 2020 to 2021, 12% of whom received payments totaling $6.4 million. There were 65 992 residents in training during 2020 to 2021 in the 6 specialties evaluated in this study, with 4438 in orthopedics, 1779 in urology, 9177 in GS, 5819 in OBGYN, 14 493 in FM, and 30 286 in IM. OPP records $3.9 million in payments to the 8750 residents (13.4%) who received at least 1 industry payment. The record of all payments to residents in OPP totals $6.4 million. Compared with residents in federal sponsoring institutions, those affiliated with for-profit institutions were 3.50 (95% CI, 2.32-5.28) times more likely to accept industry payments, while those affiliated with nonprofit organizations were 2.00 (95% CI, 1.36-2.93) times more likely to accept payments. Compared with IM, residents in each of the following specialties have an elevated risk of accepting payments: orthopedics, 3.21 (95% CI, 2.73-3.77) times; urology, 2.95 (95% CI, 2.44-3.56) times; GS, 1.21 (95% CI, 1.00-1.45) times; OBGYN, 1.30 (95% CI, 1.05-1.62) times. The difference in the risk of accepting a payment between FM and IM residents was not statistically significant. The number of payments PDs accepted slightly elevated the risk of residents to accept a payment by 1.01 (95% CI, 1.01-1.01).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional, retrospective study, receipt of industry payments by residents was associated with specialty, institutional control, and PD behavior.

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:Importance:It is well documented that financial conflicts of interest influence medical research and clinical practice. Prior to the Open Payments provisions of the Affordable Care Act, financial ties became apparent only through self-disclosure. The nature of financial interests has not been studied among physicians who develop dermatology clinical practice guidelines. Objective:To evaluate payments received by physicians who author dermatology clinical practice guidelines, compare disclosure statements for accuracy, determine whether pharmaceutical companies from which the authors received payments manufactured products related to the guidelines, and examine the extent to which the American Academy of Dermatology enforced their Administrative Regulations for guideline development. Design, Setting, and Participants:Three American Academy of Dermatology guidelines published from 2013 to 2016 were retrieved. Double data extraction was used to record financial payments received by 49 guideline authors using the Open Payments database. Payments received by the authors from the date of the initial literature search to the date of publication were used to evaluate disclosure statement accuracy, detail the companies providing payments, and evaluate Administrative Regulations enforcement. This study is applicable to clinical practice guideline panels drafting recommendations, physicians using clinical practice guidelines to inform patient care, and those establishing policies for guideline development. Main Outcomes and Measures:Our main outcomes are the monetary values and types of payments received by physicians who author dermatology guidelines and the accuracy of disclosure statements. Data were collected from the Open Payments database and analyzed descriptively. Results:Of the 49 authors evaluated, 40 received at least 1 reported industry payment, 31 accepted more than $1000, 25 accepted more than $10?000, and 18 accepted more than $50?000. Financial payments amounted to a mean of $157?177 per author. The total reimbursement among the 49 authors from 2013 to 2015 was $7?701?681. Of the 40 authors receiving payments, 22 did not accurately disclose industry relationships. Authors received payments from companies with products directly related to the guideline topic. Violations to the Administrative Regulations were found. Conclusions and Relevance:Dermatology clinical practice guideline authors received sizable industry payments and did not completely disclose these payments. The American Academy of Dermatology policies may benefit from stricter enforcement or the adoption of new standards.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Industry Payments in 2017 With Annual Salary in a Cohort of Academic Oncologists.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets