Dataset Information

Men Receive Three Times More Industry Payments than Women Academic Orthopaedic Surgeons, Even After Controlling for Confounding Variables.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In 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?

Methods

This 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.

Results

The 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]).

Conclusions

Women 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 relevance

Increased transparency by companies can help guide orthopaedic surgeons who wish to receive industry funding.

SUBMITTER: Forrester LA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7310494 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: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: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.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To examine the ability of surgeons to predict the outcome of treatment for meniscal tears by arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) and exercise therapy in middle-aged patients. DESIGN AND SETTING:Electronic survey. Orthopaedic surgeon survey participants were presented 20 patient profiles. These profiles were derived from a randomised clinical trial comparing APM with exercise therapy in middle-aged patients with symptomatic non-obstructive meniscal tears. From each treatment group (APM and exercise therapy), we selected five patients with the best (responders) and five patients with the worst (non-responders) knee function after treatment. 1111 orthopaedic surgeons and residents in the Netherlands and Australia were invited to participate in the survey. INTERVENTIONS:For each of the 20 patient profiles, surgeons (unaware of treatment allocation) had to choose between APM and exercise therapy as preferred treatment and subsequently had to estimate the expected change in knee function for both treatments on a 5-point Likert Scale. Finally, surgeons were asked which patient characteristics affected their treatment choice. MAIN OUTCOMES:The primary outcome was the surgeons' percentage correct predictions. We also compared this percentage between experienced knee surgeons and other orthopaedic surgeons, and between treatment responders and non-responders. RESULTS:We received 194 (17%) complete responses for all 20 patient profiles, resulting in 3880 predictions. Overall, 50.0% (95% CI 39.6% to 60.4%) of the predictions were correct, which equals the proportion expected by chance. Experienced knee surgeons were not better in predicting outcome than other orthopaedic surgeons (50.4% vs 49.5%, respectively; p=0.29). The percentage correct predictions was lower for patient profiles of non-responders (34%; 95%?CI 21.3% to 46.6%) compared with responders (66.0%; 95%?CI 57.0% to 75.0%; p=0.01).In general, bucket handle tears, knee locking and failed non-operative treatment directed the surgeons' choice towards APM, while higher level of osteoarthritis, degenerative aetiology and the absence of locking complaints directed the surgeons' choice towards exercise therapy. CONCLUSIONS:Surgeons' criteria for deciding that surgery was indicated did not pass statistical examination. This was true regardless of a surgeon's experience. These results suggest that non-surgical management is appropriate as first-line therapy in middle-aged patients with symptomatic non-obstructive meniscal tears. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03462134.

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.