Dataset Information

Association Between Industry Payments to Physicians and Device Selection in ICD Implantation.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Little is known about the association between industry payments and medical device selection.

Objective

To examine the association between payments from device manufacturers to physicians and device selection for patients undergoing first-time implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D).

Design, setting, and participants

In this cross-sectional study, patients who received a first-time ICD or CRT-D device from any of the 4 major manufacturers (January 1, 2016-December 31, 2018) were identified. The data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry was linked with the Open Payments Program's payment data. Patients were categorized into 4 groups (A, B, C, and D) corresponding to the manufacturer from which the physician who performed the implantation received the largest payment. For each patient group, the proportion of patients who received a device from the manufacturer that provided the largest payment to the physician who performed implantation was determined. Within each group, the absolute difference in proportional use of devices between the manufacturer that made the highest payment and the proportion of devices from the same manufacturer in the entire study cohort (expected prevalence) was calculated.

Exposures

Manufacturers' payments to physicians who performed an ICD or CRT-D implantation.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome of the study was the manufacturer of the device used for the implantation.

Results

Over a 3-year period, 145 900 patients (median age, 65 years; 29.6% women) received ICD or CRT-D devices from the 4 manufacturers implanted by 4435 physicians at 1763 facilities. Among these physicians, 4152 (94%) received payments from device manufacturers ranging from $2 to $323 559 with a median payment of $1211 (interquartile range, $390-$3702). Between 38.5% and 54.7% of patients received devices from the manufacturers that had provided physicians with the largest payments. Patients were substantially more likely to receive devices made by the manufacturer that provided the largest payment to the physician who performed implantation than they were from each other individual manufacturer. The absolute differences in proportional use from the expected prevalence were 22.4% (95% CI, 21.9%-22.9%) for manufacturer A; 14.5% (95% CI, 14.0%-15.0%) for manufacturer B; 18.8% (95% CI, 18.2%-19.4%) for manufacturer C; and 30.6% (95% CI, 30.0%-31.2%) for manufacturer D.

Conclusions and relevance

In this cross-sectional study, a large proportion of ICD or CRT-D implantations were performed by physicians who received payments from device manufacturers. Patients were more likely to receive ICD or CRT-D devices from the manufacturer that provided the highest total payment to the physician who performed an ICD or CRT-D implantation than each other manufacturer individually.

SUBMITTER: Annapureddy AR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7610190 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA study has shown that industry payments to physicians for drugs are associated not only with higher drug prescriptions but also with higher non-drug costs due to additional utilization of healthcare services. However, the association between industry payments to cardiologists for antiplatelet drugs and the costs and number of percutaneous coronary interventions they perform has not been investigated.ObjectiveTo examine the association between industry payments to cardiologists for antiplatelet drugs and the costs and number of percutaneous coronary interventions they perform.DesignUsing the 2016 Open Payments Database linked to the 2017 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data, we examined the association between the value of industry payments related to the antiplatelet drugs prasugrel and ticagrelor and healthcare spending and volume for cardiovascular procedures, adjusted for potential cofounders.SubjectsA total of 7456 cardiologists who performed diagnostic cardiac catheterizations on Medicare beneficiaries in 2017.Main measuresPrimary outcomes included (1) healthcare spending on cardiac procedures, (2) diagnostic cardiac catheterization volumes, and (3) rates of coronary stenting. Secondary outcomes were total expenditures for all drugs and for antiplatelet drugs.Key resultsIndustry payments for antiplatelet drugs were associated with higher healthcare spending on cardiac procedures (adjusted difference, +$50.9 for additional $100 industry payments; 95% CI, +$25.5 to +$76.2; P < 0.001), diagnostic cardiac catheterizations (+0.1 procedures per cardiologist; 95% CI, +0.03 to +0.1; P=0.001), and stent use (+0.5 per 1000 diagnostic cardiac catheterizations per cardiologist; 95% CI, +0.2 to +0.9; P=0.002). Industry payments for antiplatelet drugs were associated with higher total costs for all drugs and antiplatelet drugs.ConclusionsIndustry payments to cardiologists for antiplatelet drugs were associated with both prescribing of antiplatelet drugs and the use of cardiac procedures and stents. Further research is warranted to understand whether the observed associations are causal or reflect a greater propensity for higher volume proceduralists to have relationships with industry.

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.

Project description:ImportanceGiven scrutiny over financial conflicts of interest in health care, it is important to understand the types and distribution of industry-related payments to physicians.ObjectiveTo determine the types and distribution of industry-related payments to physicians in 2015 and the association of physician specialty and sex with receipt of payments from industry.Design, setting, and participantsObservational, retrospective, population-based study of licensed US physicians (per National Plan & Provider Enumeration System) linked to 2015 Open Payments reports of industry payments. A total of 933 295 allopathic and osteopathic physicians. Outcomes were compared across specialties (surgery, primary care, specialists, interventionalists) and between 620 166 male (66.4%) and 313 129 female (33.6%) physicians using regression models adjusting for geographic Medicare-spending region and sole proprietorship.ExposuresPhysician specialty and sex.Main outcomes and measuresReported physician payment from industry (including nature, number, and value), categorized as general payments (including consulting fees and food and beverage), ownership interests (including stock options, partnership shares), royalty or license payments, and research payments. Associations between physician characteristics and reported receipt of payment.ResultsIn 2015, 449 864 of 933 295 physicians (133 842 [29.8%] women), representing approximately 48% of all US physicians were reported to have received $2.4 billion in industry payments, including approximately $1.8 billion for general payments, $544 million for ownership interests, and $75 million for research payments. Compared with 47.7% of primary care physicians (205 830 of 431 819), 61.0% of surgeons (110 604 of 181 372) were reported as receiving general payments (absolute difference, 13.3%; 95% CI, 13.1-13.6; odds ratio [OR], 1.72; P < .001). Surgeons had a mean per-physician reported payment value of $6879 (95% CI, $5895-$7862) vs $2227 (95% CI, $2141-$2314) among primary care physicians (absolute difference, $4651; 95% CI, $4014-$5288). After adjusting for geographic spending region and sole proprietorship, men within each specialty had a higher odds of receiving general payments than did women: surgery, 62.5% vs 56.5% (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.26-1.31); primary care, 50.9% vs 43.0% (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.36-1.39); specialists, 36.3% vs 33.4% (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.13-1.17); and interventionalists, 58.1% vs 40.7% (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.97-2.10; P < .001 for all tests). Similarly, men reportedly received more royalty or license payments than did women: surgery, 1.2% vs 0.03% (OR, 43.20; 95% CI, 25.02-74.57); primary care, 0.02% vs 0.002% (OR, 9.34; 95% CI, 4.11-21.23); specialists, 0.08% vs 0.01% (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.71-7.89); and for interventionalists, 0.13% vs 0.04% (OR, 7.98; 95% CI, 2.87-22.19; P < .001 for all tests).Conclusions and relevanceAccording to data from 2015 Open Payments reports, 48% of physicians were reported to have received a total of $2.4 billion in industry-related payments, primarily general payments, with a higher likelihood and higher value of payments to physicians in surgical vs primary care specialties and to male vs female physicians.

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: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: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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Financial 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. OBJECTIVE:The 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. DESIGN:This was a randomized experimental evaluation. PARTICIPANTS:There 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. INTERVENTIONS:Participants 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 MEASURES:Primary 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 RESULTS:Compared 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 ? = -0.52, p = 0.02; fidelity: Spearman's ? = -0.55, p = 0.01). Viewing the disclosure website did not affect trust ratings for the medical profession or industry. CONCLUSIONS:Disclosure 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 ).

Project description:BackgroundThe rapidly increased spending on insulin is a major public health issue in the United States. Industry marketing might be one of the upstream determinants of physicians' prescription of long-acting insulin-the most commonly used and costly type of insulin, but the evidence is lacking. We therefore aimed to investigate the association between industry payments to physicians and subsequent prescriptions of long-acting insulin.Methods and findingsUsing the databases of Open Payments and Medicare Part D, we examined the association between the receipt of industry payments for long-acting insulin in 2016 and (1) the number of claims; (2) the costs paid for all claims; and (3) the costs per claim of long-acting insulin in 2017. We also examined the association between the receipt of payments and the change in these outcomes from 2016 to 2017. We employed propensity score matching to adjust for the physician-level characteristics (sex, years in practice, specialty, and medical school attended). Among 145,587 eligible physicians treating Medicare beneficiaries, 51,851 physicians received industry payments for long-acting insulin worth $22.3 million. In the propensity score-matched analysis including 102,590 physicians, we found that physicians who received the payments prescribed a higher number of claims (adjusted difference, 57.8; 95% CI, 55.8 to 59.7), higher costs for total claims (adjusted difference, +$22,111; 95% CI, $21,387 to $22,836), and higher costs per claim (adjusted difference, +$71.1; 95% CI, $69.0 to $73.2) of long-acting insulin, compared with physicians who did not receive the payments. The association was also found for changes in these outcomes from 2016 to 2017. Limitations to our study include limited generalizability, confounding, and possible reverse causation.ConclusionsIndustry marketing payments to physicians for long-acting insulin were associated with the physicians' prescriptions and costs of long-acting insulin in the subsequent year. Future research is needed to assess whether policy interventions on physician-industry financial relationships will help to ensure appropriate prescriptions and limit overall costs of this essential drug for diabetes care.