RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent of payments from medical device and pharmaceutical companies to editorial board members of leading otolaryngology journals. METHODS: Editorial board members of the top 10 otolaryngology journals from Google Scholar rankings were identified in this cross-sectional study. Payments between 2017 and 2022 were identified via the Open Payments Database from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. All payment data was adjusted for inflation in 2022 US dollars. Descriptive analyses were performed and journal websites were evaluated for individual editor disclosures. RESULTS: Out of 581 board members, 306 (53 %) received industry payments between 2017 and 2022, median journal percentage 55 % (interquartile range: 26.5 %-73.5 %). A sum of $45.8 million was paid out between 2017 and 2022, comprising $32.0 million in associated research funding, $1.2 million in research payments, $1.4 million in ownership and investment interests, and $11.2 million in general payments. The largest general payments were made out for "services other than consulting and speaking" ($3.9 million), "consulting" ($3.8 million), "travel and lodging" ($0.99 million), "education" ($0.87 million), "royalty or license" ($0.56 million), and "food and beverage" ($0.55 million). Individual editor disclosures were only available for International Forum of Allergy and Rhinology (9 % of all included editors). CONCLUSIONS: Industry payments to editors of otolaryngology journals are not uncommon. We highlight the need for improved reporting of individual editor disclosures for transparency to journal readers and for minimizing biased editorial decisions.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To explore the financial interactions between urology residents and the healthcare industry over a 5-year training period, assessing the implications of these interactions on medical education and practice considering the Physician Payments Sunshine Act. DESIGN: Longitudinal analysis of Open Payments data for a single class of urology residents from 2018 to 2023. SETTING: Data were extracted from the CMS Open Payments Database and cross-referenced with residency program information from the American Urological Association (AUA) and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of 314 urology residents were identified to have matched in 2018, with 173 residents having reported financial interactions through the Open Payments Program (OPP), representing 55% of the cohort. RESULTS: Analysis revealed that $129,632 was disbursed to the 173 residents throughout their surgical training, with a significant majority (approximately three-quarters or around $100,000) allocated for food and beverage. A statistically significant difference in payment amounts was observed between genders, with male residents receiving an average of $869 compared to $454 for female residents. Payments increased progressively with each postgraduate year (PGY) level, peaking in the fifth year. Despite notable disparities in compensation across AUA sections, no statistically significant variation was found (p = 0.21). The study also highlighted the underestimation of industry influence due to discretionary and heterogeneous reporting practices. CONCLUSIONS: The study underscores a significant, yet potentially underreported, financial interaction between urology residents and the healthcare industry, suggesting a deepening relationship as residents progress through their training. The findings call for a more uniform reporting system to enhance transparency and provide a clearer understanding of the industry's role in medical education and practice. Additionally, many residents may not be aware that their financial interactions are being documented and made public, a factor that could influence their professional behavior and expectations.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Introduction The authors examined if the transparency in industry payments to foot and ankle-trained orthopedic surgeons resulted in the following changes to the (1) median general payments to surgeons, (2) trend in median payments to surgeons across all subcategory payments, and (3) trend in median payments to surgeons in 11 regions of the United States. Methods A retrospective review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and Open Payments Database (OPD) was performed to identify all industry payments made by drug and medical device companies to orthopedic surgeons (N = 3,835) between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and trend analyses in annual payments, number of payments to surgeons per year, payment subtypes, and regional distributions were analyzed. Results A total of 53,280 payments totaling $53,454,850.56 were made to orthopedic foot and ankle surgeons between 2014 and 2019. Mean and median payments were $1,003.28 and $60.19, respectively. Statistically significant differences in mean payment amounts were observed by year (p = 0.001) with a highly statistically significant, strong increase in the number of payments made over the six-year period (r = 0.97, p < 0.001). The greatest increases in median individual payments were observed for gifts (277.1%; r = 0.18, p = 0.05), education (250.6%; r = 0.17, p < 0.001), and royalties and licensing (72.1%; r = 0.05, p = 0.04). Statistically significant increasing trends in median payments over time were observed for the Northeast (p < 0.001) and South regions (p < 0.001). Discussion The results of this study demonstrate the increase in payments made across the six-year time period. The study demonstrates that there is a shift in the type of payments from speaker fees, entertainment, and lodging to education, gifts, honoraria, royalties, and consulting. Conclusion Since the OPD release, no significant decrease was identified in the financial relationship between foot and ankle surgeons and the industry; rather, an increase was observed. This increase in education, royalties, and consulting shows that more foot and ankle surgeons are getting involved in the industry, contrary to expectations. The partnership between industry and physicians can help to improve innovation and bring new ideas to the future of orthopedics.

RESUMEN

Introduction Since the passage of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) started the National Physician Payment Transparency Program and Open Payments Database (OPD), which allowed for public access to financial disclosures between physicians and industry. Although orthopedic surgeons receive the highest average payments when compared to other specialties, there has been limited data evaluating these payments among the different orthopedic subspecialties. The purpose of this study was to analyze all industry payments made across all subspecialties among orthopedic surgeons. Methods A retrospective review of the CMS OPD was performed to identify all industry payments made by drug and medical device companies to orthopedic surgeons (N = 28,475) between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the number, individual value, and total value of industry payments, stratified by payment type and orthopedic subspecialty. Results A total of 1,048,573 payments (approximately $1.6 billion) were made to orthopedic surgeons between 2014 and 2019. The average orthopedic surgeon received 6.14 payments per year (SD = 29.39), with a mean individual payment amount of $1,542.32. Royalties or licensing comprised the greatest proportion of open payments, followed by consulting fees. Adult reconstruction (M = $225,131.10) and spine (M = $197,404.74) received significantly greater total payments when compared to all other subspecialties (all p-values ≤ 0.001). Differences in total payments made to trauma (M = $73,789.65), sports medicine (M = $60,988.09), foot and ankle (M = $45,007.45), pediatric orthopaedics (M = $35,898.54), general orthopaedics (M = $28,405.81), and hand (M = $14,027.76) were all found to be statistically equivalent (all p--values > 0.20). Discussion Increased collaboration between physicians and industry has resulted in the rapid advancement of innovation that can have sizeable financial implications among orthopedic surgeons. There exists significant heterogeneity in open payments made to orthopedic surgeons when stratified by subspecialty. Adult reconstructive and spine surgeons were the most compensated whereas hand and general orthopaedic surgeons received the least.

RESUMEN

Financial interactions between healthcare industry and pediatric hematologist/oncologists (PHOs) could be conflicts of interest. Nevertheless, little is known about financial relationships between healthcare industry and PHOs. This cross-sectional analysis of the Open Payments Database examined general and research payments to PHOs from healthcare industry in the United States between 2013 and 2021. Payments to the PHOs were analyzed descriptively. Trends in payments were assessed using generalized estimating equation models. Of 2784 PHOs, 2142 (76.9%) PHOs received payments totaling $187.3 million from the healthcare industry between 2013 and 2021. Approximately, $46.3 million (24.8%) were general payments and $137.7 million (73.5%) were funding for research where PHOs served as principal investigators (associated research funding). Both general payments and associated research funding considerably increased between 2014 and 2019. The number of PHOs receiving general payments and associated research funding annually increased by 2.2% (95% CI: 1.2-3.3%, p < .001) and 5.0% (95% CI: 3.3-6.8%, p < .001) between 2014 and 2019, respectively.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Financial relationships between physicians and the health care industry are common in the United States. Yet, there are limited data on payments to emergency physicians since the 2014 launch of the Open Payments Database. OBJECTIVES: To analyze the trends and characteristics of industry payments to U.S. emergency physicians from 2014 to 2022. METHODS: This retrospective study used the Open Payments Database to examine all general and research payments to all active emergency physicians. Descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equations were employed. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2022, 50.1% (33,021) of emergency physicians received $640.1 million in payments. Of these, 50.1% received general payments, and 1.2% received research payments. General payments constituted 18.7% ($119.7 million) of the overall industry payments. Median general and research payments were $149 ($49-$401) and $72,083 ($13,903-$370,142), respectively. Compared with other specialties, fewer emergency physicians received general payments, and the amounts were lower. The top 1% of emergency physicians received 80.5% of the general payments. No significant trends in payment amounts were observed from 2014 to 2019, but there was a significant decrease in both types of payments in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of emergency physicians received payments from the health care industry, although these payments were typically minimal compared with other specialties. Payment trends remained consistent from 2014 to 2019, with a notable decrease in 2020 due to the pandemic.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between industry payments to physicians related to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) and physicians' prescribing behaviors for PARPis. METHODS: This panel-data analysis used the publicly accessible Open Payments Database and Medicare Part D database between 2017 and 2021. All physicians who reported >10 claims for either olaparib, rucaparib, or niraparib were included in this study. Non-research payments for the PARPis to the physicians from the PARPi manufacturers were extracted from the Open Payments Database. Associations between the physicians' receipt of payments and likelihood of prescribing PARPis were assessed with logistic generalized estimating equations (GEEs). Dose-response associations between the number of payments and prescription volumes and Medicare expenditures were evaluated with linear GEEs. RESULTS: Of the 1686 eligible physician prescribers, 68.7% received one or more non-research payments related to any of the three PARPis from the manufacturers between 2017 and 2021. Median annual payments per physician were $57 for olaparib, $39 for rucaparib, and $62 for niraparib. Receipt of payments for each PARPi was associated with higher odds of prescribing olaparib (odds ratio [OR]: 1.30 [95% CI: 1.14-1.48], p < 0.001), rucaparib (OR: 2.07 [95% CI: 1.58-2.72], p < 0.001), and niraparib (OR: 1.49 [95% CI: 1.22-1.81], p < 0.001). Dose-response effects were observed between the number of annual payments and the number of prescriptions and/or Medicare expenditures for olaparib and rucaparib. CONCLUSION: Non-research payments to physician prescribers of PARP inhibitors from the manufacturers were significantly associated with increased prescriptions and Medicare expenditures for olaparib and rucaparib in the United States.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Aim This cross-sectional study aimed to examine the scale and trends of industry-sponsored research payments to gastroenterologists and hepatologists in the United States from 2014 to 2021.  Methods Using the Open Payments Database and the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES), the study analyzed both grant and research payments made to individual gastroenterologists and associated payments made for research where gastroenterologists and hepatologists served as principal investigators.  Results After adjusting for inflation, the study found that a total of $1.5 billion was allocated to gastroenterologists by 284 companies during this period. Only 15.9% of the 20,986 gastroenterologists received at least one research payment, with associated research payments accounting for 97.6% of all payments. The study also revealed a significant increase in the number of gastroenterologists receiving associated research payments and a more than twofold increase in payments for registered clinical trials from 2014 to 2021.  Conclusion The healthcare industry allocated large amounts of research funding to gastroenterologists and hepatologists. The study underscores the critical role of industry-sponsored clinical trials in advancing gastroenterological research and treatments.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Financial interactions between physicians and the health care industry might create potential conflicts of interest among physicians. However, little is known about the financial relationships between geriatricians and the health care industry. This study aimed to explore the whole picture of geriatricians-industry financial relationships in the United States. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis using the Open Payments Database from 2014 to 2022. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: All geriatricians and geriatric psychiatrists in the United States, identified from the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System database. METHODS: This study assessed the extent of geriatrician-industry financial relationships in the United States, using the 2014-2022 Open Payments Database. Descriptive analysis was performed on the payment data. Payment trends were examined by interrupted time series analysis with generalized estimating equation models. RESULTS: Of 6688 physicians specializing in geriatric medicine or geriatric psychiatry, 4089 (61.1%) received 1 or more payments from the health care industry, totaling $249.6 million between 2014 and 2022. Even though 61.5% to 80.2% of geriatricians did not receive general payments each year, 4078 geriatricians (61.0%) received 1 or more general payments during the 9-year period. Median annual per-geriatrician general payment ranged from $116 to $199 in inflation-adjusted value. The top 1% and 5% of geriatricians received 62.4% ($18.2 million) and 82.2% ($24.0 million) of overall general payments, respectively; 88.3% of all industry payments were distributed for research purposes, but only 1.4% and 2.6% of all geriatricians received direct and associated research payments, respectively. The number of geriatricians receiving payments significantly decreased by 4.2% (95% CI, -4.8 to -3.6; P < .001) in general payments and 4.8% (95% CI, -9.8 to -0.6; P = .03) in associated research between 2014 and 2019. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: More than 60% of geriatricians received at least 1 payment between 2014 and 2022. Although most payments were made for research purposes, both general and research payments have been concentrated on the small number of geriatricians.

RESUMEN

Background: Since the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010, a substantial body of work has explored the supplemental income received by physicians to understand trends in industry payments and investigate sources of bias. To date, no study has examined how various fellowship characteristics impact industry earning levels at foot and ankle orthopaedic surgery fellowships. The purpose of this study is to examine the various fellowship and faculty-specific variables in correlation with industry earnings in foot and ankle orthopaedic surgery fellowships. Methods: This study is a retrospective analysis of foot and ankle orthopaedic surgery fellowships and respective faculty along with various fellowship characteristics in correlation to industry lifetime earning levels as of March 2023. Industry total lifetime earnings represent income directly paid to physicians, is not part of the physician's salary, and does not include any research grants or funding. Lifetime earnings represent all years recorded on the Open Payments Database website (2015-2021). Results: There are 165 faculty physicians and 48 programs with complete data out of all foot and ankle orthopaedic surgery fellowship programs in the United States. The mean fellowship H-Index per fellowship was 48.94 ± 38.92, and the mean fellowship lifetime earning was $1 551 791.66 ± $4 136 091.64. There was no significant association between fellowship lifetime earnings and Newsweek ranking of fellowship-affiliated hospitals (P = .906), Doximity ranking of fellowship-affiliated residencies (P = .703), and region of the United States (P = .126). There was a statistically significant increase in total lifetime earnings in programs with 4 fellows as compared to 1 fellow (P = .035). Conclusion: There was no statistically significant correlation between a variety of foot and ankle fellowship-specific factors and lifetime industry earnings, aside from increased earnings in programs having 4 fellows. Prestige factors, such as Doximity and Ranked Hospital Newsweek List rank, as well as region of the United States is not associated with industry earnings. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

RESUMEN

Faculty of the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons and American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society fellowship programs are uniquely positioned to provide advanced clinical and surgical training to fellows. One aspect of this training may include product design and mentorship through the associated intellectual property (IP) and patent timeline. This study describes the payments received and IP held among foot and ankle surgery fellowship faculty. A review of foot and ankle surgeons with royalties or license payments disclosed on the CMS Open Payments Database from 2014 to 2020 was conducted. Members with payments were then cross-referenced with the US Patent Full-Text Database to identify patents held. Fellowship affiliation, practice location, patent office, number of patents, citations, patent h-index, type of patent, and yearly payment values were recorded. Among the 2801 surgeons, 53 fellowship affiliates and 46 nonaffiliates maintained at least 1 patent and royalty/license payment. A total of 576 patents and 19,191 citations were assessed. The median number of patents and citations held by fellowship faculty was 3 and 60, respectively, while the median total payment value reached $165,197.09. Fixation devices comprised most of the patents and citations. Payment value positively correlated with number of patents held (p = .01), citations (p = .007), and patent h-index (p = .01) among fellowship-affiliated surgeons. Foot and ankle surgery fellowship faculty payments for IP are associated with the number and citability of patents held. While a small proportion of faculty were paid for intellectual property, the number of patents held and citations was comparable to other specialties.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines make recommendations based on the best available evidence. Proper management and disclosure of financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) are necessary for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. This study evaluated the prevalence of FCOIs and quality of evidence underlying the American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines. METHODS: Using the Open Payments Database (OPD) between 2018 and 2020, we examined the research and general payments to all authors of the Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes, 2021. The quality of evidence and tone of recommendations were assessed and the associations between the two were evaluated by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the 25 guideline authors, 15 (60.0%) were United States (US)-based physicians eligible for the OPD search. Eight (32.0%) and 12 (48.0%) received one or more industry payments one year and three years prior to the guideline publication, respectively. The median total payments (interquartile range) per author were $33,262 ($4,638‒$101,271) in 2020 and $18,053 ($2,529‒$220,659) in 2018-2020. One author received a research payment of over $10,000 undeclared. Of 471 recommendations, 61 (13.0%) and 97 (20.6%) were supported by low-quality evidence and expert opinions, respectively. Also, 439 (93.2%) recommendations had a positive tone. The lower quality of evidence tended to recommend positively with an odds ratio of 1.56 (95% confidence interval: 0.96-2.56, p=0.075) without reaching statistical significance. CONCLUSION: A minority of the guideline authors received industry payments from the healthcare industry, and declared FCOIs were mostly accurate. However, the ADA FCOI policy required the guideline authors to declare their FCOIs for one year before publication. A more transparent and rigorous FCOI policy is needed in the ADA guidelines.

RESUMEN

Rationale: The healthcare industry sometimes makes payments to physicians for nonresearch and research purposes in the United States. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the trends in nonresearch and research industry payments to pulmonologists since the inception of the Open Payments database in 2013. Methods: Using the Open Payments database between August 2013 and December 2021, this population-based observational cohort study examined nonresearch and research payments made by the healthcare industry to pulmonologists registered in the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System in the United States. We performed descriptive analyses on payment data and generalized estimating equations for payment trends. Results: Of 12,488 active pulmonologists, 11,074 (88.7%) accepted a total of 2,246,412 payments totaling $1,053,344,669. Total payments were $253,405,965 (24.1%) in nonresearch, $17,382,904 (1.7%) in direct research, and $782,555,800 (74.3%) in associated research payments between 2013 and 2021. Median per-physician payments (interquartile range) were $2,342 ($496 to $8,299) for nonresearch, $4,688 ($1,435 to $21,803) for direct research, and $95,927 ($20,300 to $344,995) for associated research payments. The top 1%, 5%, and 10% of pulmonologists accepted 37.3%, 71.9%, and 83.7% of the total nonresearch payments. The per-physician nonresearch payments increased by 2.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2 to 4.7; P = 0.001) annually between 2014 and 2019 and decreased by 50.2% (95% CI, -55.3 to -44.6; P < 0.001) in 2020, whereas there was no yearly change in research payments. Conclusions: Nearly 90% of pulmonologists received nonresearch and research payments from the healthcare industry in the United States. Nonresearch payments have been increasing since the inception of the Open Payments database.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To evaluate the completeness of conflict-of-interest self-reporting by ophthalmology researchers and to assess factors associated with self-reporting. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. PARTICIPANTS: We evaluated articles published between January and June 2017 in Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, the American Journal of Ophthalmology, and Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. To assess more accurately the cases in which an author published multiple articles, we defined a unit of analysis, authorship, for which each author of each article is a unique data point. To enable comparison with the Open Payments Database (OPD), we only included United States physician authorships. METHODS: For each authorship, we defined self-reported relationships as the companies listed in the article's conflict-of-interest disclosures. Based on journal policies, we defined OPD-reported relationships as the list of companies that reported payments to the author within 36 months before submission. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For each authorship, we assessed the proportion of OPD-reported relationships that were self-reported. The primary measurement was the proportion of authorships reporting none of their OPD-reported relationships. RESULTS: Of the 660 total authorships (486 unique authors), 413 authorships (63%) reported none of their OPD-reported relationships, 112 (17%) reported some of them, 9 (1%) reported all of them, and 126 (19%) had 0 relationships. The proportion of authorships reporting none of their relationships did not differ significantly between journals that required reporting of all relationships compared with journals that required reporting only of relevant relationships (adjusted percentage, 61.4% vs. 64.3%; P = 0.46). Authorships with more dollars received during the reporting period showed higher rates of self-reporting (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Even among journals that required complete reporting, self-reporting was low compared with an industry-maintained database of financial relationships. Deficiencies in reporting may undermine confidence in self-reporting and may compromise the transparency that is needed to interpret research results fairly. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Financial relationships with industry may bias educational content delivered by physicians. SAGES strives to mitigate potential bias, relying on physician self-reporting. Retrospective review of relationships is possible using the Open Payments Database (OPD), a public record of industry-reported payments to US physicians. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the SAGES disclosure process by comparing faculty disclosures to SAGES, faculty disclosures within presentations, and OPD records among speakers at the 2018-2020 SAGES meetings. METHODS: We reviewed all presentations from the SAGES 2018-2020 Annual Meetings. For each invited presentation, all slide-disclosed relationships were recorded. For US physicians, we queried the OPD and recorded relationships ≥ $500 USD in the calendar year prior to presentation. We compared the slide-disclosed relationships with OPD-reported relationships and with those provided to SAGES during the faculty disclosure process. We surveyed a sample of the 2020 annual meeting speakers to analyze potential reasons for discordance. RESULTS: From 2018 to 2020, there were 1,355 invited presentations, of which 1,234 (91%) were available for review. Disclosure slides were present in 1,098 (89%), increasing from 86% in 2018 to 93% in 2020. The proportion of speakers with OPD-reported relationships ≥ $500 increased from 54% in 2018 to 66% in 2020. The total value of OPD relationships decreased from $5.9 million (2018) to $3.3 million (2020) with a concomitant decrease in the proportion with high discordance from 9% in 2018 to 5% in 2020. Among the 2020 speakers with high discordance, the most common explanations for discordance were being unaware of payment or payment outside the 12-month timeframe (55%). CONCLUSIONS: Discordance between financial disclosures reported to SAGES and OPD highlight the need for improvements in the faculty disclosure process. SAGES will continue to streamline this process by incorporating faculty review of their OPD disclosures to ensure all educational programs remain free of commercial bias.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Accurate disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI) is critical to interpretation of study results, especially when industry interests are involved. We reviewed published manuscripts comparing robot-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) to evaluate the relationship between COI disclosures and conclusions drawn on the procedure benefits and safety profile. METHODS: Searching Pubmed and Embase using key words "cholecystectomy", laparoscopic" and "robotic"/"robot-assisted" retrieved 345 publications. Manuscripts that compared benefits and safety of RAC over LC, had at least one US author and were published between 2014 and 2020 enabling verification of disclosures with reported industry payments in CMS's Open Payments database (OPD) (up to 1 calendar year prior to publication) were included in the analysis (n = 37). RESULTS: Overall, 26 (70%) manuscripts concluded that RAC was equivalent or better than LC (RAC +) and 11 (30%) concluded that RAC was inferior to LC (RAC-). Six manuscripts (5 RAC + and 1 RAC-) did not have clearly stated COI disclosures. Among those that had disclosure statements, authors' disclosures matched OPD records among 17 (81%) of RAC + and 9 (90%) RAC- papers. All 11 RAC- and 17 RAC + (65%) manuscripts were based on retrospective cohort studies. The remaining RAC + papers were based on case studies/series (n = 4), literature review (n = 4) and clinical trial (n = 1). A higher proportion of RAC + (85% vs 45% RAC-) manuscripts used data from a single institution. Authors on RAC + papers received higher amounts of industry payments on average compared to RAC- papers. CONCLUSIONS: It is imperative for authors to understand and accurately disclose their COI while disseminating scientific output. Journals have the responsibility to use a publicly available resource like the OPD to verify authors' disclosures prior to publication to protect the process of scientific authorship which is the foundation of modern surgical care.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Financial contributions from industry for physician-led research have been historically challenging to study in plastic surgery. However, as mandated by the Physician Payments Sunshine Act of 2013, the Open Payments Database (OPD) has increased transparency in payments from industry to physicians. This study aimed to analyze trends in industry-sponsored research funding for plastic surgeons. Using the OPD, research payments from industry made to plastic surgeons from 2014 to 2018 were examined. Total payments and number of payments were recorded by recipient's census region (e.g., Northeast, Midwest, South, West) and therapeutic area (e.g., breast prosthetics/reconstruction, wound healing/tissue engineering, software/instrumentation, biologics, cosmetics/injectables). Payments totaled across 5 years in each therapeutic area for each region were also analyzed. Location of company U.S. headquarters and therapeutic area were recorded. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.4. Brown-Mood test, t test, Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney, and linear regression tests were used. Aggregated over 5 years, the greatest payment value was allocated to wound healing/tissue engineering, whereas the number of payments was highest in breast prosthetics/reconstruction. Private plastic surgeons receive significantly higher payments compared to academic plastic surgeons. With such findings, greater transparency and additional years of OPD data may provide further insight into industry influence on physician-led research in plastic surgery.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The ethics of industry payments to physicians and the potential impact on healthcare costs and research outcomes have long been topics of debate. Industry payments to spine surgeons are frequently scrutinized. Transparency of industry relationships with physicians provides insight into their possible impact on clinical decision-making and utilization of care. PURPOSE: To analyze trends in medical industry payments to spine surgeons and all physicians from 2014 to 2019, and further evaluate whether specific payments to spine surgeons vary based on company size. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Cross-sectional investigation of publicly reported Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments Database (OPD) POPULATION SAMPLE: All US providers listed as receiving industry payments with further evaluation of payments to neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons. OUTCOME MEASURES: Main measures were the magnitude and trends of industry general and research payments and subcategories of general payments, such as royalty/license and consulting fees, to spine surgeons and comparison to all physicians over the six-year period. Variations in payment patterns among spine device manufacturers with the highest reported level of spine surgeon payments in 2019. METHODS: From 2014 to 2019 publicly reported general and research industry payments in the CMS OPD were analyzed. Trends in payments to all physicians were compared to trends in payments to neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons. Trends in payment patterns among spine device manufacturers with the highest payments in 2019 were determined. Linear regression analysis was completed to find statistically significant outcomes. RESULTS: Our investigation found an aggregate of $42,710,365,196 general and research payments reported to all physicians over the 6-year period, 2.6% ($1,112,936,203) of which went to spine surgeons. Industry general and research payments to spine surgeons decreased by 17.5% ($195,571,109, 2014; $161,283,683, 2019), while increasing by 8.7% ($6,706,208,391, 2014; $7,288,003,832, 2019) to all physicians. Industry research payments to spine surgeons were notably low each year and decreased to only 0.5% of research payments made to all physicians in 2019. Median payment received by spine surgeons as well as the overall distribution of payments to the 75th and 95th percentile significantly increased over the six-year period in comparison to the stable distribution of payments to all physicians. Top eight spine device manufactures with the highest level of spine surgeon payments accounted for 72.9% payments in 2014 but decreased payments by 17.6% to 2019 ($120,409,083.75, 2014; $99,283,264.49, 2019). CONCLUSIONS: Industry general and research payments to all physicians increased from 2014 to 2019 but decreased to spine surgeons, largely due to decreasing payments from eight device manufacturers with the highest level of surgeon payments. A small subset of spine surgeons continues to receive increasing payments. The implications of decreasing investments in research by industry and of large payments made to a small group of spine surgeons bears cautious oversight, both for the future of the specialty and any impact on patient care outcomes.

Asunto(s)