Abstract WMP96: Industry Payments to Vascular Neurologists, a Six-Year Analysis of the Open Payments Program From 2013 to 2018

Abstract

Objective: To analyze and characterize industry payment to vascular neurologists from 2013 to 2018 using open Payments Database. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of open payments database, which is available publicly. We calculated the percentage of vascular neurologists in the United States receiving payments and payment characteristics. We have analyzed the top 1% payment to vascular neurologist with detailed payment category analysis, payment regional trends, and sponsors each year. The number of board-certified vascular neurologists is available from the database of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Results: From Jan 2013 to Dec 2018, industry payments to vascular neurologists have increased significantly each year, while a relatively stable fraction (17%) of US vascular neurologists received industry payments totaling $ 3,782,222 (6 years combined). The median payment per physician ranges from $ 115 to $ 241, while 90th percentile payments vary from $1,766 to $ 4,988 with a maximum payment up to $190,551. Nine payment categories are available and the highest amounts were paid for "Consulting Fee". The payment proportion from top 10 sponsors consists of 75% of the total amount since 2013. The payment to the south region has a steady growth rate among the other regions and has the highest payment amount of $ 470,551 in 2018. Top 1% vascular neurologists received more than 60% of the total payment. Among the top 1% vascular neurologists, 73% are likely to be key leaders in the field. Among the top 1%, 42% are specialized in neuro-intervention and less than 15% have Authored AHA/ASA guideline papers. Conclusion: Payments to vascular neurologists is highly skewed with the top 1% receiving around one-third of all payments, less than 15% of these vascular neurologists have authored AHA/ASA guidelines. The industry is known to target key leaders in the field whether this is translating to changes in clinical practice should be looked into more thoroughly.