Association between Industry Payments and Anti-vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Use in Medicare Beneficiaries

Abstract

To test for associations between anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) industry payments to ophthalmologists who provide intravitreal injections and specific anti-VEGF agent use. Cross-sectional Medicare database study. US fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries and all ophthalmologists who submitted intravitreal injection claims for >10 Medicare beneficiaries between August 1, 2013, and December 31,2013. The Sunshine Act Open Payments database was searched for all industry financial relationships in ophthalmology. The Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Database was searched for all intravitreal injection claims and anti-VEGF drug claims among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries. A novel algorithm was used to merge the 2 datasets to identify physician-specific associations between industry payments and specific anti-VEGF agent use. Odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by using logistic regression models. Ophthalmologists providing intravitreal injections (Current Procedural Terminology 67028); ophthalmologists with reported nonresearch payment from anti-VEGF industry; physician-specific anti-VEGF agent use (treatment specific J-codes J0178 and J2778). Of 3391 ophthalmologists who performed intravitreal injections, 1187 (35%) received nonresearch payments from anti-VEGF industry. Of these 1187 ophthalmologists, 422 (35%) received payments from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, 363 (31%) received payments from Genentech, and 402 (34%) received payments from both industries. When compared with ophthalmologists who perform intravitreal injections and who do not receive anti-VEGF industry payments, ophthalmologists receiving Genentech payments (median, $90; interquartile range, $22-$149) were more likely to use ranibizumab (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 2.12-2.16), those receiving Regeneron payments (median, $55; interquartile range, $22-$131) were more likely to use ranibizumab (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.54-1.56) and aflibercept (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.22-1.24), those with payments from both manufacturers were more likely to use ranibizumab (OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 2.67-2.71) and aflibercept (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.52-1.54), and all were less likely to use bevacizumab (OR, 0.33-0.64; P < 0.001 for all comparisons). Industry payments to ophthalmologists who perform intravitreal injections were associated with higher odds of ranibizumab and aflibercept use, and lower odds of bevacizumab use. These findings reflect an association, not a cause-and-effect relationship.