Median Payment Research Articles

Assessing the Financial Burden Associated With Treatment Options for Resectable Pancreatic Cancer.

The aim of this study is to assess the financial burden associated with treatment options for resectable pancreatic cancer. As the volume of cancer care increases in the United States, there is growing interest among both clinicians and policy-makers to reduce its financial impact on the healthcare system. However, costs relative to the survival benefit for differing treatment modalities used in practice have not been described. Patients undergoing resection for pancreatic cancer were identified in the Truven Health MarketScan database. Associations between chemoradiation therapies and survival were performed using parameterized multivariable accelerated failure time models. Median payments over time were calculated for surgery, chemoradiation, and subsequent hospitalizations. A total of 2408 patients were included. Median survival among all patients was 21.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 19.8-22.5 months], whereas median follow-up time was 25.1 months (95% CI: 23.5-26.5 months). After controlling for comorbidity, receipt of neoadjuvant therapy, and nodal involvement, a longer survival was associated with undergoing combination gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel [time ratio (TR) = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.02-1.57, P = 0.035) or capecitabine and radiation (TR = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.04-1.51, P = 0.018). However, median cumulative payments for gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel were highest overall [median $74,051, interquartile range (IQR): $38,929-$133,603). Total payments for an episode of care relative to improvement in survival vary significantly by treatment modality. These data can be used to inform management decisions about pursuing further care for pancreatic cancer. Future investigations should seek to refine estimates of the cost-effectiveness of different treatments.

A New Culture of Transparency: Industry Payments to Orthopedic Surgeons.

Under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, "payments or transfers of value" by biomedical companies to physicians must be disclosed through the Open Payments Program. Designed to provide transparency of financial transactions between medication and device manufacturers and health care providers, the Open Payments Program shows financial relationships between industry and health care providers. Awareness of this program is crucial because its interpretation or misinterpretation by patients, physicians, and the general public can affect patient care, clinical practice, and research. This study evaluated nonresearch payments by industry to orthopedic surgeons. A retrospective cross-sectional review of the first wave of Physician Payments Sunshine Act data (August through December 2013) was performed to characterize industry payments to orthopedic surgeons by subspecialty, amount, type, origin, and geographic distribution. During this 5-month period, orthopedic surgeons (n=14,828) received $107,666,826, which included 3% of those listed in the Open Payments Program and 23% of the total amount paid. Of orthopedic surgeons who received payment, 45% received less than $100 and 1% received $100,000 or more. Median payment (interquartile range) was $119 ($34-$636), and mean payment was $7261±95,887. The largest payment to an individual orthopedic surgeon was $7,849,711. The 2 largest payment categories were royalty or license fees (68%) and consulting fees (13%). During the study period, orthopedic surgeons had substantial financial ties to industry. Of orthopedic surgeons who received payments, the largest proportion (45%) received less than $100 and only 1% received large payments (≥$100,000). The Open Payments Program offers insight into industry payments to orthopedic surgeons. [Orthopedics. 2016; 39(6):e1058-e1062.].

Estimating regimen-specific costs of chemotherapy for breast cancer: Observational cohort study.

One goal for high-quality patient care is communicating treatment costs to patients, yet cost information can be elusive. This is especially relevant for breast cancer care, for which numerous guideline-concordant adjuvant chemotherapy regimens exist. The objective of the current study was to generate cost estimates for such regimens from payers' and patients' perspectives in a large, insured US population. Adult women who had incident breast cancer diagnosed between 2008 and 2012 (from the MarketScan database), had no secondary malignancy within 1 year of diagnosis, and received chemotherapy within 3 months of diagnosis were included (n = 14,643). Total and out-of-pocket costs were calculated using all claims within 18 months of diagnosis and were normalized to 2013 US dollars. The extended estimating equations method was used to assess cost by regimen adjusting for demographic and clinical factors. Among patients who did and did not receive trastuzumab, the median insurance payments were $160,590 and $82,260, respectively, and the median out-of-pocket payments were $3381 and $2724, respectively. Among patients who did not receive trastuzumab, 25% paid more than $4712, and 10% of patients paid more than $7041. For patients who did receive trastuzumab, 25% paid more than $5604, and 10% paid more than $8384. Among patients who were covered by high-deductible health plans, the median out-of-pocket cost was $5158, 25% paid at least $8128, and 10% paid ≥ $11,344. The costs of breast cancer chemotherapy vary widely across regimens, and patients bear a substantial out-of-pocket burden. Cancer 2016;122:3447-3455. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Exploring the Industry-Dermatologist Financial Relationship

Significant ties exist between clinicians and industry. Little is known about the characteristics of industry payments to dermatologists. To analyze the nature and extent of industry payments to dermatologists. This was a retrospective review using the publicly available Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Sunshine Act Open Payment database. Data were downloaded from the publically available CMS website under General Payment and Research Payment data sets. All payments to dermatologists from companies making products reimbursed by a government-run health program were reviewed. Mean, median, and range of payments made, including quantity and total sum of payments, per clinician. Total payments and number of transactions per category of payment, geographic region, and payment source were also assessed. A total of 8333 dermatologists received 208 613 payments totaling more than $34 million. The median total payment per dermatologist was $298 with an interquartile range of $99 to $844. The top 10% of dermatologists (n = 833) received more than $31.2 million, 90% of the total payments. The top 1% each (n = 83) received at least $93 622 and accounted for 44% of total payments. While 83% of payment entries were for food and beverage, they accounted for only 13% of total amount of payments. Speaker fees (31.7%), consulting fees (21.6%), and research payments (16.5%) comprised 69.8% of total payment amount. The top 15 companies were all pharmaceutical manufacturers and paid dermatologists $28.7 million, representing 81% of total disbursement. Dermatologists received substantial payments from the pharmaceutical industry. The nature and amount of payments varied widely. The impact of the data on patient care, physicians practice patterns, and patient perception of physicians is unclear.

Payments to Pediatricians in the Sunshine Act.

Under the Sunshine Act, pharmaceutical and product industry payments to physicians are reported in a public database. We sought to characterize payments received by pediatricians in the first full year of disclosures in 2014. We used the National Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payment files to identify pediatricians who received payments. Payment characteristics were stratified, and descriptive statistical analysis was performed, including mean, median, and ranges of payments. Between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, 35 697 pediatricians received payments amounting to $30 031 960. General pediatricians received the majority of payments (71%). Median payment was $15 (interquartile range = $12-$24), mostly in the form of noncash items and services (84%). Significant diversity was observed in median payments among specialty providers. In conclusion, 42% of US pediatricians received industry payments in 2014. These data provide a foundation for future research regarding the influence of the Sunshine Act on pediatric clinical practices.

Comparing industry compensation of cardiothoracic surgeons and interventional cardiologists

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare payment trends between cardiothoracic surgeons and interventional cardiologists using the Open Payments website made available for the public by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Material and methodsData were extracted from the second release of the Open Payments database, which includes payments made between August 1, 2013 and December 31, 2014. Total payments to individual physicians were aggregated based on specialty, region of the country, and payment type. The Gini index was calculated for each specialty to measure income disparity. A Gini index of 1 indicates all the payments went to one individual, whereas a Gini index of 0 indicates all individuals received equal payments. ResultsDuring the study period of interest, data were made available for 3587 (80%) cardiothoracic surgeons compared with 2957 (99%) interventional cardiologists. Mean total payments to cardiothoracic surgeons were $7770 (standard deviation, $52,608) compared with a mean of $15,221 (standard deviation, $98,828) for interventional cardiologists. The median total payments to cardiothoracic surgeons was $1050 (interquartile range, $233-$3612) compared with $1851 (interquartile range, $607-$5462) for interventional cardiologists. The overall Gini index was 0.932, whereas the Gini index was 0.862 for interventional cardiologists and 0.860 for cardiothoracic surgeons. ConclusionsThe vast majority of interventional cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons received payments from drug and device manufacturers. The mean total payments to interventional cardiologists were higher than any other specialty. However, like cardiothoracic surgery, they were among the most equitably distributed compared with other specialties.

Physician Assistant and Nurse Practitioner Malpractice Trends.

Trends in malpractice awards and adverse actions (e.g., revocation of provider license) following an act or omission constituting medical error or negligence were examined. The National Practitioner Data Bank was used to compare rates of malpractice reports and adverse actions for physicians, physician assistants (PAs), and nurse practitioners (NPs). During 2005 through 2014, there ranged from 11.2 to 19.0 malpractice payment reports per 1,000 physicians, 1.4 to 2.4 per 1,000 PAs, and 1.1 to 1.4 per 1,000 NPs. Physician median payments ranged from 1.3 to 2.3 times higher than PAs or NPs. Diagnosis-related malpractice allegations varied by provider type, with physicians having significantly fewer reports (31.9%) than PAs (52.8%) or NPs (40.6%) over the observation period. Trends in malpractice payment reports may reflect policy enactments to decrease liability.

Distribution and Patterns of Industry-Related Payments to Oncologists in 2014.

Industry-physician collaboration is critical for anticancer therapeutic development, but financial relationships introduce conflicts of interest. We examined the specialty variation and context of physician payments and ownership interest among oncologists. We performed a population-based multivariable analysis of 2014 Open Payments reports of industry payments to US physicians matched to physician and practice data, including sex, specialty, practice location, and sole proprietor status. Payment data were aggregated per physician and compared by specialty (medical, radiation, surgical, and nononcology), and practice location linked with spending level (low, average, and high). Primary outcomes included likelihood, mean annual amount, and number of general payments. Secondary outcomes included likelihood of holding ownership interests and receipt of royalty/license payments. Estimates for each outcome were determined using multivariable models, including logistic regression for likelihood and linear regression with gamma distribution and log-link for value, adjusted for physician specialty, sex, sole proprietor status, and practice spending. All statistical tests were two-sided. In 2014, there were 883 438 physicians, including 22 712 oncologists, licensed to practice in the United States. Among oncology specialties, 52.4% to 63.0% of physicians received a general payment in 2014, totaling $76 million, $4 million, and $5 million to medical, radiation, and surgical oncology, respectively. The median annual per-physician payment to medical oncologists was $632 (IQR = 136-2500), compared with $124 (IQR = 39-323) in radiation oncology and $250 (IQR = 84-1369) in surgical oncology. After controlling for physician and practice characteristics, oncologists were 1.09 to 1.75 times as likely to receive a general payment compared with nononcologists (overall P < 001). There was a 67.6% difference (95% confidence interval [CI] = 63.6 to 71.5, P < .001) in the mean annual value of payments between medical oncology and nononcology specialties (vs -92.7%, 95%CI = -100.2 to -85.0, P < .001] for radiation oncology). Medical and radiation oncologists were more likely to hold ownership interest (adjusted OR = 3.72, 95% CI = 3.22 to 4.27, and 2.27, 95% CI = 1.65 to 3.03, respectively, P < .001 both comparisons). In 2014, industry-oncologist financial relationships were common, and their impact on oncology practice should be further explored.

Urology Payments from Industry in the Sunshine Act

IntroductionPayments to practitioners from drug and device manufacturers or group purchasing organizations are reported in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) databases as a part of the Sunshine Act. Characterizing these payments is a necessary step in identifying conflicts of interest and the influence of payments on practice patterns, if any. Payments have never been analyzed in detail among urologists. MethodsWe reviewed the most recent CMS Open Payments database for the full year 2014, released on June 30, 2015. Urology practitioners were extracted and the database was analyzed for number of total payments, total dollar value of payments, mean, median and number of physicians, number of manufacturers, and number of drugs/biologicals. Data were further categorized according to provider specialty, form of payment, nature of payment, practitioner ownership and dispute status. ResultsPayments totaled $32,450,382. Practitioner payments were unevenly distributed, with a median payment of $15. The majority of payments were in the form of food and beverage. Female pelvic medicine practitioners received the highest payments out of the provider specialties. The largest categorical difference from the median was in the form of stock, options and other ownership interests ($24,050). Ownership status and disputed payments were associated with payment values above median values ($400 and $61, respectively). ConclusionsThere are major disparities in industry payments to urology practitioners. Whether this influences practice patterns remains to be seen, although identifying categorical differences in payments is an important first step in the process.

Here Comes the Sunshine: Industry’s Payments to Cardiothoracic Surgeons

The Physician Payment Sunshine Act was implemented to provide transparency to financial transactions between industry and physicians. Under this law, the Open Payments Program (OPP) was created to publicly disclose all transactions and inform patients of potential conflicts of interest. Collaboration between industry and cardiothoracic surgeon-scientists is essential in developing new approaches to treating patients with cardiac disease. The objective of this study is to characterize industry payments to cardiothoracic surgeons as reported by the OPP. We used the first wave of Physician Payment Sunshine Act data (August 2013 to December 2013) to assess industry payments made to cardiothoracic surgeons. Cardiothoracic surgeons (n= 2,495) received a total of $4,417,545 during a 5-month period. Cardiothoracic surgeons comprised 0.5% of all persons in the OPP and received 0.9% of total disclosed industry funding. Among cardiothoracic surgeons receiving funding, 34% received payments less than $100, 43% received payments of $100 to $999, 19% received payments of $1,000 to $9,999, 4% received payments of $10,000 to $99,999, and 0.2% received payments of more than $100,000. The median was $181 (interquartile range [IQR]: $60 to $843) and the mean ± SD was $1,771 ± $7,664. The largest payment to an individual surgeon was $159,444. Thethree largest median payments made to cardiothoracic surgeons by expense category were royalty fees $8,398 (IQR: $536 to $12,316), speaker fees $3,600 (IQR: $1,500 to $8,000), and honoraria $3,344 (IQR: $1,563 to $7,350). Among cardiothoracic surgeons who are listed as recipients of nonresearch industry payments, 50% of cardiothoracic surgeons received less than $181. Awareness of the OPP data is critical for cardiothoracic surgeons, as it provides a means to prevent potential public misconceptions about industry payments within the specialty that may affect patient trust.

Industry Relationships With Pediatricians: Findings From the Open Payments Sunshine Act.

Ties between physicians and pharmaceutical/medical device manufactures have received considerable attention. The Open Payments program, part of the Affordable Care Act, requires public reporting of payments to physicians from industry. We sought to describe payments from industry to physicians caring for children by (1) comparing payments to pediatricians to other medical specialties, (2) determining variation in payments among pediatric subspecialties, and (3) identifying the types of payment and the products associated with payments to pediatricians. We conducted a descriptive, cross-sectional analysis of Open Payments data from January 1 to December 31, 2014. The primary outcomes included percent of physicians receiving payments, median total pay per physician, the types of payments received, and the drugs and devices associated with payments. There were 9 638 825 payments to physicians, totaling $1 186 217 157. There were 244 915 payments to general pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists, totaling >$32 million. The median individual payment to general pediatricians was $14.63 (interquartile range 12-20), and median total pay per general pediatrician was $89 (interquartile range 32-186). General pediatricians accounted for 1.7% of total payments, and 0.9% of the sum of payments. Developmental pediatricians had the highest percentage of pediatric physicians receiving payment, and pediatric endocrinologists received the highest median payment. Top marketed medications were for attention-deficient/hyperactivity disorder and vaccinations. More than 40% of pediatricians received payments from industry in 2014, a lower percentage than family physicians or internists. There was considerable variation in physician-industry ties among the pediatric subspecialties. Most payments were associated with medications that treat attention-deficient/hyperactivity disorder and vaccinations.

Representation of Women With Industry Ties in Ophthalmology.

Women in ophthalmology are growing in number and have made strides in traditional metrics of professional achievement. Professional ties to industry represent another potential means of career advancement, recognition, and income. To report the representation of women among ophthalmologists receiving industry remuneration for research, consulting, honoraria, grants, royalties, and faculty/speaker roles. In this observational, retrospective study, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database for payments to ophthalmologists by biomedical companies was reviewed for representation, median payments, and mean payments by women and men for industry relationships in 2013 and 2014. The analysis was performed from July 2015 to November 2015. The primary outcome measures were percentage representation of women vs men overall and in industry research, consulting, speaking roles, royalties and licenses, grants, services other than consulting, and honoraria. Secondary outcome measures included mean and median payments from industry to female vs male ophthalmologists. In 2013, 4164 of 21 380 (19.5%) ophthalmologists were women, and of 1204 ophthalmologists analyzed for industry payments, 176 (4.2%) women had industry ties compared with 1028 (6%) men (P < .001). Mean payments to women were $11 419 compared with $20 957 for men (P = .001), and median payments to women were $3000 compared with $4787 for men (P = .007). In 2013, women were underrepresented among ophthalmologists receiving industry payments for research (49 of 462 [10.6%]), consulting (96 of 610 [15.7%]), honoraria (3 of 47 [6.4%]), industry grants (1 of 7 [14.3%]), royalties and licenses (1 of 13 [7.7%]), and faculty/speaker roles (2 of 48 [4.2%]). In 2014, 4352 of 21 531 (20.2%) of ophthalmologists were women. Of 1518 ophthalmologists analyzed for industry payments, 255 (6%) women had industry ties compared with 1263 (7.4%) men (P < .001). Mean payments to women were $14 848 compared with $30 513 for men (P = .004), and median payments to women were $3750 compared with $5000 for men (P = .005). Women remained underrepresented among ophthalmologists receiving industry payments for research (25 of 241 [10.4%]), consulting (145 of 921 [15.7%]), honoraria (14 of 11 [12.6%]), industry grants (3 of 25 [12.0%]), royalties and licenses (1 of 22 [4.6%]), and faculty/speaker roles (21 of 189 [11.1%]) in 2014. Women make up a minority of ophthalmologists with professional industry relationships, and the average woman partnering with industry earns less than her male colleagues. The reasons for differences are multifactorial and could not be determined by this study.

Bundled Payments for Surgical Colectomy Among Medicare Enrollees: Potential Savings vs the Need for Further Reform.

The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative was proposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to obtain and reward a greater value of care. Still in its infancy, little is known regarding the potential effects of the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative on hospital payments and net margins. To investigate the potential effects of the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative on net margins among Medicare patients undergoing colectomy at a tertiary care hospital. Cross-sectional retrospective analysis conducted in October 2015. Medicare enrollees undergoing an elective colectomy at a large tertiary care hospital between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2013, were identified using diagnosis-related group and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes. Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to calculate risk-adjusted, diagnosis-related group-specific hospital costs and payments for each patient. Net margins were calculated as the difference between total hospital costs and total payments received. A total of 821 Medicare enrollees underwent an elective colectomy and met inclusion criteria. The median age of patients was 69 years (interquartile range [IQR], 65-74 years), with 51.3% being female. Postoperative complications were observed among 27.5% of patients (n = 226) and the median length of stay was 8 days (IQR, 5-14 days). The median risk-adjusted cost among all patients was $24 951 (IQR, $16 197-$38 922). Risk-adjusted costs were higher among patients who developed a postoperative complication ($42 537 [IQR, $28 918-$72 316] vs $22 829 [IQR, $14 820-$26 150]; P < .001) and among patients with an observed to expected length of stay greater than 1 ($36 826 [IQR, $24 951-$65 016] vs $16 197 [IQR, $14 182-$23 998]; P < .001). The median payment under the fee-for-service structure was $29 603 (IQR, $17 742-$44 819), resulting in an overall net margin of $3177 (IQR, -$1692 to $10 773), with 33.7% of patients (n = 277) contributing to an overall negative margin. In contrast, under the bundled payment paradigm, the net margin per patient was $3442 (IQR, -$9311 to $8203), with 41.7% of patients (n = 342) contributing to a net negative margin. Postoperative complications, length of stay, and total hospital costs were strongly associated with hospital costs. Payments under the bundled payments system were lower and the proportion of patients contributing to a net negative margin increased. Further study is warranted to define the effect of bundled payments on quality of care and hospital finances.

Medicare Part D payments for neurologist-prescribed drugs.

To describe neurologists' Medicare Part D prescribing patterns and the potential effect of generic substitutions and price negotiation, which is currently prohibited. The 2013 Medicare Part D Prescriber Public Use and Summary files were used. Payments for medications were aggregated by provider and drug (brand or generic). Payment, proportion of generic claims or day's supply, and median payment per monthly supply of medication were calculated by physician specialty and drug. Savings from generic substitution were estimated for brand drugs with a generic available. Medicare prices were compared to drug prices negotiated by the federal government with pharmaceutical manufacturers for the Veterans Administration (VA). Neurologists comprised 13,060 (1.2%) providers with $5.0 billion (4.8%) in total payments, third highest of all specialties, with a median monthly payment of $141 (interquartile range $85-225). Multiple sclerosis drugs had the highest payments ($1.8 billion). Within neurologic disease groups ($3.4 billion in payments), 54.2%-91.8% of monthly supplies were generic, but 11.9%-71.3% of the payment was for generic medications. Generic substitution resulted in a $269 million (6.5%) payment decrease. VA pricing resulted in $1.5 billion (44.5% of $3.4 billion) in savings. High payment per monthly supply of medication underlies the high total neurology drug payments and is driven by multiple sclerosis drugs. Lowering drug expenditures by Medicare should focus on drug prices.

Financial Ties Between Emergency Physicians and Industry: Insights From Open Payments Data

The Open Payments program requires reporting of payments by medical product companies to teaching hospitals and licensed physicians. We seek to describe nonresearch, nonroyalty payments made to emergency physicians in the United States. We performed a descriptive analysis of the most recent Open Payments data released to the public by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services covering the 2014 calendar year. We calculated the median payment, the total pay per physician, the types of payments, and the drugs and devices associated with payments to emergency physicians. For context, we also calculated total pay per physician and the percentage of active physicians receiving payments for all specialties. There were 46,405 payments totaling $10,693,310 to 12,883 emergency physicians, representing 30% of active emergency physicians in 2013. The percentage of active physicians within a specialty who received a payment ranged from 14.6% in preventive medicine to 91% in orthopedic surgery. The median payment and median total pay toemergency physicians were $16 (interquartile range $12 to $68) and $44 (interquartile range $16 to $123), respectively. The majority of payments (83%) were less than $100. Food and beverage (86%) was the most frequent type of payment. The most common products associated with payments to emergency physicians were rivaroxaban, apixaban, ticagrelor, ceftaroline, canagliflozin, dabigatran, and alteplase. Nearly a third of emergency physicians received nonresearch, nonroyalty payments from industry in 2014. Most payments were of small monetary value and for activities related to the marketing of antithrombotic drugs.

Industry Payments to Obstetrician–Gynecologists

To evaluate publically available, individually identified data regarding industry payments made to obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns) during 2014 posted on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Open Payments website for the purposes of encouraging ob-gyns to partake in disclosure of their fiscal relationships to patients and to take an active role in maintaining accuracy of their payment data. In this retrospective study, we reviewed the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Open Payments website for all 2014 nonresearch payments to ob-gyns. We compared payments to ob-gyns with payments to those in other specialties as well as subspecialties within the field of obstetrics and gynecology. Univariate statistical analyses were performed. Payments to ob-gyns totaled $60,004,472 (3.3% of the total value transferred in 2014) and went to 29,783 physician recipients. Fifty percent of these payments were for royalties and licensing. Obstetrics and gynecology ranked seventh in total number of payments made to a single specialty (n=311,485), and 20th of 35 specialties for highest median payment ($140, interquartile range $50-347). Medtronic USA, Inc. was the leading payer to ob-gyns. Ob-gyns are listed as having received substantial payments from industry in 2014. Because this information is publically available, we suggest physicians become familiar with payment data and the correction process, keep independent records, and register for updates to most effectively manage perceived, or real, conflicts of interest.

Where the Sun Shines: Industry’s Payments to Transplant Surgeons

The Open Payments Program (OPP) was recently implemented to publicly disclose industry payments to physicians, with the goal of enabling patient awareness of potential conflicts of interests. Awareness of OPP, its data, and its implications for transplantation are critical. We used the first wave of OPP data to describe industry payments made to transplant surgeons. Transplant surgeons (N = 297) received a total of $759 654. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) payment to a transplant surgeon was $125 ($39-1018), and the highest payment to an individual surgeon was $83 520; 122 surgeons received <$100, and 17 received >$10 000. A higher h-index was associated with 30% higher chance of receiving >$1000 (relative risk/10 unit h-index increase = 1.18 1.301.44 , p < 0.001). The highest payment category was consulting fees, with a total of $314 448 paid in this reported category. Recipients of consulting fees had higher h-indices, median (IQR) of 20 (10-35) versus nine (3-17) (p < 0.001). Ten of 122 companies accounted for 62% of all payments. Kidney transplant and liver transplant (LT) centers that received >$1000 had higher center volumes (p < 0.001). LT centers that received payments of >$1000 had a higher percentage of private-insurance/self-pay patients (p < 0.01). Continued surveillance of industry payments may further elucidate the relationship between industry payments and physician practices.

The Influence of the Sharpe Ratio on Appreciation Savings Intended for the Payment of Lifetime Pensions

The paper focuses on the payment of lifetime pensions paid by pension companies based on the selected mortality table of the Czech Statistical Office. We assume different input values depending on the size of the Sharpe ratio pension companies from selected countries. This paper aims to identify and assess the impact of the Sharpe ratio on the payment of lifetime pensions in postproduction period. We used data of nominal appreciation of pension companies from the Visegrad countries and Sweden, Switzerland and the Netherlands in the period 2005–2013. In the empirical analysis we additionally distinguished between guaranteed and non-guaranteed pension funds. For the purpose of calculating lifetime pensions, we used the formula early paid pension by the pension company on the Czech market down in its her pension plan with an expected median payment period of r years. We found link between the value of the Sharpe ratio and the size of lifetime pensions. Conclusion of the paper shows the effects of low performance of pension funds on lifetime pension with a focus on the Czech Republic. The scientific paper describes partial results reached within the project no. 54/2014 of the Internal Grant Agency of the Faculty of Business and Economics of the Mendel University in Brno following the aims and methodology of the given project.

Medical Causes and Consequences of Home Foreclosures.

The objective of this study was to elucidate the medical causes and consequences of foreclosure. We surveyed 90 households undergoing foreclosure in 2013-2014 in Maricopa County, Arizona on two occasions approximately five months apart. At baseline, median monthly household income was $3,000, and median mortgage payment $1,350. Only 10% of respondents lacked health insurance when surveyed, although 28% had experienced a gap in coverage within the past two years. Fifty-seven percent identified a medical debt or another medical cause of their foreclosure, and 54% had taken on new debt to pay medical bills; 10% had mortgaged their home for this reason. Although 57% of respondents had a chronic condition requiring ongoing care, more than half reported delaying or skipping a needed medical visit. At follow-up, one-third of respondents had been unable to afford food, and 3 respondents reported becoming homeless; 46% said foreclosure had worsened their health; and 63% had already incurred new medical debts. Medical debt and medical problems frequently contribute to foreclosure, even among insured families. Foreclosure compromises access to care and basic necessities like food and shelter, and worsens self-reported health.

Radiology Malpractice Claims in the United States From 2008 to 2012: Characteristics and Implications

PurposeThe aim of this study was to compare the frequency and liability costs associated with radiology malpractice claims relative to other medical services and to evaluate the clinical context and case disposition associated with radiology malpractice claims. MethodsThis HIPAA-compliant study was exempted from institutional review board approval. The Comparative Benchmarking System database, a repository of more than 300,000 medical malpractice cases in the United States, was queried for closed claims over a five-year period (2008-2012). Claims were categorized by the medical service primarily responsible for the claim and the paid total loss. For all cases in which radiology was the primary responsible service, the case abstracts were evaluated to determine injury severity, claimant type by setting, claim allegation, process of care involved, case disposition, modality involved, and body section. Intracategory comparisons were made on the basis of the frequency of indemnity payment and total indemnity payment for paid cases, using χ2 and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. ResultsRadiology was the eighth most likely responsible service to be implicated in a medical malpractice claim, with a median total paid loss (indemnity payment plus defense cost plus administrative expense) per closed case of $30,091 (mean, $205,619 ± $508,883). Radiology claims were most commonly associated with high- and medium-severity injuries (93.3% [820 of 879]; 95% confidence interval [CI], 91.7%-94.95%), the outpatient setting (66.3% [581 of 876]; 95% CI, 63.0%-69.2%), and diagnosis-related allegations (ie, failure to diagnose or delayed diagnosis) (57.3% [504 of 879]; 95% CI, 54.0%-60.6%). A high proportion of claims pertained to cancer diagnoses (44.0% [222 of 504]; 95% CI, 39.7%-48.3%). A total of 62.3% (548 of 879; 95% CI, 59.1%-65.5%) of radiology claims were closed without indemnity payments; 37.7% (331 of 879; 95% CI, 34.5%-40.9%) were closed with a median indemnity payment of $175,000 (range, $112-$6,691,762; mean $481,094 ± $727,636). ConclusionsRadiology malpractice claims most commonly involve diagnosis-related allegations in the outpatient setting, particularly cancer diagnoses, with approximately one-third of claims resulting in payouts to the claimants.