Median Total Payments Research Articles

Nature and Magnitude of Industry Payments to Fellowship Program Directors in Orthopaedic Surgery.

Previous research has highlighted conflicts of interest stemming from industry funding and education of orthopaedic surgeons. This study sought to define the nature and magnitude of industry payments to orthopaedic surgery fellowship program directors (FPDs) in the United States. This was a retrospective cohort study of orthopaedic surgery FPDs during 2021. Data were obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Profiles of orthopaedic surgery FPDs were obtained for ACGME-accredited and non-ACGME-accredited training programs. Nonresearch industry payments from 2015 to 2021 were extracted and adjusted for inflation. Temporal trends were analyzed through the calculation of compound annual growth rates. Comparisons were made with nonparametric tests. Of 600 orthopaedic surgery FPDs, 596 received industry funding (99%), which totaled $340.6 million over the study period. A trend toward greater total annual industry payments over the study period was observed (compound annual growth rate = 3.3%, P = 0.009). Most industry payments were for royalties or licensing ($246.6 million, 72.4%) and consulting fees ($53.6 million, 15.7%). The median total payment per orthopaedic surgery FPD was $49,971 (interquartile range [IQR], $291,674), with 22% receiving between $100,000 and $500,000 and 17% receiving more than $500,000. The highest annual industry payments existed in shoulder and elbow ($41,489, IQR, $170,613) and spine surgery ($26,103; IQR, $84,968). ACGME accreditation status did not influence the magnitude of industry compensation to orthopaedic surgery FPDs across subspecialties (P > 0.05). Men had higher total median annual industry payments versus women ($7,799 [IQR, $47,712] versus $1,298 [IQR, $6,169], P < 0.001). Industry payments to orthopaedic surgery FPDs are ubiquitous, but the magnitude varies by subspecialty. Most industry funding was found in shoulder and elbow and spine surgery. Standards for orthopaedic fellowship education, such as those upheld by accrediting bodies, should include guidelines on how FPDs handle and disclose financial relationships with industry.

The Use of Unlisted Billing Codes for Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction and Implications for Code Consolidation.

Private insurers have considered consolidating the billing codes presently available for microvascular breast reconstruction. There is a need to understand how these different codes are currently distributed and used to help inform how coding consolidation may impact patients and providers. Using the Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database between 2016 and 2020, patients who underwent microsurgical breast reconstruction following mastectomy for cancer-related indications were identified. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test whether an S2068 claim was associated with insurance type and median household income by patient ZIP code. The ratio of S2068 to CPT19364 claims for privately insured patients was calculated for providers practicing in each county. Total payments for professional fees were compared between billing codes. There were 272 claims for S2068 and 209 claims for CPT19364. An S2068 claim was associated with age < 45 years (OR: 1.89, 95% CI: 1.11-3.20, p = 0.019), more affluent ZIP codes (OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.03-1.19, p = 0.004), and private insurance (OR: 16.13, 95% CI: 7.81-33.33, p < 0.001). Median total payments from private insurers were 101% higher for S2068 than for CPT19364. In all but two counties (Worcester and Hampshire), the S-code was used more frequently than CPT19364 for their privately insured patients. Coding practices for microsurgical breast reconstruction lacked uniformity in Massachusetts, and payments differed greatly between S2068 and CPT19364. Patients from more affluent towns were more likely to have S-code claims. Coding consolidation could impact access, as the majority of providers in Massachusetts might need to adapt their practices if the S-code were discontinued.

Understanding Financial Relationships Between Orthopedic Surgeons and Industry for Research.

This study sought to understand trends in industry payments for research awarded to orthopedic surgeons. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database was queried for the years 2016 to 2021 for industry payments for research. Financial analyses were performed to understand temporal trends and differences by orthopedic subspecialty and principal investigator characteristics such as sex. The threshold for statistical significance was set at .05. A total of 2014 orthopedic surgeons were identified, among whom 542 adult reconstruction (27%) and 460 sports medicine (23%) surgeons were major beneficiaries. Seventy-one female orthopedic surgeons comprised the minority (4%). Total research payments awarded during the study period aggregated to $266,633,592, with adult reconstruction ($88,819,047; 33%) and sports medicine ($57,949,822; 22%) receiving the highest amounts. Total research payments awarded trended upward yearly except for a decline in 2020 that subsequently rebounded (P<.001). Median annual research payment per orthopedic surgeon was $13,375. Median total industry payments per orthopedic surgeon differed between specialties (P <.001), with the highest amounts for adult reconstruction ($44,063) and sports medicine ($34,567) and the lowest amounts for hand ($12,052) and foot and ankle ($19,233). Median total payments did not differ significantly when stratified by sex (P=.276) and region (P=.906). Specialties in which the respective top three companies offered the majority of the research funding were musculoskeletal oncology (90%), pediatric orthopedics (66%), and shoulder and elbow (64%). These results can be used as a primer for orthopedic surgeons seeking to leverage industry relationships to fund translational research. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(3):172-178.].

Industry Payments Comparison Between Female and Male Mohs Surgeons From 2015 to 2021.

There are limited data on female Mohs surgeon industry relationships. To evaluate industry payment activity between female and male Mohs surgeons. A retrospective review of the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services open payments data was performed between 2015 and 2021 for Mohs surgeons in the United States. Gender, academic affiliation, practice region, annual total payment, cumulative payment, and industry payment type was collected. Male Mohs surgeons received higher mean total payments than female Mohs surgeons ( p = .04), which persisted when data were stratified based on industry payment type and practice region. Both genders had similar median total payments ( p = .4). Females in academic practice received higher mean total payments than those in private practice. Females experienced a significant lower mean total payment compared with males in the South ( p = .03). High total payments received by male Mohs surgeons skewed the data, which is supported by a significant mean total payment difference despite a similar median total payment distribution. Female Mohs surgeons receiving the top payments may address this mean payment difference. Females seem to have higher payments if they practice in the Northeast and are in academics. Further studies are needed to evaluate this payment gap.

Intellectual Property and Royalty Payments Among Foot and Ankle Surgery Fellowship Faculty

Category: Other Introduction/ Purpose: 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. Methods: A review of foot and ankle surgeons with royalties or license payments disclosed on the CMS Open Payments Database from 2014-2020 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. Results: Among the 2,801 surgeons, 53 fellowship affiliates and 46 non-affiliates maintained at least one patent and royalty/license payment. A total of 576 patents and 19191 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 $165197.09. Fixation devices comprised most of the patents and citations. Payment value positively correlated with number of patents held (p=0.01), citations (p=0.007), and patent h-index (p=0.01) among fellowship-affiliated surgeons. Conclusion: Foot and ankle surgery fellowship faculty payments for IP is 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.

Intellectual Property and Royalty Payments Among Foot and Ankle Surgery Fellowship Faculty

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.

Evaluation of Financial Conflicts of Interest and Quality of Evidence Underlying the American Diabetes Association Clinical Practice Guidelines: The Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes, 2021.

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. 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. 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. 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.

S1491 Gender Gap in Total CMS Reimbursements for Gastroenterologists: A Medicare Claims Analysis

Introduction: Despite increased demand for gastroenterology services, in 2017 only 17.6% of gastroenterologists were women. On average, physicians receive approximately 19% of their income from treating Medicare patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the total amount of CMS reimbursements for gastroenterologists and identify any differences between male and female providers after adjusting for multiple factors previously identified to affect differences in salary. Methods: The CMS Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File (POSPUF) Database displays Part B claims organized by provider. For each unique NPI registered under “Gastroenterology” the total standardized amount reimbursed by Medicare was extracted for 2019. One univariate and one multivariate-adjusted linear regression model were used to analyze gender and CMS reimbursement. Reimbursement amounts greater than 97.5 percentile and less than 2.5 perdentile were excluded. The multivariate model evaluated gender after adjusting for region, practice setting, number of services performed, average complexity and age of Medicare beneficiaries, and physician experience. Results: For 2019, there were 2577 female and 11215 male gastroenterologists. Men had higher median total payments ($94416.28 vs $56014.14), higher median total services (1047 vs 633) and higher median unique HCPCS codes billed (39 vs 32). Men also had higher median years of experience since graduation (28 vs 17). Of the 13,792 gastroenterologists billing to Medicare in 2019, 13,500 (97.9%) had data regarding number of years of experience (2503 females, 10997 males). This subset was used for the linear regression models. The univariate unadjusted model demonstrated that female gastroenterologists received less total CMS reimbursement than their male counterparts (log b = −0.42 [−0.46 to −0.39]). After adjusting for region, practice setting, number of services performed, average complexity and age of Medicare beneficiaries, and number of years of physician experience, female gastroenterologists still received less CMS payments (log b = −0.15 [−0.18 to −0.12]). Conclusion: Much of the discussion regarding gender pay gaps can be subjective. However, even after adjustment for multiple factors, female gastroenterologists are receiving less CMS payments, which can comprise a significant portion of their annual income. Further objective data is warranted to provide a more accurate understanding of reimbursement inequity and help drive change from a national level to address gender-pay gaps.

Utilization Trends, Cost, and Payments for Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery in Commercial and Medicare-Insured Populations.

Previous studies have characterized utilization rates and cost of adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery, but the differences between these factors in commercially insured and Medicare populations are not well studied. To identify predictors of increased payments for ASD surgery in commercially insured and Medicare populations. We identified adult patients who underwent fusion for ASD, 2007 to 2015, in 20% Medicare inpatient file (n = 21 614) and MarketScan commercial insurance database (n = 38 789). Patient age, sex, race, insurance type, geographical region, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and length of stay were collected. Outcomes included predictors of increased payments, surgical utilization rates, total cost (calculated using Medicare charges and hospital-specific charge-to-cost ratios), and total Medicare and commercial payments for ASD. Rates of fusion increased from 9.0 to 8.4 per 10 000 in 2007 to 20.7 and 18.2 per 10 000 in 2015 in commercial and Medicare populations, respectively. The Medicare median total charges increased from $88 106 to $144 367 (compound annual growth rate, CAGR: 5.6%), and the median total cost increased from $31 846 to $39 852 (CAGR: 2.5%). Commercial median total payments increased from $58 164 in 2007 to $64 634 in 2015 (CAGR: 1.2%) while Medicare median total payments decreased from $31 415 in 2007 to $25 959 in 2015 (CAGR: -2.1%). The Northeast and Western regions were associated with higher payments in both populations, but there is substantial state-level variation. Rate of ASD surgery increased from 2007 to 2015 among commercial and Medicare beneficiaries. Despite increasing costs, Medicare payments decreased. Age, length of stay, and BMP usage were associated with increased payments for ASD surgery in both populations.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs 2 years pre- and post-lumbar spine surgery for stenosis: a national claims cohort study of 22,182 cases

BACKGROUND CONTEXTImproved understanding of the pre- and postoperative trends in costs and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) is needed to better inform patient expectations and aid in the development of strategies to minimize the significant healthcare burden associated with lumbar spine surgery. PURPOSEExamine the time course of costs and HCRU in the 2 years preceding and following elective lumbar spine surgery for stenosis in a large national claims cohort. STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGRetrospective analysis of an administrative claims database (IBM® Marketscan® Research Databases 2007–2015). PATIENT SAMPLEAdult patients undergoing elective primary single-level lumbar surgery for stenosis with at least 2 years of continuous health plan enrollment pre- and postoperatively. OUTCOME MEASURESFunctional measures, including monthly rates of HCRU (15 categories), monthly gross covered payments (including payments made by the health plan and deductibles and coinsurance paid by the patient) overall, by HCRU category, and by spine versus non-spine-related. METHODSAll available patients were utilized for analysis of HCRU. For analysis of payments, only patients on noncapitated health plans providing accurate financial information were analyzed. Payments were converted to 2015 United States dollars using the medical care component of the consumer price index. Trends in payments and HCRU were plotted on a monthly basis pre- and post-surgery and assessed with regression models. Relationships with demographics, surgical factors, and comorbidities were assessed with multivariable repeated measures generalized estimating equations. RESULTSMedian monthly healthcare payments 2 years prior to surgery were $275 ($22, $868). Baseline HCRU at 2 years preoperatively was stable or only gradually rising (office visits, prescription drug use), but began an increasingly steep rise in many categories 6 to 12 months prior to surgery. Monthly payments began an increasingly steep rise 6 months prior to surgery, reaching a peak of $1,402 ($634, $2,827) in the month prior to surgery. This was driven by an increase in radiology, office visits, PT, injections, prescription medications, ER encounters, and inpatient admissions. Payments dropped dramatically immediately following surgery. Over the remainder of the 2 years, the median total payments declined only slightly, as a continued decline in spine-related payments was offset by gradually increased non-spine related payments as patients aged. By 2 years postoperatively, the percentage of patients using PT and injections returned to within 1% of the baseline levels observed 2 years preoperatively; however, spine-related prescription medication use remained elevated, as did other categories of HCRU (radiology, office visits, lab/diagnostic services, and also rare events such as inpatient admissions, ER encounters, and SNF/IRF). Patients with a fusion component to their surgeries had higher payments and HCRU preoperatively, and this did not resolve postoperatively. Variations in payments and HCRU were also evident among plan types, with patients on comprehensive medical plans—predominantly employer-sponsored supplemental Medicare coverage—utilizing more inpatient, ER, and inpatient rehabilitation & skilled nursing facilities. Patients on high-deductible plans had fewer payments and HCRU across all categories; however, we are unable to distinguish whether this is because they used fewer of these services or if they were paying for these services out of pocket without submitting to the payer. By 2 years postoperatively, 51% of patients had no spine-related monthly payments, while 33% had higher and 16% had lower monthly payments relative to 2 years preoperatively. CONCLUSIONSThis is the first study to characterize time trends in direct healthcare payments and HCRU over an extended period preceding and following spine surgery. Differences among plan types potentially highlight disparities in access to care and plan-related financial mediators of patients’ healthcare resource utilization.

The Influence of the Sunshine Act on Industry Payments to United States Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Surgeons

The purpose of the present study is to investigate trends in overall payments to orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons reported by the Open Payments Database (OPD) over the 6 full years of available data (2014-2019). A retrospective review of industry payments to United States sports medicine trained orthopaedic surgeons from 2014 to 2019 was performed using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services OPD. Total payments and subtype payments were analyzed for yearly trends. Regional analysis was also performed. The primary outcome was the overall trend in total median payments (defined as the median total payments per surgeon per year), which was assessed via the Jonckheere-Terpstra test. Descriptive statistics include medians with interquartile ranges. P values < .05 were considered statistically significant. From 2014 to 2019, there were a total of 1,941,772 payments to 12,816 sports medicine orthopaedic surgeons. The median payments to surgeons demonstrated a significant upward trend (P < .001). The total number of payments (r= 0.002; P= .99) did not significantly correlate with changing year. The top 5 compensated surgeons received 45.8% of all industry contributions with a median total payment of $9,210,974.06 (interquartile range: 25,029,951.46). The majority of industry contributions in the top 5 earners were attributed to royalties and licenses (98.7%). Across the study period, 89.4% of the total orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons received a yearly total payment less than $10,000, which made up 8.3% of the total industry payment sum. Those receiving a yearly total payment greater than $500,000 accounted for 0.3% of surgeons but received 53.4% of the sum payments. We found a yearly increasing trend in payments in all regions including the Midwest, South, Northeast, and West (P < .001, P< .001, P < .001, and P= .006). Despite the transparency of reporting mandated by the Sunshine Act, orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons have continued to maintain industry relationships with a notable disparity in distribution. Our analysis suggests continued relationships among sports medicine surgeons and industry. Future research is needed to determine how this impacts medical practice in the United States.

Nationwide patterns in industry payments to academic vascular surgeons

ObjectiveFinancial relationships between vascular surgeons and industry are essential to the development and adoption of innovative technology. However, these relationships may establish competing interests. Our objective was to describe publicly available financial transactions between industry and academic vascular surgeons. MethodsAcademic vascular surgeons were identified and characterized on the basis of publicly available data correlated with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and Association of American Medical Colleges data to identify academic practice settings. Vascular surgeons were linked to Open Payments data for 2017 as reported by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Univariate and nonparametric tests were used for analysis. ResultsOf 1158 academic vascular surgeons identified, 997 (86%) received industry payments totaling $8,548,034. Overall, the median of total payments received was $814 (interquartile range [IQR], $124-$2863). The top paid decile of vascular surgeons received $29,645 (IQR, $16,128-$61,701). Payments to the top decile accounted for 81% of all payments. Payments did not vary by academic rank but did vary by sex, with male vascular surgeons (n = 954) receiving $889 (IQR, $146-$3217) vs female vascular surgeons (n = 204) receiving $467 (IQR, $87-$1533; P = .002). By leadership role, division chiefs received the highest median payment amount ($1571; IQR, $368-$11,281) compared with department chairs ($424; IQR, $56-$2698) and vascular surgeons without leadership role ($769; IQR, $117-$2592; P = .002). Differences in payments were also seen on the basis of U.S. census region: Northeast, $571 (IQR, $90-2462); Midwest, $590 (IQR, $75-$2364); South, $1085 (IQR, $241-$3405); and West, $1044 (IQR, $161-$4887; P = .001). The most common categories of payments were food and beverage (paid to 85% of all vascular surgeons), travel and lodging (35%), and consulting fees (13%). Among the top decile of vascular surgeons, median payments exceeded $10,000 for three categories: consulting fees, compensation, and honoraria. Payments were made by 178 distinct entities with median total payments of $286 (IQR, $70-$6285). The three top entities paid a total of $5,004,061, which accounted for 59% of all payments. Payments from at least one of the top three entities reached 76% of vascular surgeons. ConclusionsMost academic vascular surgeons receive publicly reported industry payments that are paid by a limited number of entities, typically for food and beverage or travel and lodging. The top 10% of vascular surgeons received higher median payment amounts, totaling 81% of all industry payments. Vascular surgeons should be aware of publicly reported payment information and the potential for conflicts of interest.

Industry Funding and Self-Declared Conflict of Interest in Hand Surgery Publications

Accurate financial disclosure is essential to prevent bias in scientific reporting. We aimed (1) to document the extent of industry financial payments to hand surgery literature authors and (2) to uncover discrepancies in author self-declared conflict of interest (COI). We screened all scientific and review articles published in 2017 from the American editions of 4 peer-reviewed journals (Journal of Hand Surgery [JHS], Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery [JBJS], Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery [PRS], and Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons [JAAOS]) to identify authors of hand, wrist, elbow, and peripheral nerve topics. We compared self-reported disclosures with industry-reported payments on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Open Payments Database (OPD) for 3 years prior to publication or per journal policy. We individually examined each for relevance of the corporate payer to the article's subject matter. We found 630 eligible authors from 395 articles. The total amount of industry-reported payments over 3 years prior to publication was $24,396,607.80. The median total payments per author per year was $118.40, with interquartile range from $0 to $1,364; 68% of authors received some industry payment; the most common being food and beverage (66% of authors). Senior authors received significantly more industry payments (median, $2,985.67/y) than first and middle authors ($70.27 and $113.17, respectively). Of all authors examined, 58% had undisclosed payments, but only 14% were relevant to the article subject matter. Authors in JAAOS & JBJS, senior authors, and those receiving more than $500,000 from industry were less likely to accurately report all payments. Industry payments to hand surgery authors were lower than those reported to other orthopedic specialties and tended to be concentrated in a few authors receiving large amounts. Relevant COI disclosure inaccuracies are infrequent within hand surgery literature. Uniform policies of complete disclosure across journals may remove author judgment regarding payment relevance to published material and help eliminate remaining COI errors. Authors may reference the OPD prior to submitting disclosures to prevent potential discrepancies and identify errors within the database. Relationships with industry offer opportunities for innovation, education, and research, but overlooking COI self-reporting may erode confidence in the academic integrity of the hand surgery literature.

Industry compensation and self-reported financial conflicts of interest among authors of highly cited peripheral artery disease studies

ObjectiveIndustry compensation to authors may influence the interpretation of study results. Scientific journals often require author disclosure of a relevant financial conflict of interest (FCOI) but seldom quantify compensation and leave reporting up to the author's discretion. Professional and public concerns related to potential bias introduced into medical research by FCOI have arisen, especially when physician compensation from manufacturers is not disclosed. Little is known, however, about the prevalence of industry compensation to authors of related publications, payment amounts, or how this information compares with self-reported FCOI. The objective of this study was to compare industry compensation and disclosed FCOI among highly referenced publications related to treatment of peripheral artery disease, a disease that affects approximately 8.5 million Americans and is often treated with medications and devices. Methods“Peripheral artery disease” was used as a Web of Science search term to identify publications from 2013 to 2016, excluding review articles, conference proceedings, book chapters, abstract publications, and non-English language publications. The top 99 most cited publications were abstracted for self-reported FCOI by author. Industry compensation to authors was queried using a ProPublica Dollars for Docs custom data set based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments data. Providers practicing in the United States in any of the following specialties were included: cardiology, cardiothoracic surgery, vascular and interventional radiology, or vascular surgery. Payment transactions were matched to physician authors on the basis of provider name, specialty, and geographic location. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and categorical tests. Descriptive statistics are reported as frequency (percentage) or median (interquartile range). ResultsAmong 1008 vascular specialist authors identified, 218 (22%) self-reported FCOI. Fifty-six physician authors had compensation reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services by industry during the study period. Among those identified as recipients of industry compensation, 28 (50%) self-reported FCOI. Industry payments to the 56 authors totaled $11,139,987, with a median total payment of $18,827 (interquartile range, $152,084) per author. Food and beverage was the most frequently identified nature of payment (n = 8981 [74%]), promotional speaking involved the largest total amount of payments ($3,256,431), and royalty or license was the highest median payment ($51,431 [$72,215]). Physicians reporting FCOI received a total of $9,435,340 during the study period vs $1,706,647 for those who did not report any FCOI. Median total payments were higher among authors reporting FCOI vs not ($81,224 [$324,171] vs $9494 [$43,448]; P < .001). ConclusionsNondisclosed author compensation from industry is relatively uncommon among highly cited peripheral artery disease research studies but may be associated with substantial payments. These results suggest that self-reported FCOI does not provide a comprehensive overview of industry compensation. Reporting all payments rather than only those deemed relevant by the author might provide a more complete and transparent report of potential FCOI, allowing independent assessment of relevance in interpreting study findings.

Industry payments to female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgeons: an analysis of Sunshine Act open payments from 2014-2017.

We aim to examine the financial relationship between industry and female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgeons (FPMRS) during the first four full calendar years since the implementation of the Sunshine Act. All board-certified FPMRS specialists were identified using the American Board of Medical Specialties directory. Program directors (PDs) were identified using an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) database. All identified physicians were categorized by gender, specialty, and American Urological Association (AUA) region. Payment data for each individual from 2014 to 2017 were accessed using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments website. Statistical analyses were performed to elucidate payment trends. Of the 1,307 FPMRS physicians identified, 25.1% (n = 328) are urology-trained and 74.9% (n = 979) are obstetrics/gynecology (OB/GYN)-trained. Of all physicians analyzed, 6.8% had no reported payments over the 4-year period. 90.1%, 86.5%, 85.3%, and 84.4% received some sort of payment in 2014 to 2017 respectively. Median total payments for all physicians decreased yearly, whereas mean payments decreased from 2014 to 2015 before increasing in all subsequent years. Median general payments were higher for men versus women, urology-trained versus OB/GYN-trained, and PDs versus non-PDs in all years analyzed. The largest contributor to overall payments was the "others" compensation category, which includes gifts, royalties, honoraria, and non-continuing medical education speaking engagements. Since institution of the Sunshine Act, the percentage of physicians receiving payments has decreased each year. Additionally, there has been a decrease in median total payments and an increase in yearly research payments in all years analyzed.

Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Routine Screening Mammography

PurposeFinancial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) may influence or undermine the credibility of clinical practice guidelines or society recommendations. Given the wide regard of such publications, understanding the prevalence and extent of FCOIs among their authors is essential. MethodsThe most current guidelines containing recommendations for breast cancer screening from the US Preventive Services Task Force, American Cancer Society, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, International Agency for Research on Cancer, ACR, and American College of Physicians were retrieved from their respective organizational websites. Industry payments received by authors were then extracted using CMS Open Payments database (OPD), and the values and types of these payments were evaluated. Finally, financial disclosures were compared with open payments. ResultsAmong a total of 43 authors and 7 guideline documents, 14 authors (33%) received at least one industry payment according to OPD payment records, whereas a majority of 29 authors (67%) had none. The median total payment from all sources across all breast imaging guidelines was $0 (interquartile range, $0-$84). Four authors (9%) declared at least one significant FCOI, five (12%) received more than $5,000 from a single company in a single year, and one author had a significant FCOI (2%) identified from OPD records but not disclosed within the guideline document. ConclusionsThese findings suggest that FCOIs likely have little to no influence on the adoption of consensus recommendations regarding routine screening mammography for all cohorts of women.

Conflicts of interest of editors of medical journals.

BackgroundAlmost all medical journals now require authors to publicly disclose conflicts of interests (COI). The same standard and scrutiny is rarely employed for the editors of the journals although COI may affect editorial decisions.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective observational study to determine the prevalence and magnitude of financial relationships among editors of 60 influential US medical journals (10 each for internal medicine and five subspecialties: cardiology, gastroenterology, neurology, dermatology and allergy & immunology). Open Payments database was reviewed to determine the percentage of physician editors receiving payments and the nature and amount of these payments.Findings703 unique physician editors were included in our analysis. 320/703 (46%) received 8659 general payments totaling $8,120,562. The median number of payments per editor was 9 (IQR 3–26) and the median amount per payment was $91 (IQR $21–441). The median total payment received by each editor in one year was $4,364 (IQR $319–23,143). 152 (48%) editors received payments more than $5,000 in a year, a threshold considered significant by the National Institutes of Health. COI policies for editors were available for 34/60 (57%) journals but only 7/34 (21%) publicly reported the disclosures and only 2 (3.%) reported the dollar amount received.InterpretationA significant number of editors of internal medicine and subspecialty medical journals have financial COI and very few are publicly disclosed. Specialty journal editors have more COI compared to general medicine journal editors. Current policies for disclosing COI for editors are inconsistent and do not comply with the recommended standards.

Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Urology Clinical Practice Guidelines

BackgroundRecent studies have highlighted the presence of disclosed and undisclosed financial conflicts of interest among authors of clinical practice guidelines. ObjectiveWe sought to determine to what extent urology guideline authors receive and report industry payments in accordance with the Physician Payment Sunshine Act. Design, setting, and participantsWe selected the 13 urology guidelines that were published by the American Urological Association (AUA) after disclosure was mandated by the Physician Payment Sunshine Act. Payments received by guideline authors were searched independently by two investigators using the Open Payments database. Outcome measures and statistical analysisOur primary outcome measure was the number of authors receiving payments from industry, stratified by amount thresholds. Our secondary outcome measure was the number of authors with accurate conflict of interest disclosure statements. Results and limitationsWe identified a total of 54 author disclosures. Thirty-two authors (59.3%) received at least one payment from industry. Twenty (37.0%) received >$10 000 and six (11.1%) received >$50 000. Median total payments were $578 (interquartile range $0–19 228). Twenty (37.0%) disclosure statements were inaccurate. Via Dollars for Docs, we identified $74 195.13 paid for drugs and devices directly related to guideline recommendations. We were limited in our ability to determine when authors began working on guideline panels, as this information was not provided, and by the lack of specificity in Dollars for Docs. ConclusionsMany of the AUA guideline authors received payments from industry, some in excess of $50 000. A significant portion of disclosure statements were inaccurate, indicating a need for more stringent enforcement of the AUA disclosure policy. Patient summaryPharmaceutical company payments to doctors have been shown to influence how doctors treat patients. If these doctors are charged with making clinical recommendations to other doctors, in the form of clinical practice guidelines, the issue of industry payments becomes more severe. We found that many urologists on guideline panels receive money from industry and that a significant portion did not disclose all payments received.

Preoperative Patient Profile in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: Predictive of Increased Medicare Payments in a Bundled Payment Model

BackgroundThe shift toward value-based bundled payment models in total joint arthroplasty highlights the need for identification of modifiable risk factors for increased spending as well as opportunities to mitigate perioperative treatment of chronic disease. The purpose of this study was to identify preoperative comorbidities that result in an increased financial burden using institutional data at a single institution. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review of total joint arthroplasty patients and collected payment data from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services for each patient up to 90 days after surgery in accordance with the regulations of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement initiative. Statistical analysis and comparison of preoperative profile and Medicare payments as a surrogate for cost were completed. ResultsSix hundred ninety-four patients were identified over a 4-year time period who underwent surgery before adoption of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement but that met criteria for inclusion. The median total payment per patient episode of care was $20,048. Preoperative diagnosis of alcoholism, anemia, diabetes, and obesity was found to have a statistically significant effect on total payments. The model predicted a geometric mean increase from $1425 to $9308 for patients bearing these comorbidities. ConclusionWith Medicare payments as a surrogate for cost, we demonstrate that specific patient comorbidities and a cumulative increase in comorbidities predict increased costs. This study was based on institutional data rather than administrative data to gain actionable information on an institutional level and highlight potential flaws in research based on administrative data.

Accuracy Between AJSM Author-Reported Disclosures and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database

Background: Inaccurate disclosures of physician and industry relationships in scientific reporting may create an asymmetry of information by hiding potential biases. The accuracy of conflict of interest disclosure in sports medicine research is unknown. Purpose: To compare author financial disclosures in published articles in 2016 in the American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM) with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Open Payments Database (OPD) to determine the percentage of payments values and percentage of eligible authors with discrepancies. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; no level of evidence (nonclinical). Methods: All articles published in 2016 in AJSM were screened to identify eligible authors. On the basis of OPD reporting, physician authors affiliated with a US institution were included. Stated disclosures in AJSM publications for these authors were identified and compared with industry-reported payments on OPD. Results: A total of 434 authors were included in this study. Mean and median total payments per author per year were $76,941 and $1692, respectively. The most commonly received payment was for food and beverage (81.3% of authors), followed by travel and lodging (45.4%) and consulting (31.8%). Authors with higher total payments were less likely to be discrepant in their reporting—notably, authors earning >$500,000 had 16.1% of payment values with discrepancy, as opposed to 85.3% for those earning <$10,000 (P < .001). First authors had a lower percentage of payment values with discrepancy (13.8%) versus middle authors (31.9%, P = .001). Finally, men had a lower percentage of payment values with discrepancy (418 authors, 22.3% of payment values with discrepancy) as compared with women (16 authors, 95.3%; P < .001). Regarding industry payments specifically requested on the AJSM disclosure form for authors (royalties, consulting, research payments, and ownership and investments), only 25.3% of authors had a discrepancy in these payment categories in aggregate. Conclusion: Discrepancies exist between disclosures reported by authors publishing in AJSM and what is reported in the OPD. Authors receiving lower total payments, middle authors, and women are more likely to have disclosure discrepancies. Additionally, industry research funding support and ownership interest are most likely to go unreported. However, this study did not assess whether authors with industry payments preferentially published studies pertaining to products from companies from which they received funding. As national registries such as the OPD are increasingly utilized, physicians may benefit from referencing such databases before submitting conflict of interest disclosures.