Medicaid Services Open Payments Database Research Articles

Results of Randomized Controlled Trials of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Lower-Extremity Tendinopathy Are Not Influenced by Industry Sponsorship

To determine whether industry affiliation influences the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for the treatment of patellar or Achilles tendinopathy. PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Medline databases were searched in July 2023 for RCTs published between 2009 and July 2023 investigating PRP for treatment of patellar or Achilles tendinopathy. Industry affiliation (IA) was determined by analyzing each study's funding or conflict of interest section. Author disclosures were searched on The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) disclosure database and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services open payments database. An IA designation was given if an author had a relevant disclosure or if the company funding the study manufactured PRP. Otherwise, a non-industry affiliated (NIA) designation was given. Fisher exact analysis was used to determine if PRP had a favorable, no significant, or unfavorable effect on outcome. Analysis was done on 22 studies (10 IA and 12 NIA), with 17 (77.3%) studies reporting a conflict of interest or funding for the research, 4 (18.2%) reporting no conflict of interest, and 1 (4.5%) with no reporting. Of the 22 included studies, 8 (36.4%) reported favorable outcomes regarding PRP utilization and 14 (63.6%) reported no significant effect. Favorable outcomes were found in 4 (40.0%) of the 10 IA studies and no significant effect was reported in 6 (60.0%). The 12 NIA studies included 4 (33.3%) with favorable results and 8 (66.7%) with no significant effect. The comparison between industry affiliation and results reported was not statistically significant (p = 1). Results of RCTs evaluating use of PRP on lower extremity tendinopathy were not influenced by industry sponsorship. The majority of biomedical research is funded through industry sponsorship. While this relationship is necessary as technologies are developed, it is important to scrutinize studies for evidence of industry bias to understand how this bias may be affecting study results published in the literature.

An In-Depth Analysis of Public and Private Research Funding in Orthopaedic Surgery from 2015 to 2021.

Understanding the trends and patterns of research funding can aid in enhancing growth and innovation in orthopaedic research. We sought to analyze financial trends in public orthopaedic surgery funding and characterize trends in private funding distribution among orthopaedic surgeons and hospitals to explore potential disparities across orthopaedic subspecialties. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of private and public orthopaedic research funding from 2015 to 2021 using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePORTER through the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research, respectively. Institutions receiving funds from both the NIH and the private sector were classified separately as publicly funded and privately funded. Research payment characteristics were categorized according to their respective orthopaedic fellowship subspecialties. Descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, and Mann-Kendall tests were employed. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant. Over the study period, $348,428,969 in private and $701,078,031 in public research payments were reported. There were 2,229 unique surgeons receiving funding at 906 different institutions. The data showed that a total of 2,154 male orthopaedic surgeons received $342,939,782 and 75 female orthopaedic surgeons received $5,489,187 from 198 different private entities. The difference in the median payment size between male and female orthopaedic surgeons was not significant. The top 1% of all practicing orthopaedic surgeons received 99% of all private funding in 2021. The top 20 publicly and top 20 privately funded institutions received 77% of the public and 37% of the private funding, respectively. Private funding was greatest (31.5%) for projects exploring adult reconstruction. While the amount of public research funding was more than double the amount of private research funding, the distribution of public research funding was concentrated in fewer institutions when compared with private research funding. This suggests the formation of orthopaedic centers of excellence (CoEs), which are programs that have high concentrations of talent and resources. Furthermore, the similar median payment by gender is indicative of equitable payment size. In the future, orthopaedic funding should follow a distribution model that aligns with the existing approach, giving priority to a nondiscriminatory stance regarding gender, and allocate funds toward CoEs. Securing research funding is vital for driving innovation in orthopaedic surgery, which is crucial for enhancing clinical interventions. Thus, understanding the patterns and distribution of research funding can help orthopaedic surgeons tailor their future projects to better align with current funding trends, thereby increasing the likelihood of securing support for their work.

The Prevalence of Financial Conflict of Interest Disclosures by Endovascular Specialists on X (Twitter)

PurposeTo evaluate conflicts of interest (COIs) among interventional radiologists and related specialties who mention specific devices or companies on the social media (SoMe) platform X, formerly Twitter. Materials and MethodsIn total, 13,809 posts between October 7, 2021, and December 31, 2021, on X were evaluated. Posts by U.S. interventional radiologists and related specialties who mentioned a specific device or company were identified. A positive COI was defined as receiving a payment from the device manufacturer or company within 36 months prior to posting. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payment database was used to identify financial payments. The prevalence and value of COIs were assessed and compared between posts mentioning a device or company and a paired control group using descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests and independent t tests. ResultsEighty posts containing the mention of 100 specific devices or companies were evaluated. COIs were present in 53% (53/100). When mentioning a specific device or product, 40% interventional radiologists had a COI, compared with 62% neurosurgeons. Physicians who mentioned a specific device or company were 3.7 times more likely to have a positive COI relative to the paired control group (53/100 vs 14/100; P < .001). Of the 31 physicians with a COI, the median physician received $2,270. None of the positive COIs were disclosed. ConclusionsPhysicians posting on SoMe about a specific device or company are more likely to have a financial COI than authors of posts not mentioning a specific device or company. No disclosure of any COI was present in the posts, limiting followers’ ability to weigh potential bias.

Undisclosed financial conflicts of interest in DSM-5-TR: cross sectional analysis

ObjectiveTo assess the extent and types of financial ties to industry of panel and task force members of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth...

Financial Relationships in General Surgery Education: Recent Trends in Industry Payments to General Surgery Residency Leadership

Residency programs and their directors frequently receive funding from industry payers. Both general surgery residency program directors (PDs) and assistant program directors (APDs) receive industry funding for various reasons, including educational advancement. This study investigates recent trends in industry payments to both PDs and APDs to better understand the financial relationships among leaders in residency education. We compared industry payments to general surgery residency PDs and APDs from 2019 to 2021 utilizing the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) open payments database. In addition, secondary analyses were performed among PDs to assess differences based on gender, practicing surgical specialty, and geographical region. During the study period (2019-2021), PDs received payments amounting to 2,882,821 USD. PDs were found to receive more funding than APDs, with each receiving average funding of 10,045 vs. 323 USD (p < 0.01), respectively, over the study period. There was a significant decrease in total payments from 2019 to 2020 (1,512,190 vs. 868,811 USD; p < 0.01). Total payments made in 2021 were similar compared to 2020 (905,836 vs. 868,811 USD; p = 0.1). We found that male PDs received significantly more in-industry payments when compared to female PDs (11,702 USD per PD vs. 3971 USD per PD, p < 0.01). This study presents initial data that residency program leadership has robust biomedical industry relationships, and further research is warranted to investigate the impacts of these payments on program resources, educational opportunities for residents, and program outcomes. Male PDs received significantly more industry payments when compared to female PDs. Leaders in the surgical training community must cautiously ensure that these industry relationships are appropriately navigated.

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.].

The Financial Relationship Between the Medical Industry and Residency Leadership in OB/GYN and Urology.

Background Industry payments to physicians exceed millions of dollars. Payments can influence physicians' practices and potentially impact trainees. Objective To examine the magnitude of industry payments to obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) and urology residency directors and department chairs in the United States. Methods For this retrospective cross-sectional study, program directors and department chairs of OB/GYN and urology residency programs were identified in December 2021. Nonresearch payments between August 1, 2013, and December 31, 2020, from drug or device manufacturers to program directors and department chairs of OB/GYN and urology residency programs were compiled from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database. Statistical analysis was conducted using the Kruskal-Wallis test and a linear mixed-effects model. Results A total of 19 903 payments, totaling $6,041,585, were provided to 396 physicians, with a median of $232.62 per physician over the 6 years analyzed. Urologists received more payments and higher amounts per payment than OB/GYNs (7820 vs 12 083, P<.01; $1,689,519.48 vs $4,352,066.40, P<.01). Department chairs received more payments per year than program directors (8 vs 4, P<.01). There were also geographic differences, with higher payments in the Northeast US region ($131.10 more, P<.01). Based on the linear mixed-effects model, 3 variables predicted the magnitude of industry payments received: physician age, number of years in leadership position, and geographic location. Conclusions Urologists and OB/GYN US residency program directors and department chairs received considerable nonresearch industry payments from 2013 to 2020.

An Analysis of Industry Payments Toward Physicians in the United States—Cryolipolysis

Background : Cryolipolysis has emerged as a nonsurgical fat reduction alternative to liposuction. Industry payments may impact how physician authors view medical devices in the literature. Under-reporting financial conflicts of interest has raised concerns about full transparency between industry and physicians. Objectives : We aim to determine the impact industry payments to physicians have on the cryolipolysis literature and whether there is under-reporting of financial conflicts of interest in the literature. Methods : We collated all articles that cite the pivotal trial in the Food and Drug Administration approval of a cryolipolysis device. Articles were read independently and coded as favourable or neutral. A separate researcher screened the Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services Open Payments database for direct or in-kind payments and recorded financial conflicts of interest. Results : A total of 19 articles met the inclusion criteria. This included 37 unique authors across multiple specialties. Eighteen (95%) published articles had at least one author who received industry payment. Payments totalled $1,476,564.16. Twelve (63%) articles were positive, and 7 (37%) neutral. Of the 31 authors who received payments, 11 (35%) did not report a conflict of interest. The majority of industry payments assessed were for consulting fees, which totalled $980,334.86 (66.4%). Conclusions : We found the majority of published opinions on cryolipolysis from the United States were written by physicians who received industry payments. We also found financial conflicts of interest around cryolipolysis devices are under-reported in the literature.

Industry Payments to United States Rheumatologist-Authors of Publications in High-Impact Rheumatology Journals.

A skewed percentage of industry payments goes to "key opinion leaders" (KOLs) whose prominence and influence has increased with time. Given that KOL is neither precisely defined nor quantifiable, we turned to the level of industry payments as a surrogate quantifiable metric and assessed the associations between industry payments to US rheumatologists and their authorships of publications in high-impact rheumatology journals. Payments to US rheumatologists during the 2015-2020 interval were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database, and authorships were tallied for calendar year 2021 publications in the four rheumatology journals (Lancet Rheumatol, Nat Rev Rheumatol, Ann Rheum Dis, Arthritis Rheumatol) with the highest 2021 journal impact factors and journal citation indicators. Differences between groups were determined by chi-squared test, unpaired Student's t-test, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Mann-Whitney rank sum test, and Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA on ranks. Correlations were calculated using Spearman rank order. A P value ≤0.05 was considered significant. There were 278 individual US rheumatologists who received industry payments and served as authors of publications in the four high-impact rheumatology journals. Non-research-associated payments to these individuals strongly correlated with research-associated payments. Payments to male US rheumatologists were greater than those to their female counterparts, and payments strongly correlated with the number of publications among male authors but only weakly, and often not significantly, among female authors. A substantial fraction of the authorships in calendar year 2021 publications in four high-impact rheumatology journals arose from a very small percentage of all US rheumatologists who had received industry payments during the 2015-2020 interval. Payments to male US rheumatologist-authors were strikingly different from those to female US rheumatologist-authors, and further investigation is needed to explain the glaring difference in payments.

The distribution of industry payments among pediatric dermatologists from 2015 to 2021.

To understand the landscape of industry payments to pediatric dermatologists to foster transparency and identify potential disparities in funding. Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments database, a national cross-sectional study was performed examining payments to pediatric dermatologists from 2015 to 2021. Of the 147 pediatric dermatologists who received industry funding, 35 were male and 112 were female. $9 million in payments was amassed, with 10% of pediatric dermatologists accounting for 94% of total industry payments. Consulting was the most common service, with Pfizer Inc., Amgen Inc., and Regeneron Healthcare Solutions Inc. representing the top three companies. Mean payment was $143,836 for males and $35,943 for females (p < .001). Eight female and seven male pediatric dermatologists received payments in the top 10th percentile, with different average payment in this subgroup (females $447,588 vs. males $698,746, p = .03). 11 states did not have a pediatric dermatologist receiving industry payments, while California (19) and Texas (12) had the most. There are approximately 400 board-certified pediatric dermatologists in the United States and fewer than 40% are receiving monetary compensation from private industry. A fraction of physicians accounted for a majority of total industry payments and industry payments to male pediatric dermatologists were higher despite nearly triple the number of female pediatric dermatologists. With the rise of valuable partnerships between healthcare and industry in modern medicine, the implications of geographic, gender, and financial disparity of industry payments in pediatric dermatology are worthy of further study.

Trends in Research Payments for Diabetic Macular Edema from 2015 to 2021

To evaluate characteristics of research payments for diabetic macular edema (DME) studies and correlations to current management trends. Retrospective cross-sectional study. Research payments for DME. Studies with keywords of "diabetic macular edema" or "DME" in the title were extracted from the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database from 2015 to 2021. Recipients, payors, and payment amounts were identified. Industry funding was compared with public research funding by the National Eye Institute (NEI). Trends and total value of industry and public fundings for DME from 2015 to2021. From 2015 to 2021, 451 beneficiaries received 6062 industry payments for a total of $120 148 997.41 for DME-related research. The total value of industry funding increased from $8 225 859.08 in 2015 to $50 092 778.45 in 2021. Of the 6062 industry payments, 5367 (88.5%) were reported by male recipients compared with 695 (11.5%) female beneficiaries. Payments to female recipients increased from 60 (7.1%) in 2015 to 335 (13.7%) in 2021. In comparison, public funding for DME-related research from the NEI was comprised of $18 863 266.00 to 17 principal investigators from 2015 to 2021. The total value of public funding increased from $973 590.00 in 2015 to $3 354 376.00 in 2021. Of 59 public research payments, 46 (78.0%) were reported by male recipients and 13 (22.0%) by female recipients. Payments to female recipients increased from 1 (25.0%) in 2015 to 3 (30.0%) in 2021. The most highly invested product by industry were anti-VEGF agents, accounting for $89 955 595.20 (74.9%) of total payment value. There was an increase in both industry and public-sponsored funding for DME-related research from 2015 to 2021. There seemed to be a possible discrepancy in both industry and public funding based on sex for DME studies during the study period. Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Gender disparities in industry compensation and research payments among neurointerventional surgeons in the USA

BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to examine the presence of gender disparity represented by industry payments and research funding within the field of interventional neuroradiology.MethodsPayment information was collected using...

Analysis of Industry-Related Payments Among Physician Editors of Pathology Journals.

Gender inequities in editorial board representation and physician compensation are well documented, but few studies have focused on how editors of journals are compensated. In this cross-sectional study, we examined industry-related compensation (from 2014 to 2020) among physician editors of 35 pathology journals using publicly available data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database. Of the physician editors included, 135 (69.9%) were men and 58 (30.1%) were women. Similar percentages of men and women physicians who were eligible received payments (112/135 [83.0%] men and 51/58 [87.9%] women; P = .38, χ2 test). Of the total transfer of value ($211,192,532), 112 men received $192,727,555 (91.3%), and 51 women received $18,464,978 (8.7%). Mean total payment per person was $1,720,782 for men and $362,058 for women (P = .05). The payment range for men was $18-$47,568,400 and the range of payments for women was $31-$2,375,637. The findings highlight significant gender inequities in industry-related payments to physician editors of pathology journals. The financial relationships of journal editors and industry deserve further study, particularly as they relate to advancing science and closing both workforce and patient care inequities.

The Influence of Industry Affiliation on Randomized Controlled Trials of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Knee Osteoarthritis

Background: Industry funding and corporate sponsorship have played a significant role in the advancement of orthopaedic research and technology. However, this relationship raises concerns for how industry association may bias research findings and influence clinical practice. Purpose: To determine whether industry affiliation plays a role in the outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating platelet-rich plasma (PRP). Study Design: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A search of the PubMed, Cochrane, and MEDLINE databases for RCTs published between 2011 and the present comparing PRP versus hyaluronic acid, corticosteroid, or placebo for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis was performed. To determine industry affiliation, the conflict of interest, funding, and disclosure sections of publications were assessed, and all authors were assessed through the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons disclosure database and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services open payments database. Studies were classified as industry affiliated (IA) or non–industry affiliated (NIA). The outcomes of each study were rated as favorable, analogous, or unfavorable according to predefined criteria. Results: A total of 37 studies (6 IA and 31 NIA) were available for analysis. Overall, 19 studies (51.4%) reported PRP as favorable compared with other treatment options, while 18 studies (48.6%) showed no significant differences between PRP and other treatment methods. There was no significant difference in qualitative conclusions between the IA and NIA groups, with the IA group having 3 favorable studies and 3 analogous studies and the NIA group having 16 favorable studies and 15 analogous studies (P = .8881). When comparing IA versus NIA studies using 6- and 12-month Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index and International Knee Documentation Committee scores, there were no significant differences in outcomes. Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrated that qualitative conclusions and outcome scores were found to not be associated with industry affiliation. Although the results of this study suggest that there is no influence of industry involvement on RCTs examining PRP, it is still necessary to carefully evaluate pertinent commercial affiliations when reviewing recommendations from studies before adopting new treatment approaches, such as the use of PRP for knee osteoarthritis.

The relationship between academic influence, NIH funding, and industry payments among academic shoulder and elbow surgeons.

The effect of academic influence, or the volume and quality of a surgeon's publications, on industry payments and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding has recently been studied in some academic orthopedic subspecialities. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relationship between academic influence, industry payments, and NIH funding among American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons accredited shoulder and elbow fellowship faculty. Shoulder and elbow fellowships and affiliated faculty members were identified from the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons website. Academic influence, measured by the Hirsch (h)-index, and the number of articles published were determined for faculty members using the Scopus Database Author Identifier tool. Industry payments were derived from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. NIH funding was determined using the NIH's Research Portfolio Online Reporting tool. Statistical analysis used Spearman correlations and the Mann-Whitney U-test with an alpha value of 0.05 (P<.05). A total of 146 faculty members were included. Twenty-two percent (42 of 146) received nonresearch payments, whereas 78% (114 of 146) received industry research funding averaging $6364 (standard deviation=$21,213). NIH funding averaged $272,589 (standard deviation=$224,635), and 5% received NIH funding (7 of 146). Faculty members who received NIH funding had a higher average h-index than those who did not (38±22 vs. 22.64±22.7, P=.02), whereas those receiving industry research payments had a greater number of publications than those who did not (127.97±127.2 vs. 100.3±122.3, P=.03). Industry nonresearch payments did not impact the number of publications or the h-index. This study demonstrated that academic influence among academic shoulder and elbow surgeons is not greater in those who receive nonresearch industry funding. However, surgeons with industry research funding did produce more publications, whereas NIH funding is associated with greater academic influence.

P87. Have industry consulting payments to orthopedic spine surgeons continued to correlate with academic productivity? Revisiting the physician payments sunshine act

P87. Have industry consulting payments to orthopedic spine surgeons continued to correlate with academic productivity? Revisiting the physician payments sunshine act

Examination of Potential Industry Conflicts of Interest and Disclosures by Contributors to Online Medical Resource Databases

Physicians contribute content to online databases, and other health care professionals use these websites to support their decision-making. Financial conflicts of interest (COI) have the potential to adversely impact evidence-based patient care. To quantify the potential COI among content contributors to 2 popular point-of-care medical resources, UpToDate and DynaMed, overall and by gender, and to compare self-reported and industry-mandated disclosures. This cross-sectional study compiled an initial list of contributors for each website using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Leading Causes of Death. The top 50 causes were used to identify relevant articles from each database from November 30 to December 7, 2020. The authors and editors of those articles were investigated. Data were analyzed from January 2021 to March 2022. Self-reported contributor disclosure status was compared with financial remuneration as reported in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments (OP) database from 2013 to 2018. A total of 179 point-of-care database authors and editors were assessed. Combined, they received $77.7 million, with a mean of $583 218 (95% CI, $0-$4 679 651) and median (range) of $29 073 ($10-$17 517 315) each. Most of the compensation ($68.1 million [87.6%]) went to UpToDate contributors. Of 128 UpToDate contributors, 76 (59.4%) reported nothing to disclose, and among these, 44 contributors (57.9%) had a record of receiving a financial payment on OP. Women UpToDate contributors received 2.5% of the total compensation paid from industry. The top 10 UpToDate contributors who received the most financial remuneration earned $56.1 million combined, were all men, and only 1 had a nothing-to-disclose status. Of 51 DynaMed contributors, 42 (82.4%) reported nothing to disclose, and among these, 35 contributors (83.3%) had an OP entry (mean, $79 820; 95% CI, $0-$400 774; median [range], $1403 [$26-$630 424]). Among the top 10 DynaMed contributors, 8 (80.0%) were men. Six of the top 10 DynaMed contributors reported nothing to disclose yet had an OP entry. This cross-sectional study found that contributors to point-of-care databases were the recipients of nearly $78 million from pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers, and these payments were often not disclosed in association with contributed content. Although these findings do not necessarily suggest ethical lapses among the physicians studied, point-of-care resource websites, like UpToDate and DynaMed, should consider implementing more stringent COI policies and employ an unbiased team to verify self-reported disclosure statuses among content contributors against OP reports.

Industry payments to spine surgeons from 2014 to 2019: trends and comparison of payments to spine surgeons versus all physicians

BACKGROUND CONTEXTThe 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/SETTINGCross-sectional investigation of publicly reported Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments Database (OPD) POPULATION SAMPLEAll US providers listed as receiving industry payments with further evaluation of payments to neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons. OUTCOME MEASURESMain 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. METHODSFrom 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. RESULTSOur 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). CONCLUSIONSIndustry 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.

Does Industry Sponsorship Influence Research Productivity Among Foot and Ankle Surgeons?

Category:Ankle; Basic Sciences/Biologics; OtherIntroduction/Purpose:Research productivity and success drive academic promotions in surgeons' careers. While previous studies have shown a strong relationship between research funding and academic productivity, few have analyzed that relationship in Foot and Ankle surgery. Furthermore, they have primarily used bibliometric data, such as the Hirsch index (h-index), which although is representative of an author's impact, heavily favors physicians who have been in practice longer. There is a need for more pragmatic variables that take into account career longevity. Because there is deficient literature in the analysis of the association between industry sponsorship and research productivity among foot and ankle surgeons, we sought to narrow the gap.Methods:A retrospective review of all articles from the 2018 issues of Foot and Ankle International Journal, Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery and Clinical Research on Foot and Ankle Journal were queried for authors. 303 unique United States-based non trainee Foot and Ankle authors were identified, and ultimately included in the study. They were analyzed for demographic data including sex, academic title, years in practice, and specialty. We also collected bibliometric data from Scopus, including total publications, Hirsch index (h-index), m-index, and publications-to-years in practice ratio. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database was reviewed, and total payments were collected for each author. Authors were divided into quartiles based on payment data (i.e., Quartile 1: 0-25%, etc.) for analysis. Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to identify significant differences between groups. A Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictors of high research productivity.Results:A total of 253 (83.5%) of authors had received at least one payment. The payments received by the authors were broken down in the following quartiles.: Quartile 1, (n=77) who had payments of 0 to $171.41; Quartile 2: (n=76) $171.42 to $2515.15; Quartile 3: (n=76): $2515.16 to $34,577.36; and Quartile 4: (n=74) $34,577.37 to $8,530,326.50. Total Publication Count, H- index, M-index and publications to years in practice ratio all were significantly different and increasing between quartiles (p<0.001 for all). Multivariate logistic regressions identified both Academic status (p<0.001) and Total payments (p<0.05) as contributing factors to total number of publications, publications per year ratio, h-index and m-index, while Author order also contributed to higher h-index. Physician Sex or Level of Evidence were not significant independent contributors to the total number of publications, H-Index, M-Index or publications per year ratio in our study.Conclusion:We identified that both industry payments and academic status are significantly correlated with higher research productivity among Foot and Ankle authors. Being the last author on a research also correlated with increased productivity. While h-index and total publications measure the research output, they fail to account for time as a confounding variable, where an individual who has been active longer in research can potentially have a higher research output. The m-index, (which is H-index divided by number of years that an author has been active) and publications-per-year ratio takes that into account, and yet our findings remained significant.

Industry Payments to Plastic Surgeons, 2013 to 2018: Who's Getting Paid?

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act of 2010 mandated that all industry payments to physicians be publicly disclosed. To date, industry support of plastic surgeons has not been longitudinally characterized. The authors seek to evaluate payment trends from 2013 to 2018 and characteristics across plastic surgeon recipients of industry payments. The authors cross-referenced those in the 2019 American Society of Plastic Surgeons member database with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database physician profile identification number indicating industry funds received within the study period. We categorized surgeons by years since American Board of Plastic Surgery certification, practice region, and academic affiliation. A sum of $89,436,100 (247,614 payments) was received by 3855 plastic surgeons. The top 1 percent of earners (n = 39) by dollar amount received 52 percent of industry dollars to plastic surgeons; of these, nine (23 percent) were academic. Overall, 428 surgeons (11 percent) were academic and received comparable dollar amounts from industry as their nonacademic counterparts. Neither geographic location nor years of experience were independent predictors of payments received. The majority of individual transactions were for food and beverage, whereas the majority of industry dollars were typically for royalties or license. Over half of all industry dollars transferred went to just 1 percent of American Society of Plastic Surgeons members receiving payments between 2013 and 2018. Considerable heterogeneity exists when accounting for payment subcategories.