Medicaid Services Open Payments Database Research Articles

Association of State Legislation and Industry Compensation to Orthopaedic Residents: A 3-Year Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database.

The Sunshine Act aims to increase the transparency of physicians receiving compensation from pharmaceutical and medical device companies. Nine states have supplementary legislation in addition to the Federal Sunshine Act. The purpose of this study is to assess the characteristics of financial compensation to orthopaedic residents on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments Database in states with more restrictive regulations compared with those without additional restrictions. A complete list of accredited orthopaedic residency programs in the United States was compiled using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and American Osteopathic Academy of Orthopedics websites. The website of each orthopaedic residency program was searched to compile a list of residents who attended their program from 2014 to 2016. The CMS Open Payments Database was used to search the residents identified for the corresponding years. All data available on the CMS Open Payments Database were recorded. Over the 3-year period, 3,622 residents were identified from 151 programs. A total of 41% of the residents were reported as receiving compensation from the industry. The percent of residents reported from programs in less restrictive states was 45% versus 28% in more restrictive states (P < 0.001). Residents had a mean of 5.3 transactions per year in less restrictive states and 2.4 transactions per year in more restrictive states (P < 0.001). The mean compensation per resident reported was $2,730 for less restrictive sates versus $1,937 for more restrictive states (P < 0.001). Overall, 41% of orthopaedic residents were reported on the CMS Open Payments Database with fewer transactions and less compensation going to residents in states with more restrictive legislature. Potential implications on resident education remain unknown.

Gender Gap in Industry Relationships and Scholarly Impact Among Academic Urologists in the United States

ObjectivesTo examine the distribution of industry payments to male and female academic urologists and the relationship between industry funding, academic rank, and scholarly impact. Material and MethodsAcademic urologists from 131 programs with publicly available websites were compiled. Gender, rank, fellowship training, and scholarly impact metrics were recorded. Data from the 2016 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database were paired with faculty names. Comparisons were made using Fisher's Exact, Wilcoxon Rank Sum, and Spearman's Rank-Order tests. Multivariable logistic regression modeling identified predictors of receiving payments in the top quintile. ResultsAmong 1,657 academic urologists, males comprised 84%. While there were no gender differences in the number of urologists listed in the Open Payments Database, males received more total funding (P < .001) and higher median general payments per capita (P < .03). Males also received higher proportions of research funding (P = .002), speaker fees (P = .03), education fees (P = .03) and higher median consulting fees (P = .003). Overall, males had higher scholarly impact (P < .001), which correlated with total industry payments (rho = 0.27, P < .001). Predictors of accepting the top quintile payments include male gender, associate professorship and H-index score ≥10. ConclusionMost academic urologists accepted at least one industry payment in 2016, but males received more funding than females. There is a positive correlation between total industry payments, H-index, and total publications. More research is needed to understand why gender and scholarly productivity are associated with higher payouts. This is another important area that may influence career advancement and compensation for female urologists.

Impact of US industry payment disclosure laws on payments to surgeons: a natural experiment

ObjectivesTo compare changes in the number and amount of payments received by orthopedic and non-orthopedic surgeons from industry between 2014 and 2017.MethodsUsing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payment database from 2014 to 2017, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of industry payments to surgeons, including general payments and research payments.ResultsAmong orthopedic surgeons, the total number of general payments decreased from 248,698 in 2014 to 241,966 in 2017, but their total value increased from $97.1 million in 2014 to $110.2 million in 2017. Among non-orthopedic surgeons, the total number decreased from 604,884 in 2014 to 582,490 in 2017, while the total value remained stable at approximately $159 million. Between 2014 and 2017, there was a differential increase in the median number of general payments received by non-orthopedic when compared to orthopedic surgeons (incidence rate ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08–1.09; p < 0.001), but a differential decline in the median value of general payments (− 8.9%; 95% CI, − 9.5%, − 8.4%; p < 0.001). Findings were consistent when stratified by nature of payment. In contrast, between 2014 and 2017, there was neither a differential change in the median number nor median value of research payments received by non-orthopedics.ConclusionExamination of a natural experiment of prior public disclosure of payments to orthopedic surgeons suggests that the Physician Payment Sunshine Act was associated with an increase in the number, but a decline in the value, of general payments received by non-orthopedic surgeons, but not on research payments received.

Undisclosed payments by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to authors of endoscopy guidelines in the United States

Payments from pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to authors of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may influence practice recommendations. It is therefore important to evaluate the completeness of financial conflict of interest (FCOI) declarations among CPG authors. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of industry payments to authors of endoscopy guidelines published by 5 GI societies between 2014 and 2017. For each author we identified payments using the disclosure section of CPGs and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments (CMS-OP) database. We calculated the prevalence, monetary value, and type of declared and undeclared payments among authors. Payments were assessed for the calendar year of and before publication. Thirty-seven CPGs were included in the analysis comprising 569 author entries (91 unique individuals; 66.43% men, 92.6% physicians, 66.4% academically affiliated). Four hundred fifty-one episodes (79%) involved FCOIs, 451 (79%) had undisclosed FCOIs in the CMS-OP, and 445 (77%) had FCOIs relevant to a CPG recommendation. The median undisclosed payment value was $4807.26 (interquartile range, $334.84-$20,579.75). Male authors (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-3.39) and academically affiliated authors (odds ratio, 8.87; 95% confidence interval, 5.57-14.13) were significantly more likely to have undeclared payments (P< .001). No CPGs metall National Academy of Medicine criteria. Recognizing concerns about the accuracy of the CMS-OP, there are substantial discrepancies between industry-reported payments and author self-disclosure. Additionally, there is a high prevalence of undisclosed payments by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to these authors. Given the potential impact of these discrepancies and undisclosed payments on CPGs, more accurate reporting and alternative strategies for managing FCOI are needed.

Undisclosed Financial Conflicts of Interest of Authors of Clinical Drug Trials Published in Influential Medical Journals: A Cohort Study

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors requires authors to disclose all financial conflicts of interest (COI) that can be perceived as influencing the related trials. Undisclosed financial COI may influence the perception of the authors' scientific impartiality and erode the public trust in the reported results. Data regarding completeness of COI disclosure in high-impact–factor general medicine journals are limited. We compared payments disclosed by US-based physicians who were first or last authors of clinical drug trials published between August 2016 and August 2018 in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and Lancet, to payments reported by industry to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database. Of 247 included authors, 198 (80%) have not disclosed some or all received payments. The median undisclosed sum was $8409 (US Dollars) (interquartile range [IQR] $123 to $44,890). Most authors (n=170, 69%) have received more than $10,000 per year (median $120,403, IQR $58,905 to $242,014). The median undisclosed sum for these authors was $26,530 (IQR $7462 to $71,562). Median undisclosed sums for authors of papers from studies performed with and without industry funding were $20,899 (IQR $4191 to $59,883) and $149 (IQR $0 to $3276), respectively. In 10 (8%) of 125 industry-funded trials, the first or last author had not disclosed personal payments from the study sponsor (median $9741, IQR $4508 to $101,484). These findings could raise concerns about the authors' equipoise toward the trial results and influence the public perception of the credibility of reported data. Health care professionals, reviewers, and journal editors should demand more transparent reporting of financial COI.

Sex Disparity in Academic Rank and Industry Payments to Plastic Surgeons.

Despite increasing representation in surgery, women continue to lag behind men in important metrics. Little is known on how industry funding may also contribute to this ongoing disparity. This article seeks to quantify industry payments to academic plastic surgeons (APSs) by sex and examine the relationship between funding and academic achievement. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of industry payments disbursed to APSs in 2017. Faculty were identified using departmental listings of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education plastic surgery residency programs. Payments were identified via the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services open payment database. Academic achievement was assessed using rank (eg, assistant professor), leadership designation (eg, division head), and Scopus H-index and then controlled for time in practice. Of the 805 APSs, the majority were male (82% male vs 18% female, P < 0.0001). Significant sex differences emerged in average yearly industry contributions (men, US $3202, vs women, US $707; P < 0.0001). Across all academic ranks, men received significantly higher payments than women (P < 0.0500). Men constituted 93% of full professors and were almost twice as likely to hold additional leadership positions compared with women (odds ratio, 1.82; P = 0.0143). After adjustment for time in practice, there was no difference in H-indices between male and female APSs, although payment disparity persisted (P < 0.0001). Substantial sex-based disparities exist among APSs' academic rank and leadership attainment, which is not attributed to differences in academic qualifications or experience. To better elucidate the sources of this disparity, future studies should assess sexed differences in payment types. Furthermore, we urge for increased transparency in the selection process for industry payments.

2982 Discrepancies Between Author- and Industry-Reported Disclosures of Financial Relationships in Gynecologic Research

Study Objective To investigate the concordance between author disclosures of financial and commercial interests and the data available on reported industry transactions present in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database (OPD). Design Data was collected from an abstract booklet for a 2018 gynecologic annual meeting, including information on author specialty, number of abstracts published, and the number and nature of the listed disclosures. This was compared to data available for each author in the OPD in 2017, which included the amount and nature of all industry payments. Setting Retrospective observational study. Patients or Participants All authors with abstracts published in a 2018 gynecologic annual meeting abstract booklet. Interventions N/A. Measurements and Main Results A total of 544 authors were identified in the abstract booklet. Of these authors, 515 (94.7%) had no disclosures listed while 29 (5.3%) had one or more disclosure listed. Of the 515 authors without any disclosures, 219 (42.5%) had industry payments recorded in the OPD. A majority (1690/2514, 67.2%) of the industry payments were categorized as “Food and Beverage” payments. Of 16 authors with multiple abstracts and at least one disclosure listed, 12 (75.0%) had discordance in reported disclosures between their own abstracts. In total, 244 (44.8%) authors were found to have industry relationships in the OPD, comprising over 2.2 million dollars of industry payments with a median payment of $76.46 (IQR $22.52-$179.85). Conclusion Many authors at a major gynecologic annual meeting did not correctly disclose some or all of their industry relationships, and those that did often failed to correctly disclose those relationships across their presented work. A majority of payments, however, were related to food and beverage transactions and the median payment overall remained low.

Scope and nature of financial conflicts of interest between neurologists and industry: 2013-2016.

To detail the scope and nature of financial conflicts of interest (COIs) between neurologists and the pharmaceutical and medical device industries (Industry) using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments (OP) database, with a focus on trends from 2013 to 2016. Payments from Industry to US neurologists were categorized into research payments, general (nonresearch) payments, and value of ownership in Industry. We performed descriptive analyses to detail the scope and nature of these relationships and trends over time. At least 9,505 neurologists received at least one payment from Industry each year. From 2013 to 2016, 1.6 million payments totaled $354 million, of which 99.5% of payments and 85.6% of payment value were for general/nonresearch-related payments. Most neurologists (between 65% and 80%) received less than $1,000 per year, but over 200 neurologists each received more than $100,000 during some years. Several received over $1 million. General payments are increasing, research payments are steady, and neurologists' ownership and investments are decreasing. Neurologists have extensive financial relationships with Industry, though this is driven by a well-paid minority. As a profession, we must work to establish firm rules to manage these potential COIs, ensuring that relationships with Industry yield synergistic advances while minimizing bias and maintaining public trust.

Characteristics of Industry Payments to Ophthalmologists in the Open Payments Database

An increased awareness of the interactions between the medical industry and health care professionals may lead to lower health care costs and more effective health care practices. To assess the characteristics of industry payments made to ophthalmologists between 2013 and 2017. This analysis included data reported in the June 29, 2018, update of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database (OPD). The OPD contains public records of industry payments made to physicians and teaching hospitals from August 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017, as reported by the medical industry. All general or research payments distributed to US ophthalmologists and contained in the OPD were included in this study. Data are summarized by practitioner, manufacturer, payment category, and geographic location. Main outcomes were the distribution, quantity, and value of payments made to ophthalmologists practicing in the United States or US territories. The financial characteristics of payment category, manufacturer, product, and location were also assessed. This analysis revealed that the OPD showed industry reporting a total of 20 943 ophthalmologists receiving 736 517 payments worth $543 679 603.53 (1.67% of all industry-reported funds in the OPD). The median payment value was $22.44. Most payments were for food and beverages (581 588 [78.96%]), whereas most funds were allocated toward research ($310 142 151.88 [57.05%]) and consulting fees ($73 565 327.71 [13.51%]). The median payout to each ophthalmologist was $637.75 (interquartile range, $167.33-$2065.54). California was the highest-grossing state, receiving $101 135 980.34 (18.60%) of all payments. Fifteen companies were responsible for 87.68% of all funds distributed ($476 719 470.11) and were mostly involved in the production of pharmaceutical agents (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents, glaucoma eyedrops, and ocular lubricants) and surgical devices (cataract and glaucoma). Although there is no way to know the veracity of these reports, the findings suggest the financial ophthalmologist-industry relationship is substantial. These relationships may be adding to health care costs and affecting the quality of care, although those associations were not evaluated in this study.

Investigating the Gender Pay Gap in Industry Contributions to Academic Neurosurgeons

A large gender gap exists in industry funding for academic neurosurgeons. Selection criteria for funding distribution remain unclear. However, academic rank, scholarly productivity, and experience have been suggested as determining factors. We conducted a cross-sectional study of industry payments to US academic neurosurgeons. We used online faculty listings to determine academic rank and gender, then used the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payment Database to identify industry contributions. Details were collected on H-index and length of time in practice was used as a proxy for experience. Of the 1481 academic neurosurgeons included, men were in the majority (91% vs. 9%, P=0.0001). Relative to their male colleagues, female assistant and associate professors received fewer payments (4 vs. 8, P= 0.0040; 2 vs. 7, P= 0.0067) at lower median values ($409 vs. $437, P= 0.0490; $163 vs. $260, P= 0.0089). H-index was more strongly associated with general payment receipt for women academic neurosurgeons (r= 0.20, P=0.0201) than men academic neurosurgeons (r= 0.06, P= 0.0301). Experience trended toward a significant association with industry funding in men (r= 0.05, P = 0.0601). After adjustment for scholarly productivity and experience, gender-based funding inequalities became insignificant. In academic neurosurgery, substantial gender disparities exist in industry payments and metrics of academic success. There may be an industry selection bias toward recruitment of key opinion and thought leaders, as identified by scholarly productivity and experience. Despite the objective gender inequalities, industry funding to academic neurosurgeons appears to be equitable when metrics of academic success are considered.

Industry Consulting Payments to Orthopedic Surgeons Are Associated With Increased Publications.

In accordance with the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, all industry payments to physicians in the United States have become publicly available. Previous research has indicated that orthopedic surgeons receive the greatest amount of industry compensation compared with other surgical subspecialists. However, the relationship between this compensation and research productivity is less clear. This study sought to investigate the relationship between consulting fees paid to orthopedic surgeons and academic productivity. Using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database, this study identified 2555 orthopedic surgeons who received at least one industry consulting fee in 2015. Physicians who received total consulting fees of at least $20,000 (US) were stratified into the high payment group. The number of publications and the h-index for each physician were used as metrics of scholarly impact. Mean publication number and h-index for the high payment group were compared with all other physicians in the sample using an independent-samples t test. A total of 2555 orthopedic surgeons received consulting payments totaling $62,323,143 in 2015. The mean consulting payment was $24,393 (SD, $45,465). The publication number was greater for the high payment group (mean, 61.6; SD, 135.6) compared with all other physicians in the sample (mean, 36.1; SD, 95.6). Additionally, the mean h-index for the high payment group was 13.7 (SD, 14.3) compared with 10.0 (SD, 11.6) for all other orthopedic surgeons. These findings indicate that the orthopedic surgeons who receive more in industry consulting fees are also those who contribute most substantially to the body of orthopedic literature. [Orthopedics. 2019; 42(3):137-142.].

Editors' note: Financial relationships between neurologists and industry: The 2015 Open Payments database

In “Financial relationships between neurologists and industry: The 2015 Open Payments database,” Drs. Ahlawat and Narayanaswami analyzed payments from the pharmaceutical and device industry to neurologists in 2015 using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database (OP). In response, Dr. Sethi argues that lack of distinction between obvious bias and potential conflicts of interest (COIs) in OP risks eroding trust in physician–patient relationships, and proposes voluntary disclosures of relevant COIs with regulatory oversight as an alternative. In contrast, Drs. Robbins and Meyer view OP as an important step towards transparency by making COIs more widely available, and towards greater divestment from financial COIs through resultant social pressure. They present data suggesting a drop in investments and financial ownership among neurologists in OP from 2013 to 2016. Responding to these comments, Drs. Ahlawat and Narayanaswami note that voluntary disclosure may be limited by failure to recognize COIs and would add to physicians' reporting burden. They acknowledge that OP is a step forward, but note that detailed clarification of the nature of payments would allow full transparency and mitigate misinterpretation. They also note that the effect of social pressure or public access to OP on divestiture would be challenging to assess. In “Financial relationships between neurologists and industry: The 2015 Open Payments database,” Drs. Ahlawat and Narayanaswami analyzed payments from the pharmaceutical and device industry to neurologists in 2015 using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database (OP). In response, Dr. Sethi argues that lack of distinction between obvious bias and potential conflicts of interest (COIs) in OP risks eroding trust in physician–patient relationships, and proposes voluntary disclosures of relevant COIs with regulatory oversight as an alternative.

Association of Pharmaceutical Industry Marketing of Opioid Products With Mortality From Opioid-Related Overdoses

ImportancePrescription opioids are involved in 40% of all deaths from opioid overdose in the United States and are commonly the first opioids encountered by individuals with opioid use disorder. It is unclear whether the pharmaceutical industry marketing of opioids to physicians is associated with mortality from overdoses.ObjectiveTo identify the association between direct-to-physician marketing of opioid products by pharmaceutical companies and mortality from prescription opioid overdoses across US counties.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis population-based, county-level analysis of industry marketing information used data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database linked with data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on opioid prescribing and mortality from overdoses. All US counties were included, with data on overdoses from August 1, 2014, to December 31, 2016, linked to marketing data from August 1, 2013, to December 31, 2015, using a 1-year lag. Statistical analyses were conducted between February 1 and June 1, 2018.Main Outcomes and MeasuresCounty-level mortality from prescription opioid overdoses, total cost of marketing of opioid products to physicians, number of marketing interactions, opioid prescribing rates, and sociodemographic factors.ResultsBetween August 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015, there were 434 754 payments totaling $39.7 million in nonresearch-based opioid marketing distributed to 67 507 physicians across 2208 US counties. After adjustment for county-level sociodemographic factors, mortality from opioid overdoses increased with each 1-SD increase in marketing value in dollars per capita (adjusted relative risk, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05-1.12), number of payments to physicians per capita (adjusted relative risk, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.14-1.21, and number of physicians receiving marketing per capita (adjusted relative risk, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.08-1.16). Opioid prescribing rates also increased with marketing and partially mediated the association between marketing and mortality.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, across US counties, marketing of opioid products to physicians was associated with increased opioid prescribing and, subsequently, with elevated mortality from overdoses. Amid a national opioid overdose crisis, reexamining the influence of the pharmaceutical industry may be warranted.

Association between Industry Payments and Scholarly Impact among Academic Ophthalmologists

Purpose The aim of this article is to examine the association between industry payments to ophthalmologists and scholarly impact. Design Retrospective cross-sectional study. Methods All ophthalmology faculty at United States accredited ophthalmology residency programs were included in this study. The main exposure was industry payments to ophthalmologists in 2016, as reported in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database. The primary outcome was Hirsch index (H-index), a measure of scholarly impact. Results Among 1,653 academic ophthalmologists in our study, 1,225 (74%) received industry payments in 2016. We did not observe a difference between the mean H-index of ophthalmologists receiving any industry payments versus those not receiving any payments (p = 0.68). In analysis including only ophthalmologists who received industry payments, H-index differed significantly by payment amount: 12.6 for ophthalmologists receiving less than $100, 12.2 for those receiving $100 to 1,000, 18.8 for those receiving $1,000 to 10,000, 21.3 for those receiving $10,000 to 100,000, and 29.4 for those receiving greater than $100,000 (p &lt; 0.001). Within each academic rank and gender, industry payments greater than $1,000 were associated with a higher H-index (p &lt; 0.05). Conclusions Although our analysis cannot prove causality, we observed a significant association between industry payments and scholarly impact among academic ophthalmologists, even after adjusting for gender, academic rank, and subspecialty. Prospective studies should further evaluate this relationship.

Analysis of current financial relationships between emergency physicians and industry

ObjectiveCharacterize the frequency and magnitude of all categories of publicly reported financial payments made to emergency physicians (EPs) in the United States (U.S.) in 2017. MethodsThis cross-sectional study of the 2017 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database was exempt from Institutional Review Board Review. We calculated descriptive statistics of the frequency, type, and amount (medians) of general, research, and ownerships transactions made to EPs from industry, described regional differences of median payments to EPs, and characterized the drugs or devices most commonly associated with transactions. ResultsIn 2017, among 40,899 practicing U.S. EPs, 14,447 (35.4%) received 51,870 general payments from industry totaling $12,870,832. The median per-physician payment was $18.30 (interquartile range [IQR], $13.63–$60.90). The most frequent transaction was food and beverage (89.6%), though most payments by dollar amount were related to speaker and consulting fees (74.5%). Antithrombotics were the most frequently drug or device associated with transactions. Only 35 (0.08%) and 20 (0.05%) EPs had research and ownership relationships with industry, respectively. A significant difference was observed in median payments per physician across all U.S. Census regions (p < 0.01) except when comparing Northeast and West (p = 1.00). ConclusionsOver one-third of U.S. EPs had general payments from industry in 2017, while <1% of EPs had either research and ownership payments during this time period. Consistent with previous research, most payments to EPs are of low monetary value. Antithrombotics remain the most frequent drug associated with payments to EPs.

Assessment of Pharmaceutical Company and Device Manufacturer Payments to Gastroenterologists and Their Participation in Clinical Practice Guideline Panels

Payments from pharmaceutical and device manufacturers to physicians may influence the advice physicians give patients and peers. To investigate the nature and amounts of monetary and other benefits that gastroenterologists received and to determine the participation of those receiving benefits in the formulation of clinical practice guidelines. This cohort study analyzed information from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database, including all reports about payments that pharmaceutical and device manufacturers gave to adult or pediatric gastroenterologists in 2016. PubMed was used to examine the professional affiliations and publication records of top payment recipients. Panelists of clinical guidelines who also received personal financial rewards listed in the Open Payments database were identified. Payments made to gastroenterologists by pharmaceutical company and device manufacturers. Of 15 497 gastroenterologists, 13 467 (86.9%) received a total of 432 463 payments accounting for a total expenditure of $67 144 862. Direct financial payments for consultations, talks, or other services were made to 2055 physicians and were responsible for 4.2% of payments (18 179 of 432 463), but for 62.7% of total expenditures ($42 086 207 of $67 144 862). Although a significant number of submissions were for food and beverages, they constituted only a small amount of total expenditure. For gastroenterologists treating adult patients, 10 products were linked to 63.8% of payments (11 221 of 17 588) related to direct financial rewards and 37.1% of the total expenditures ($24 892 643 of $67 144 862). Twenty-nine of 36 clinical practice guidelines included panelists who had received honoraria or consultation fees from industry sources, with amounts exceeding $10 000 in 8 of them (22%). Most gastroenterologists accept meals or gifts from industry, with 2055 of 15 497 gastroenterologists receiving direct payments and 8 of 36 clinical practice guidelines panelists having received more than $10 000. Considering the known impact of such benefits on prescribing patterns and other professional behaviors, policy makers should consider revising regulations governing interactions with industry and disclosure formats alerting others to their potential biasing impact.

Comparison of Conflict of Interest (COI) Disclosures to Publicly Reported Industry Payments for Presenters at the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting: Can we Do Better?

The ASTRO annual meeting is the largest US academic forum for radiation oncology. Proper conflict of interest (COI) disclosure by speakers is essential to research integrity. We examine presentations at ASTRO annual meetings to evaluate COI disclosure and compare these disclosures to payments reported on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments (OP) database. In this abstract, we report on disclosure discrepancies and quantitative monetary thresholds of these discrepancies. The first presentation of each podium, scientific, presidential symposium, educational and panel session from the 2014-2016 ASTRO virtual meetings was arbitrarily selected. Each presentation was examined 1) for the presence of a COI slide and 2) for the disclosures listed. For each presenter, disclosures were cross-referenced with the OP database in the prior year in the categories of consulting, research, and faculty/speaking fees. Disclosures were determined to be discrepancies if a speaker did not list all the companies from which they received a payment as reported on the OP database, or if no COI slide was present. Of the 401 total presentations examined, 264 were US MDs, and 16.4% of US MDs underreported industry funding. When examining individual payments for all US presenters, 96 payments were reported on the OP database in the aforementioned categories: 53 of these payments were not disclosed and 43 payments were accurately disclosed. Of the presentations with discrepancies, 32.6% did not have a COI slide, 39.5% failed to disclose any OP companies, and 27.9% disclosed some but not all OP companies. Mean payment was $34,264 (median: $4,000; range: $96-$488,931), mean discrepancy was $30,300 (median: $2,925; range: $96-$488,931) and mean disclosed payment was $39,151 (median: $5,000; range: $750-$400,000). Research payments were the largest with a mean of $71,167 (median: $13,566; range: $160-$488,931). Among discrepancies, 49.1% were for research, 30.2% for consulting, and 20.8% for faculty/speaking fees. Three-quarters of the lowest third of all payments ($96-$2000) were not disclosed with the majority (75%) of these discrepancies occurring in presentations with COI slides while 45.3% of the upper two thirds of payments were not disclosed with 41.3% occurring in presentations with COI slides. A large minority of presenters underreported COIs. Payments of lower amounts were more often underreported. Limitations of our study include the small sample size and potential errors in reporting on OP. Nearly a third of discrepancies were due to absent COI slides, suggesting inadequate understanding of disclosure protocols. Guidelines should be revised with an emphasis on the dollar amount relevant for disclosing industry payments.

Meaningful and Accurate Disclosure of Conflict of Interest at the ASTRO National Meeting: A Need for Reassessment of Current Policies.

Conflict of interest (COI) disclosure is essential to research integrity. The average reading comprehension in English is 3.8 words per second (wps). This study examines presenters at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) national meeting over a recent 3-year period to determine whether disclosure is presented accurately and in a manner that allows the audience to comprehend the content. We examined videos of presentations as well as slides from 2014 to 2016 from the ASTRO virtual meeting, noting whether a COI slide was presented, the duration the slide was visible, and the number of disclosures. Disclosures were cross-referenced for discrepancies with the publicly reported Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. Using a cutoff of 4 wps, we noted how many presentations were presented at speeds of ≤ 4 wps and > 4 wps. The final data set consisted of 401 presentations delivered by 364 presenters. Using a threshold of 4 wps, 34.0% of presenters had COI slides shown too fast for the average audience to comprehend. Moreover, 16.3% of US physicians incorrectly underreported industry funding received. Of these presentations with discrepancies, 32.6% did not have a COI slide, 39.5% failed to disclose any COI, 27.9% partially disclosed COIs, and 11.6% contained multiple discrepancies. The number of wps were correlated with having a discrepancy on multivariable regression ( P = .046; odds ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.19). A substantial minority of presentations at ASTRO lack meaningful disclosure, and a surprising number incorrectly reported COIs. Additional guidance may be needed to promote more meaningful and accurate disclosure of COIs at major national meetings in oncology.

Industry Payments to Obstetricians and Gynecologists Under the Sunshine Act.

To evaluate financial relationships between obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns) and industry, including the prevalence, magnitude, and the nature of payments. We conducted a cross-sectional study in which we obtained a list of industry contributions to U.S. obstetricians and gynecologists through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database from August 1, 2013, to December 31, 2015. These data were cross-referenced with the entire cohort of practicing obstetricians and gynecologists, who were identified using the National Provider Identification database, because not all practicing ob-gyns received payments. These payments were analyzed with respect to 1) types of payments, 2) demographic attributes of health care providers receiving payments, and 3) comparisons between obstetrician and gynecologist subspecialties. Continuous data were compared using the Mann-Whitney test for variables that were not normally distributed and with the t test for variables that are normally distributed. A total of 517,077 nonresearch payments, totaling $79,965,244, were made to 23,292 ob-gyns. Physicians receiving payments were predominantly female, younger than 65 years old, allopathic physicians who graduated from U.S. medical schools in the late 1990s, and were board-certified subspecialists (P<.001 for all). Half of all ob-gyns received payments of varying amounts from drug manufacturers, device manufacturers, or both, with most of the payments for honoraria, faculty compensation, or consulting. Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery physicians received the largest median dollar amount; maternal-fetal medicine physicians received the smallest. Obstetricians and gynecologists receive a substantial amount of payments from industry. Most of these payments were for honoraria, faculty compensation, or consulting and totaled less than $400 per health care provider. Although this total amount is less than typically received by surgical providers, including orthopedic surgeons who account for the highest compensated group in total and mean industry payments, the median payment value for obstetrics and gynecology subspecialists surpasses the median payment to orthopedic surgeons. These financial relationships warrant further exploration with future research.

Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery: The Relevance of Industry-Reported Payments.

Academic journals such as The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (JBJS) require disclosures of financial relationships that authors report as potential conflicts of interest. Because industry payments can take various forms, including food and beverage, consulting, or research payments, the purpose of this study was to determine which categories of industry-reported payments were most frequently considered by authors as irrelevant to their specific publication, and therefore not included in their journal disclosures. Author disclosures were collected from scientific articles published in JBJS in 2016. Payments reported by authors as relevant to the published article were compared with industry-reported payments from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database (OPD), which includes all payments to eligible physicians in the United States. The number of authors with payments found in the OPD and appearing in publication-specific disclosures was determined for each payment type. Of note, OPD data are not indicative of relevance to a particular publication; therefore, the accuracy of author disclosures could not be determined in this study. A total of 747 eligible authors were included; 60.5% of authors did not report at least 1 payment from their OPD report in their publication-specific disclosures, most frequently representing industry payments for food and beverage (55.7%), followed by travel and lodging (26.9%). Payments for consulting (16.3%), royalties (8.2%), research (8.4%), and ownership interests (1.5%) were not considered to be relevant disclosures for specific journal articles by authors at lower rates than those for food and beverage and for travel and lodging. Authors publishing in JBJS were more likely to conclude that industry-reported payments in the OPD for food and beverage and for travel and lodging were irrelevant for specific publications (as disclosed to the journal) than payments for consulting, royalties, research, and ownership interests.