Medicaid Services Open Payments Research Articles

Industry-Sponsored Research Funding to Urologists in the United States Between 2014 and 2022.

Urologists face challenges in obtaining public research funding, leading to increasing reliance on the industry for research support. This study aimed to examine the extent and trends in industry-sponsored research payments to urologists from 2014 to 2022 in the United States. We identified all US urologists using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services National Plan and Provider Enumeration System database and extracted their industry-sponsored research payments data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database. We performed descriptive analyses of the payments data. Among 13,902 US urologists, 1330 (9.6%) received at least one industry-sponsored research payment. Urologists received $605.1 million between 2014 and 2022. Of all research payments, 98.7% ($597.4 million) were associated research payments for research where urologists served as principal investigators. The top 10% of urologists in research payments received 79.3% ($480.0 million) of total research payments. Only 0.4% ($2.3 million) of research payments were for preclinical research, whereas registered clinical trials totaled $159.0 million (26.3% of all research payments). The annual value of research payments increased from $35.2 million in 2014 to $101.7 million in 2022. The average percentage change in total payments showed a significant annual increase of 13.9% (95% CI, 11.6%-16.3%; P < .001) in value. There was no significant trend in the number of urologists receiving research payments. Industry-sponsored research payments to urologists are substantial and have increased in both payment amount and number over time.

Industry affiliation influence on randomized controlled trials for platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis: a systematic review

BackgroundExplicit funding and industry affiliation is believed to potentially impact medical research. There’ve been an increasing number of studies that have evaluated this relationship. The purpose of this study is to determine whether industry affiliation influences the outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigate the effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on the treatment of lateral epicondylitis. Study DesignSystematic Review. Economic/Decision Analysis. MethodsA search of PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and SCOPUS was performed using the search terms “lateral epicondylitis” and “platelet-rich plasma” as well as “tennis elbow” and “platelet-rich plasma.” Only studies from 2010-present were considered. Final texts were then analyzed for industry affiliation and treatment efficacy. When determining whether a study was industry affiliated, explicit financial supporters of the study, stated conflict of interests, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) disclosures, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) open payments database were assessed. Study outcomes were categorized as favorable, analogous, or unfavorable based on achieving a statically significant (p < 0.05) comparing PRP vs control. ResultsA total of 26 studies were used. Of these, 20 were industry nonaffiliated and 6 were industry affiliated. There were 15 studies (2 affiliated and 13 nonaffiliated) that reported PRP as favorable compared to the comparison (corticosteroid, analogous whole blood, or normal saline). The endpoints were 6 and 12 months after usage of PRP or the comparison. Quantitative data analysis yielded results that weren’t statistically significant between industry nonaffiliated and affiliated groups. The p-values for 6-month VAS, 12-month VAS, 6-month DASH, 12-month DASH, 6-month PRTEE, and 12-month PRTEE were 0.577, 0.635, 0.554, 0.465, 0.273, and 0.157, respectively. ConclusionDespite our results indicating that industry affiliation doesn’t have an impact on outcomes of RCT’s examining the treatment of lateral epicondylitis with PRP, it’s important for future studies to evaluate affiliations when making treatment recommendations.

Industry payments and implicit bias in cardiothoracic surgery: Difference in industry payments to cardiothoracic surgeons by gender

ObjectiveIndustry payments, as sources of revenue and prestige, may contribute to gender implicit bias. We examined industry payments to cardiothoracic surgeons to determine differences with respect to gender while accounting for practice focus and experience. MethodsPayments to cardiothoracic surgeons from 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022 were abstracted from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payment database. Data were restricted to individual payments >$1000 and the following payment criteria: consulting fees, compensation for services other than consulting, honoraria, education, compensation for serving as faculty or as a speaker for a nonaccredited and noncertified continuing education program, and grant. Physician profiles were queried for gender, practice type, and year of last fellowship completion. Descriptive statistics were reported based on these factors. ResultsIn 2014, 509 cardiothoracic surgeons (497 men and 12 women) received meaningful industry payments. Male surgeons received $10,471,192 (99.3%) with median payment of $6500 and mean of $21,069, whereas women received $70,310 (0.7%) with median of $3500 and mean of $5859. In 2022, 674 cardiothoracic surgeons (613 men and 61 women) received industry payments, with men receiving $10,967,855 (92.4%) with a median payment of $6611 and mean of $17,892 and women receiving $905,431 (7.6%) with a median payment of $6000 and mean of $14,843. ConclusionsIndustry payments to women increased from 2014 to 2022 as the proportion of women in practice rose. Industry support of women, with increases in compensation and roles as speakers, consultants, and educators, offers a potential strategy to combat implicit bias within cardiothoracic surgery.

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. The PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and MEDLINE databases were searched in July 2023 for RCTs investigating PRP for the treatment of patellar or Achilles tendinopathy published between 2009 and July 2023. Industry affiliation was determined by analyzing each study's funding or conflict-of-interest section. Author disclosures were searched in the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons disclosure database and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services open payments database. An industry-affiliated (IA) designation was given if an author had a relevant disclosure or if the company that funded the study manufactured PRP. Otherwise, a non-industry-affiliated (NIA) designation was given. Fisher exact analysis was used to determine whether PRP had a favorable effect, no significant effect, or an unfavorable effect on outcome. Analysis was performed on 22 studies (10 IA and 12 NIA), with 17 studies (77.3%) 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 use and 14 (63.6%) reported no significant effect. Favorable outcomes were found in 4 of the 10 IA studies (40.0%), whereas 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 > .999). The results of RCTs evaluating the use of PRP in lower-extremity tendinopathy were not influenced by industry sponsorship. Most biomedical research is funded through industry sponsorship. Although this relation 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.

"Top 20" residency-trained academic orthopaedic surgeons have higher academic productivity and funding in their careers.

"Top 20" status on Doximity, an online networking service for medical professionals, is an indicator of the reputation of a residency program. The study assesses how training at a Top 20 (T20) orthopaedic residency program impacts career productivity and funding. Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database was used in 2022 to identify active orthopaedic residency programs. Demographic and training data was collected for each orthopaedic surgeon using institutional websites and Doximity. The Residency Navigator feature on Doximity was used to rank residency programs by "reputation." Programs were categorized as either T20 or non-T20. The relative citation ratio (RCR) was calculated using the NIH iCite tool and Hirsch index (h-index) was calculated using Scopus. Industry funding was collected from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Program (CMS) for all available years (2014-2020). A total of 2812 academic orthopaedic surgeons were included in the study. Among academic orthopaedic surgeons in the United States, T20 trained orthopedists had more publications and citations (p < 0.001), along with higher h-indices (p < 0.001), RCR (p < 0.001), and industry funding (p = 0.043). Additionally, T20 trained orthopedists were 1.375 times more likely to obtain professor status (95% confidence interval: 1.150-1.645, p < 0.001). Even after propensity-matched analysis, T20 trained orthopedists maintained these differences. Training at a T20 residency program is associated with promotion, productivity, and funding. These findings are especially of concern to medical students who must consider the importance of a residency program's reputation when deciding where to apply for residency.

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 were 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.].

Factors Associated With Various Types of Industry Payments to Academic Spine Surgeons in the Open Payments Database.

Retrospective cohort study. The objective of this study was to investigate associations between spine surgeon characteristics and different types of industry payments. Industry funding has played an important role in research and technological innovation within spine surgery, and industry payments supporting research have risen significantly in comparison to funding from other sources. To our knowledge, no studies have investigated academic spine surgeon characteristics associated with different categories of industry payments. A query was conducted of the North American Spine Society Spine Fellowship Directory from 2021 to 2022 to identify all orthopaedic or neurosurgical spine fellowship selection committee members. A PubMed search was utilized to collect information on surgeon academic productivity up through December 31, 2021. The authors then conducted a query on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services open payments website from 2015 to 2021 to collect payment records of spine fellowship selection committee members. On linear regression analysis, total publications (8203, P <0.001), attending years (48,823, P <0.001), and publication rate (57,528, P =0.017) were associated with higher general payments. Southeast spine surgeons (80,043, P =0.038) and fellowship directors (79,874, P =0.007) were associated with more research payments. Total publications (7409, P <0.001), attending years (47,100, P <0.001), and publication rate (47,511, P =0.040) were significantly associated with higher royalties. Having a Twitter/X account (60,800, P =0.018), being a director (51,605, P =0.034), total publications (492, P <0.001), and publication rate (6444, P <0.001) were all predictive of greater consulting payments. Spine surgeons who are experienced, academically productive, fellowship directors, and engage with social media receive greater payments on average than their peers across various payment types. As industry influence continues to make its way into health care, experienced leaders in their respective fields will shoulder the responsibility to integrate private innovation in an effective and scientifically rigorous manner. 3.

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 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.

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.

Open Payments Data Analysis of General and Fellowship-trained Surgeons Receiving Industry General Payments from 2016 to 2020: Payment Disparities and COVID-19 Pandemic Impact.

To characterize industry non-research payments made to general and fellowship-trained surgeons between 2016-2020. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Data (OPD) reports industry payments made to physicians related to drugs and medical devices. General payments are those not associated with research. OPD data were queried for general and fellowship-trained surgeons who received general payments from 2016 to 2020. Payments' nature, amount, company, covered product, and location were collected. Surgeons' demographics, subspecialty, and leadership roles in hospitals, societies, and editorial boards were evaluated. From 2016 to 2020, 44,700 general and fellowship-trained surgeons were paid $535,425,543 in 1,440,850 general payments. The median payment was $29.18. The most frequent payments were for food and beverage (76.6%) and travel and lodging (15.6%); however, the highest dollar payments were for consulting fees ($93,128,401; 17.4%), education ($88,404,531; 16.5%), royalty or license ($87,471,238; 16.3%), and travel and lodging ($66,333,149; 12.4%). Five companies made half of all payments ($265,654,522; 49.6%): Intuitive Surgical ($128,517,411; 24%), Boston Scientific ($48,094,570; 9%), Edwards Lifesciences ($41,835,544, 7.8%), Medtronic Vascular ($33,607,136; 6.3%), and W. L. Gore & Associates ($16,626,371; 3.1%). Medical devices comprised 74.7% of payments ($399,897,217), followed by drugs and biologicals ($33,945,300; 6.3%). TX, CA, FL, NY, and PA received the most payments; however, the top dollar payments were in CA ($65,702,579; 12.3%), MI ($52,990,904, 9.9%), TX ($39,362,131; 7.4%), MD ($37,611,959; 7%), and FL ($33,417,093, 6.2%). General surgery received the highest total payments ($245,031,174; 45.8%), followed by thoracic surgery ($167,806,514; 31.3%) and vascular surgery ($60,781,266; 11.4%). A total of 10,361 surgeons were paid >$5,000, of which 1,614 were women (15.6%); in this group, men received higher payments than women (means, $53,446 vs. $22,571; P<0.001) and thoracic surgeons received the highest payments (mean, $76,381; NS, P=0.14). A total of 120 surgeons were paid >$500,000 ($203,011,672; 38%) - 5 non-Hispanic white (NHW) women (4.2%) and 82 NHW (68.3%), 24 Asian (20%), 7 Hispanic (5.8%), and 2 Black (1.7%) men; in this group, men received higher payments than women (means, $1,735,570 vs. $684,224), and NHW men received payments double those of other men (means, $2,049,554 vs. $955,368; NS, P=0.087). Among these 120 highly paid surgeons (>$500,000), 55 held hospital and departmental leadership roles, 30 were leaders in surgical societies, 27 authored clinical guidelines, and 16 served on journal editorial boards. During COVID-19, 2020 experienced half the number of payments than the preceding 3 years. General and fellowship-trained surgeons received substantial industry non-research payments. Highest paid recipients were men. Further work is warranted in assessing how race, gender, and leadership roles influence the nature of industry payments and surgical practice. A significant decline in payments was observed early during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.