Trends In Payments Research Articles

The physician payments Sunshine Act and medical oncology: a seven-year financial analysis.

The integration of pharmaceutical and medical device companies with clinical practice is under scrutiny due to financial incentives that may influence oncology care. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act mandates transparency in these financial relationships. This study examines the trends in non-research payments to oncology specialists between 2017 and 2023, analyzing amounts, reasons, and variations by subspecialty and region. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database, focusing on U.S.-based hematology, medical oncology, and hematology-oncology specialists. Payments were categorized by amount, purpose, and payment type, with temporal and geographic comparisons. Data analysis was conducted in Rstudio (version 2022.07.0) with Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, and Chi-square tests to assess statistical significance across specialties, regions, and payment periods. Between 2017 and 2023, 2,158,140 payments totaling $601,567,196.10 were made to 19,585 U.S.-based hematology, medical oncology, and hematology-oncology specialists. Hematology-oncology received the highest total payment amount ($393,169,915.10) and transaction count (1,700,202), while hematology had the highest median payment ($23.05) compared to hematology-oncology ($18.12) and medical oncology ($19.5). Payment patterns demonstrated seasonal peaks, particularly in Q1 and Q4, and increased markedly during major oncology conferences (ASCO, ASH). Analysis by geographic region revealed that the South consistently received the highest total payments, peaking at $36.8 million in 2023, while the Northeast had the highest median payment values, reaching $22.87 in 2023. The COVID-19 pandemic corresponded with lasting shifts in payment patterns, with median payment values rising significantly during the pandemic period and remaining elevated post-COVID across all specialties. Additionally, the distribution of payments by type revealed that direct cash payments and consulting fees were the most prominent, with hematology-oncology showing the greatest reliance on high-value cash transactions, while stock payments featured prominently in hematology. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these patterns as robust, with minimal variance observed when excluding extreme values, further validating consistent trends across specialties, regions, and periods. This study reveals specialty- and region-specific variations in oncology-related payments, with significant increases during key conferences and the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings underscore the importance of continued transparency and scrutiny in industry-oncology financial interactions to mitigate potential conflicts of interest in oncology care.

Status of Digital Payments in BRICS Countries

Rapid technological advancements and FinTech initiatives in the recent past have been facilitating the transformation of financial and payment services across the globe. The present study examines the status of digital payments, digital payment environment and digital financial inclusion among the BRICS countries. The digital payment trends in the BRICS countries for the period 2011–2021 through the access and use indicators of digital payments are compared. There exist significant differences between the BRICS countries and the developed countries for both the access and use indicators of digital payments, which requires the respective governments and central banks of BRICS countries to take necessary steps to achieve the goal of digital financial inclusion. JEL Codes: E42, E58

Pharmaceutical industry payments to healthcare professional organisations in the United Kingdom: a seven-year cross-sectional analysis of the Disclosure UK database from 2015 to 2021.

This study aimed to examine the size and trends in payments from the pharmaceutical industry to healthcare professional organisations (HPOs) in the United Kingdom (UK), and to characterise the conflict of interest (COI) management plans by HPOs who received large payments. Cross-sectional analysis of non-research payments disclosed in the Disclosure UK database from 2015 to 2021. United Kingdom. 148 pharmaceutical companies disclosing payment data and HPOs receiving the largest payments. Total value and median of payments per HPO; existence and content of COI policies among HPOs receiving the largest payments. A total of 898 HPOs received non-research payments worth £99.9 million (17.4% of non-research payments to all healthcare organisations). The median seven-year payment per HPO was £4509 (interquartile range: £943-£30,360). The annual payments nearly doubled from £9.3 million in 2015 to £17.6 million in 2021. Event payments constituted the largest share (£68.2 million, 68.2%). HPOs representing physicians received over 91.5% (£91.5 million) of all payments, while those related to endocrinology and diabetology - 16.3% (£16.3 million). Over 59.9% (£59.9 million) went to the 30 top-funded HPOs, of which only 17 (56.7%) had a publicly accessible COI policy. However, just 6 (35.3%) of these policies included provisions for payments from external organisations. HPOs received nearly one-fifth of pharmaceutical company payments to the UK healthcare sector. These payments were concentrated among a small number of HPOs, which often lacked effective policies for management of COI and payments from the industry.

Impact Of UPI Transaction on Purchasing Decision of Customers: A Survey in Chennai City

In today’s digital age, the Unified Payments Interface (UPI) has significantly transformed consumer purchasing behavior, making transactions more seamless and efficient. This study investigates the impact of UPI transactions on customers' purchasing decisions in Chennai, analyzing awareness, usage patterns, and the role of demographic factors. Data collected from 121 respondents reveal a high awareness and adoption rate of UPI, with a substantial portion of participants preferring UPI over cash for everyday purchases. Regression analysis indicates a strong positive correlation (r = 0.65, p < 0.01) between UPI transaction frequency and consumer purchasing activity. Additionally, age and income are shown to significantly influence UPI usage. The findings highlight UPI’s role in enhancing consumer convenience and security while promoting more frequent and impulsive buying behavior. The study offers insights for marketers and policymakers to leverage digital payment trends for improved consumer engagement.

Distribution and Disparities of Industry Payments to Neuroradiologists.

Physician-industry relationships can be useful for driving innovation and technologic progress, though little is known about the scale or impact of industry involvement in neuroradiology. The purpose of this study was to assess the trends and distributions of industry payments to neuroradiologists. Neuroradiologists were identified using a previously-validated method based on Work Relative Value Units and Neiman Imaging Types of Service classification. Data on payments from industry were obtained from the Open Payments database from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, from 2016 to 2021. Payments were grouped into 7 categories, including consulting fees, education, gifts, medical supplies, research, royalties/ownership, and speaker fees. Descriptive statistics were calculated. A total of 3019 neuroradiologists were identified in this study. Between 2016 and 2021, 48% (1440/3019) received at least 1 payment from industry, amounting to a total number of 21,967 payments. Each year, among those receiving payments from industry, each unique neuroradiologist received between a mean of 5.49-7.42 payments and a median of 2 payments, indicating a strong rightward skew to the distribution of payments. Gifts were the most frequent payment type made (60%, 13,285/21,967) but accounted for only 4.1% ($689,859/$17,010,546) of payment value. The greatest aggregate payment value came from speaker fees, which made up 36% ($6,127,484/$17,010,546) of the total payment value. The top 5% highest paid neuroradiologists received 42% (9133/21,967) of payments, which accounted for 84% ($14,284,120/$17,010,546) of the total dollar value. Since the start of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the number of neuroradiologists receiving industry payments decreased from a mean of 671 neuroradiologists per year prepandemic (2016-2019) to 411 in the postpandemic (2020-2021) era (P = .030). The total number of payments to neuroradiologists decreased from 4177 per year prepandemic versus 2631 per year postpandemic (P = .011). Industry payments to neuroradiologists are highly concentrated among top earners, particularly among the top 5% of payment recipients. The number of payments decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic, though the dollar value of payments was offset by coincidental increases in royalty payments. Further investigation is needed in subsequent years to determine if the postpandemic changes in industry payment trends continue.

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.

Trends in Phototherapy Utilization, Payments, and Geographic Distribution: An Analysis of United States Medicare Part B From 2000 to 2021.

Trends in phototherapy utilization in the context of new therapeutics have not been evaluated. This study aimed to evaluate phototherapy utilization, payments, and geographic distribution for Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2021. A longitudinal analysis of the Medicare Part B National Summary Data Files was conducted to obtain phototherapy utilization and payment amounts. Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners by Provider and Service datasets were used to determine provider type and geographic distribution. Between 2000 and 2021, total Medicare phototherapy volume increased from 335,152 to 621,850, correlating with a 3.0% annual growth rate (5.0% between 2000 and 2015, -3.1% between 2016 and 2021). Ultraviolet B phototherapy represented the majority of use, rising from 68.1% in 2000 to 78.0% in 2021. Psoralens plus ultraviolet A decreased by 11.3% annually, while laser treatments increased by 17.3%. Between 2013 and 2021, the number of clinics offering phototherapy declined; facilities were available in only 9.9% of counties, mainly clustered along both coasts and east of the Mississippi. Overall, phototherapy continues to be an important therapeutic option. Limited access in non-urban areas remains a significant challenge, and further work is necessary to both evaluate this impact and reduce disparities.

Medicare Reimbursement and Utilization Trends Within Skull Base Surgery

Medicare reimbursements for otolaryngology and neurosurgery procedures have generally declined since 2000. We explore Medicare reimbursement trends for anterior cranial fossa, middle cranial fossa, posterior cranial fossa, pituitary surgery, and skull base reconstruction surgery from 2000-2022. Cross-sectional analysis of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Physician Fee Schedule was performed from 2000-2022 on approach, resection, and repair of the skull base (Current Procedural Terminology codes 31290-31291, 61546, 61548, 61575-61619, and 62165). Reimbursement data were adjusted for inflation to 2022 U.S. dollars, and annual and total changes calculated. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Part B National Summary Data File was analyzed for trends in Medicare procedure volume and total payment. Adjusted for inflation since 2000, reimbursements for anterior cranial fossa, middle cranial fossa, posterior cranial fossa, pituitary surgery, and skull base reconstruction codes had an overall decrease of 22.85%, 32.43%, 28.09%, 44.22%, and 38.65%, respectively. Simultaneously, procedure volume increased at an average annual rate of 63.99%, 128.57%, 19.75%, 36.11%, and 12.79%, respectively. While nominal per-service Medicare reimbursement has increased for skull base surgery codes, there has been a downward trend in inflation-adjusted procedural reimbursement. This parallels findings in other otolaryngology and neurosurgery procedures. Despite this, surgical volume in all skull base surgery subfields has increased, indicating increased utility and adoption of these techniques.

Trends in payments for facility and surgeon professional fees for shoulder surgeries performed at ambulatory surgery centers

It has previously been demonstrated that utilization of ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) results in cost savings and improved outcomes. Despite these benefits, Medicare reimbursement for professional fees at ASCs are decreasing over time. In this study, we sought to analyze the discrepancy between facility fee and professional fee reimbursements for ASCs by Medicare for common shoulder procedures over time. We hypothesized that professional fees for shoulder procedures would decrease over the study period while facility fees kept pace with inflation. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were used to identify shoulder specific procedures approved for ASCs by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Procedures were grouped into arthroscopic and open categories. Publicly available data from CMS was accessed via the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Lookup Tool and used to determine professional fee payments from 2018-2024. Additionally, Medicare ASC Payment Rates files were accessed to determine facility fee reimbursements to ASCs from 2018-2024. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate means and percent change over time. Compound annual growth rates (CAGR) were calculated and discrepancies in inflation were corrected for using the Consumer Price Index. The Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to correct P values in the setting of multiple comparisons. A total of 33 common shoulder procedures were included for analysis (10 arthroscopic codes and 23 open codes). Reimbursements for facility fees have remained significantly higher than corresponding professional fees for both open and arthroscopic procedures (p<0.01). On average, facility fee reimbursements for common shoulder surgeries have risen on an annual basis in a manner consistent with inflation (p=0.838). However, professional fees for these procedures have experienced a nearly uniform decline over the study period both nominally and in inflation-adjusted dollars (p=0.064 and p=0.005, respectively). Facility fee payments for outpatient approved shoulder surgeries have matched or outpaced inflation. Over the same time period, professional fee reimbursements for surgeons are consistently decreasing, both in absolute and inflation-adjusted dollars. Reform to the physician fee schedule is necessary to ensure that Medicare patients retain access to high-quality physician care.

52322 Trends in phototherapy utilization, payments, and geographic distribution: an analysis of United States Medicare Part B from 2000 to 2021

52322 Trends in phototherapy utilization, payments, and geographic distribution: an analysis of United States Medicare Part B from 2000 to 2021

Trends in Research Payments for Age-Related Macular Degeneration From 2015 to 2021

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate characteristics of industry and public research payments for age-related macular degeneration studies. Materials and Methods: Studies involving “age-related macular degeneration” or “AMD” from 2015 to 2021 were extracted from the Open Payments Database and the National Eye Institute RePORTER tool and compared to each other. Results: From 2015 to 2021, 620 ophthalmologists received $178,394,734.09 in industry research payments with a 76.9% increase from 2015 to 2020 and a subsequent 40.7% decrease in 2021. There were 84 female industry funding recipients (13.7%) compared to 528 (86.3%) male recipients ( P &lt; 0.001). For public funding, 119 ophthalmologists received $157,319,575.00 with a 31.0% increase from 2015 to 2021. Among 119 principal investigators, 37 (31.1%) were women and 82 (68.9%) were men ( P = 0.05). Conclusion: Industry-funded and publicly funded age-related macular degeneration–related research payments overall increased from 2015 to 2021. Funding distribution by sex trended towards male recipients. [ Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2024;55:xx–xx.]

The exponential growth of nonsurgeons performing fusions for low-back pain.

This study aimed to report changes in utilization and payment trends of low-back pain (LBP) interventions and the impact of nonsurgeon interventionalists on these changes. Medicare Part B national summary data files were used to gather annual utilization and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) payment data for LBP interventions from 2000 to 2021. Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes were grouped as decompression, spinal fusion, sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion, epidural steroid injections (ESIs), physical therapy (PT), and chiropractic manipulation (Chiro). The total allowed services and payments were collected for each HCPCS group. CMS provider-level files, available from 2013 to 2021, were used to collect neurosurgeon, orthopedic surgeon, and nonsurgeon interventionalist (interventional radiology and pain management) data for each surgical HCPCS code group (decompression, spinal fusion, and SI joint fusion). The United States Consumer Price Index was used to adjust for inflation. From 2000 to 2021, there were 339,720,725 Medicare-approved interventions and payments of approximately $21 billion for LBP (percentage of cumulative payments: 41.8% Chiro, 16.5% ESI, 14.4% spinal fusion, 14.3% PT, 10.2% decompression, and 0.4% SI joint fusion). In a subgroup analysis, spinal fusions for Medicare patients were performed by orthopedic surgeons (59.2%), neurosurgeons (40.6%), and nonsurgeon interventionalists (< 1%) from 2013 to 2021. From 2013 to 2021, neurosurgeon and orthopedic surgeon fusion utilization each grew by < 3% and associated Medicare payments to each specialty declined by 1% each year. During the same period, nonsurgeon interventionalist utilization grew 26% each year and associated Medicare payments to nonsurgeon interventionalists for spine fusions grew 62% each year. In a subgroup analysis, SI joint fusions for Medicare patients were performed by orthopedic surgeons (50.7%), neurosurgeons (24.8%), and nonsurgeon interventionalists (24.5%) from 2018 to 2021. Neurosurgeon utilization of SI joint fusion declined by 1% each year and associated Medicare payments to this group grew 2% each year. Orthopedic surgeon utilization of SI joint fusion declined 1% and associated Medicare payments to this group grew 4% each year. Nonsurgeon interventionalist use of SI joint fusions grew 415% and payments grew 435% each year. The substantial growth in Medicare payments for surgical LBP interventions is disproportionally driven by nonsurgeon interventionalists. The exponential growth of nonsurgeon interventionalists performing spinal fusion surgeries, particularly SI joint fusions, largely accounts for the significant increase in Medicare expenditures.

Growing divergence between Medicare Advantage plan bids and payments to plans.

As the Medicare Advantage (MA) program grows in enrollment and costs, there has been increasing concern that federal payments to MA plans exceed necessary levels. Estimates suggest that, in 2023, MA plans were paid up to 6% more per enrollee than would have been spent had that beneficiary instead enrolled in traditional Medicare (TM). We evaluated the factors driving this overpayment, characterizing trends in MA benchmarks, bids, and total payments from pre-Affordable Care Act (pre-ACA) levels through 2023. We found that, despite an overall decrease in risk-adjusted bids relative to average risk-adjusted TM enrollee costs, total payments to plans have modestly increased since 2015. Decomposing these trends into various factors in the MA payment formula, we found that divergent trends in benchmarks and bids are, in part, due to the increasing influence of payment adjustments, such as quartile spending adjustments, quality bonus payments, and risk adjustment. Our results suggest that current payment rules have contributed to overpayments and policy reform may be necessary.

Non-research payments to board-certified cardiologists from pharmaceutical industry in Japan from 2016 to 2019: a retrospective analysis

ObjectivesTo evaluate the extent and trends of personal payments from pharmaceutical companies to cardiologists board-certified by the Japanese Circulation Society.DesignA retrospective analysis study using data from a publicly available database.SettingThe...

Trends in heart failure costs for commercially insured patients in the United States (2006–2021)

BackgroundAlthough prior research has estimated the overarching cost burden of heart failure (HF), a thorough analysis examining medical expense differences and trends, specifically among commercially insured patients with heart failure, is still lacking. Thus, the study aims to examine historical trends and differences in medical costs for commercially insured heart failure patients in the United States from 2006 to 2021.MethodsA population-based, cross-sectional analysis of medical and pharmacy claims data (IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus for Academic) from 2006 to 2021 was conducted. The cohort included adult patients (age > = 18) who were enrolled in commercial insurance plans and had healthcare encounters with a primary diagnosis of HF. The primary outcome measures were the average total annual payment per patient and per cost categories encompassing hospitalization, surgery, emergency department (ED) visits, outpatient care, post-discharge care, and medications. The sub-group measures included systolic, diastolic, and systolic combined with diastolic, age, gender, comorbidity, regions, states, insurance payment, and self-payment.ResultsThe study included 422,289 commercially insured heart failure (HF) patients in the U.S. evaluated from 2006 to 2021. The average total annual cost per patient decreased overall from $9,636.99 to $8,201.89, with an average annual percentage change (AAPC) of -1.11% (95% CI: -2% to -0.26%). Hospitalization and medication costs decreased with an AAPC of -1.99% (95% CI: -3.25% to -0.8%) and − 3.1% (95% CI: -6.86–0.69%). On the other hand, post-discharge, outpatient, ED visit, and surgery costs increased by an AAPC of 0.84% (95% CI: 0.12–1.49%), 4.31% (95% CI: 1.03–7.63%), 7.21% (95% CI: 6.44–8.12%), and 9.36% (95% CI: 8.61–10.19%).ConclusionsThe study’s findings reveal a rising trend in average total annual payments per patient from 2006 to 2015, followed by a subsequent decrease from 2016 to 2021. This decrease was attributed to the decline in average patient costs within the Medicare Cost insurance category after 2016, coinciding with the implementation of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015. Additionally, expenses related to surgical procedures, emergency department (ED) visits, and outpatient care have shown substantial growth over time. Moreover, significant differences across various variables have been identified.

De-Dollarisation in International Payments: Trend or Fiction

Abstract The present research paper is focused the widely debated topic related to de-dollarization. It examines the trend of de-dollarization to check if the statements that the dollar is losing its weight and is about to lose its leading position in international trade payments are substantiated. Firstly, the theoretical framework behind the dollarization is explored. Secondly, the factors believed to be the basis of the de-dollarization process have been identified and analyzed, which are related to: geopolitical processes, changes in international payments policy in some BRICS countries, changes in international trade, etc. A performed analysis of the currency turnover in international trade, based on data from official sources, was made through forecast regression, which predicts the development of the share of the dollar in international payments. A correlation matrix was also calculated, showing the correlation links between the dollar and the other leadng currencies. The hypothesis, which is confirmed by the practical research, is that the de-dollarization process is proceeding slowly and uncertainly, and will continue to develop at a low pace leading to insignificant changes in the structure of the currency composition of international payments in the short and medium term. Further research could further explore each of the factors that could lead to a real dedollarisation trend in international payments.

Trends in pharmaceutical industry payments to US cancer centers, 2014-2021.

11065 Background: US National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers (NCICCCs) receive federal funding to support their public missions. However, these institutions also receive substantial funds (both research and non-research) from the pharmaceutical companies, which have private, for-profit goals. The amount of industry money received by NCICCCs, with respect to their federal funding, is poorly understood. The goal of this study was to examine trends in industry payments to US cancer centers. Methods: NCICCCs were identified (N=51). Industry payments to each NCICCC from 2014-2021 were obtained from Open Payments, and NIH grant funding from NIH RePORT. Given our interest in NCICCCs, we focused on the subset of industry payments (those designated as being related to a cancer drug, both research and non-research) and NIH grant funding (grants awarded by the NCI specifically, as opposed to other institutes) that were likely to be cancer-related (we also measured overall industry payments and overall NIH funding). In order to capture both industry payments and grant funding broadly, we manually identified teaching hospitals and research universities affiliated with each NCICCC and included payments and grants to these as well. All amounts were inflation-adjusted to 2021 dollars. Results: Oncology-related industry payments increased from $320 million in 2014 to $896 million in 2021. NCI funding increased slightly during the same period, from $2,481 million to $2,691 million. Overall industry payments increased from $1,811 million in 2014 to $3,015 million in 2019 (exceeding NCI funding in that year), though overall industry payments subsequently declined to $1,977 million in 2021. Non-research (as opposed to research) payments were the minority of industry payments; the year with the greatest proportion of non-research payments was 2019, at 39%. NCI funding exceeded oncology-related industry payments at all NCICCCs except for two: City of Hope ($1,137 million oncology-related industry payments vs. $311 million in NCI funding) and MD Anderson ($1,040 million vs. $1,001 million). Conclusions: Oncology-related industry payments to NCICCCs has increased substantially more than NCI funding in recent years. Although most industry payments are research-related, a substantial portion are not. A small number of NCICCCs receive comparable or greater amounts of money from industry than they receive in grant funding from the NCI. These trends raise concerns regarding the influence of industry payments and the ability of these institutions to maintain their public missions.

Revolutionizing Payment Trends: Balipay E-Wallet Technology Acceptance with Trust Mediation

Revolutionizing Payment Trends: Balipay E-Wallet Technology Acceptance with Trust Mediation

Trends in Industry-Sponsored Research Payments to Physician Principal Investigators

This cohort study investigates trends in total and per-physician industry-sponsored research payments to physician principal investigators from 2015 to 2022.

Trend Analysis of Industry Payments to Dermatologists in the United States from 2015-2022

Background: Open Payments, established in 2013 to address concerns about industry-driven healthcare influence, aims to enhance transparency regarding financial relationships between industry and physicians. This study investigates trends in industry payments to dermatologists between 2015 and 2022, a topic that has not been explored since a prior characterization in 2014. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of United States dermatologists appearing in the Open Payments database between 2015 and 2022. A Joinpoint analysis was performed to calculate the average annual percentage change (AAPC) across study years. A sensitivity analysis excluding 2020-2021 data was conducted. Results: This study reviewed 2,616,289 payments totaling $494,271,790 made to dermatologists during the study period. The average annual percentage change (AAPC) across these years for the number of recipient dermatologists, total value of payments, and total number of payments were 1.5%, 5.5%, and 3.9%, respectively, with confirmed positive growth when excluding data from 2020-2021. Conclusions: Payments per dermatologist have increased over the years, even when adjusting for inflation, but this growth is likely attributed to the overall expansion of the specialty. Most individual payments to dermatologists were less than $50. However, a substantial proportion of dermatologists (60%) received total payments exceeding $1000 during the study period. These findings suggest a longitudinal nature of industry-dermatologist relationships and emphasize the financial significance of payments over time. Notably, the impact of physician-industry relationships on patient care in dermatology remains debated but may influence medical decision-making and engender patient distrust.