scholarly journals The Open Payments Sunshine Act Database Revisited: A 5-Year Analysis of Industry Payments to Plastic Surgeons

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Sumun Khetpal ◽  
Elbert J. Mets ◽  
Maham Ahmad ◽  
Neil Pathak ◽  
Navid Pourtaheri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Payments

Industry Payments to Plastic Surgeons: What Has Changed Over the Last Six-Years Following Implementation of the Physician Payment Sunshine Act?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rowland W Pettit ◽  
Jordan Kaplan ◽  
Matthew M Delancy ◽  
Edward Reece ◽  
Sebastian Winocour ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
User Interface ◽  
Stock Options ◽  
Data Interpretation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Physician Payment ◽  
The Past ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Open Payments

Abstract Background The Open Payments Program, as designated by the Physician Payments Sunshine Act is the single largest repository of industry payments made to licensed physicians within the United States. Though sizeable in its dataset, the database and user interface are limited in their ability to permit expansive data interpretation and summarization. Objectives We sought to comprehensively compare industry payments made to plastic surgeons with payments made to all surgeons and all physicians to elucidate industry relationships since implementation. Methods The Open Payments Database was queried between 2014 and 2019, and inclusion criteria were applied. These data were evaluated in aggregate and for yearly totals, payment type, and geographic distribution. Results 61,000,728 unique payments totaling $11,815,248,549 were identified over the six-year study period. 9,089 plastic surgeons, 121,151 surgeons, and 796,260 total physicians received these payments. Plastic surgeons annually received significantly less payment than all surgeons (p=0.0005). However, plastic surgeons did not receive significantly more payment than all physicians (p = 0.0840). Cash and cash equivalents proved to be the most common form of payment; Stock and stock options were least commonly transferred. Plastic surgeons in Tennessee received the most in payments between 2014-2019 (mean $ 76,420.75). California had the greatest number of plastic surgeons to receive payments (1,452 surgeons). Conclusions Plastic surgeons received more in industry payments than the average of all physicians but received less than all surgeons. The most common payment was cash transactions. Over the past six years, geographic trends in industry payments have remained stable.

scholarly journals Association between Industry Payments and Scholarly Impact among Academic Ophthalmologists

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (01) ◽  
pp. e1-e8
Author(s):  
Michael Solotke ◽  
Susan Forster ◽  
Jessica Chow ◽  
Jenesis Duran ◽  
Hasna Karim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
H Index ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
Scholarly Impact ◽  
The Mean ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Open Payments

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 < 0.001). Within each academic rank and gender, industry payments greater than $1,000 were associated with a higher H-index (p < 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.

Characteristics of Reported Industry Payments to Neurosurgeons: A 5-Year Open Payments Database Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 145 ◽  
pp. e90-e99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aladine A. Elsamadicy ◽  
Isaac G. Freedman ◽  
Andrew B. Koo ◽  
Benjamin C. Reeves ◽  
John Havlik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Database Study ◽  
Open Payments

Leaders in Urologic Education and Their Relationship to Industry: An Analysis of Sunshine Act Open Payments From 2014-2016

Urology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 123 ◽  
pp. 53-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomy Y. Perez ◽  
Michelle C. Chen ◽  
Paul H. Chung ◽  
Patrick J. Shenot
Keyword(s):  
Open Payments

scholarly journals Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Practice Guidelines: Accelerating an Evolution. An Endocrine Society Consensus Statement*

2018 ◽  
Vol 103 (12) ◽  
pp. 4339-4342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R McCartney ◽  
Clifford J Rosen
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Development Process ◽  
Consensus Statement ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Endocrine Society ◽  
Open Payments

Abstract An analysis of the Endocrine Society’s clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) published from 2010 to 2017—presented by Irwig et al. in the current issue of The Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism—suggested that the Endocrine Society met five of seven National Academy of Medicine (NAM) standards concerning financial conflicts of interest in CPGs. As current contributors to the Endocrine Society’s CPG efforts, we offer additional context related to the 2011 NAM standards and the current environment concerning industry support in medicine, and we comment on the nature of industry support received by the Society’s CPG authors according to Irwig and colleagues’ analysis of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Open Payments database. Perhaps most importantly, we outline the Society’s recent and ongoing efforts to enhance the value of its CPGs. Such efforts include a 2016 revision of CPG author conflict of interest rules—a change that was invisible to the investigatory methods used by Irwig et al.—in addition to other processes designed to enhance CPG objectivity. We conclude our commentary by recognizing that good-faith attempts to enhance transparency and to reduce conflicts of interest (real or apparent) in CPGs will ultimately serve the best interests of patients and providers; we confirm the Endocrine Society’s resolute commitment to providing high-quality, evidence-based clinical guidance via a CPG development process that faithfully accords with current CPG best practices.

scholarly journals P.013 Conflicts of interest in neurosurgical research - comparing voluntary physician disclosure to mandatory company data

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (S2) ◽  
pp. S24-S24 ◽  
Author(s):  
PJ McDonald ◽  
ER Shon ◽  
AV Kulkarni
Keyword(s):  
Voluntary Disclosure ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Average Rate ◽  
Industry Data ◽  
Ethical Implications ◽  
The Us ◽  
Financial Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Author Disclosure ◽  
Open Payments

Background: Industry involvement in neurosurgical research is common, creating financial conflicts of interest (COIs). Most journals require voluntary disclosure of financial COIs. In 2013, the Sunshine Act (SA) was passed in the US, mandating industry disclosure of all payments to physicians. The accuracy of voluntary disclosure can now be determined by comparing voluntary author disclosure with industry data. Methods: We reviewed disclosure statements and calculated rates of voluntary disclosure in major neurosurgical journals before (2011) and after (2013) the Sunshine Act to determine if voluntary disclosure increased after its implementation. We then determined the accuracy of voluntary disclosure in 2013, comparing voluntary disclosure with industry disclosure on the Open Payments Database (OPD). Mean, median and range of industry payments to neurosurgeons were calculated Results: Voluntary disclosure significantly increased in JNS-Spine only (10.7% to 35.4%,p<0.001) after implementation of the SA. The average rate of non-disclosure in all journals studied was 38.3% (Range 33.8%-42.2%)$32,598,522.97 of industry payments were provided to 656 authors in the five-month period studied (Average $49,692.87/author) Conclusions: Voluntary COI disclosure in JNS- Spine increased after implementation of the Sunshine Act. Industry payments to physicians publishing in neurosurgery journals are common and rates of non-disclosure of COIs are high. The ethical implications of COIs and non-disclosure are discussed.

Financial relationships between neurologists and industry

Neurology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 92 (21) ◽  
pp. 1006-1013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aditi Ahlawat ◽  
Pushpa Narayanaswami
Keyword(s):  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
The United States ◽  
Prescribing Practices ◽  
Regional Trends ◽  
Food And Beverage ◽  
Data Book ◽  
Retrospective Database Analysis ◽  
Incorrect Information ◽  
Open Payments ◽  
Retrospective Database

ObjectiveTo analyze research and nonresearch payments from the pharmaceutical and device industry to neurologists in 2015 using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments Database.MethodsIn this retrospective database analysis, we computed the percentage of neurologists in the United States receiving payments, the median/mean payments per neurologist, payment categories, regional trends, and sponsors. We computed the number of practicing neurologists from the Association of American Medical Colleges State Physician Workforce Data Book, 2015.ResultsIn 2015, approximately 96% of US neurologists received nonresearch payments totaling $93,920,993. The median payment per physician was $407. The highest proportion of neurologists (24%) received between $1,000 and $10,000. Food and beverage was the most frequent category (83% of the total number of payments). The highest amount was paid for serving as faculty/speaker for noncontinuing medical education activities (49%). The top sponsor of nonresearch payments was Teva Pharmaceuticals ($16,461,055; 17.5%). A total of 412 neurologists received $2,921,611 in research payments (median $1,132). Multiple sclerosis specialists received the largest proportion ($285,537; 9.7%). Daiichi Sankyo paid the largest amount in research payments ($826,029; 28%).ConclusionsThe Open Payments program was established to foster transparent disclosure of physician compensations from industry, in response to legislative and public concerns of the effect of conflicts of interest on practice, education, and research. The effects of this program remain unclear and studies of changes in prescribing practices, costs, and other outcomes are necessary. CMS should ensure that incorrect information can be rectified quickly and easily.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document