A Systematic Review of State and Manufacturer Physician Payment Disclosure Websites: Implications for Implementation of the Sunshine Act

2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison R. Hwong ◽  
Noor Qaragholi ◽  
Daniel Carpenter ◽  
Steven Joffe ◽  
Eric G. Campbell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Medical Device ◽  
Affordable Care Act ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Teaching Hospitals ◽  
Public Disclosure ◽  
Physician Payment ◽  
Patient Protection ◽  
Individual Physician ◽  
Financial Conflicts Of Interest

Public disclosure of industry payments to physicians is one way to address financial conflicts of interest in medicine. As part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Physician Payment Sunshine Act (PPSA) requires pharmaceutical, medical device, and biologics manufacturers who have at least one product reimbursed by Medicare or Medicaid to disclose payments to physicians and teaching hospitals on a public website starting in 2014. The physician payment data will contain individual physician names, monetary values, and specific products connected to payments.According to the Final Regulations issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in February 2013, the law will make transparent the extent and nature of relationships between physicians, teaching hospitals, and manufacturers.

Key Opinion Leaders and the Corruption of Medical Knowledge: What the Sunshine Act Will and Won’t Cast Light on

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 635-643 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergio Sismondo
Keyword(s):  
Affordable Care Act ◽  
Medical Knowledge ◽  
The United States ◽  
Opinion Leaders ◽  
Pharmaceutical Companies ◽  
United States Congress ◽  
Physician Payment ◽  
Patient Protection ◽  
Medical Supplies ◽  
Key Opinion Leaders

In 2010, in connection with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), the United States Congress passed the Physician Payment Sunshine Act. This legislation requires pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies, and other manufacturers of medical supplies to collect information on their payments to physicians, beginning on August 1, 2013, and to annually report this information to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), beginning on March 31, 2014. All payments of over $10 are to be reported and aggregate payments of more than $100 to a single physician in a single year must also be reported.

scholarly journals Financial Conflicts of Interest of US-Based Authors in Neurology Journals

Neurology ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000011701
Author(s):  
Jade Smith ◽  
Charlotte Wahle ◽  
James L. Bernat ◽  
Nathaniel M. Robbins
Keyword(s):  
Medical Device ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Clinical Neurology ◽  
Self Disclosure ◽  
Financial Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Sizeable Minority ◽  
Open Payments ◽  
Financial Relationships

ObjectiveTo detail the scope, nature, and disclosure of financial conflicts of interest (COI) between the pharmaceutical and medical device industries (Industry) and authors in high-impact clinical neurology journals.MethodsUsing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database (OPD), we retrieved information on payments from Industry to 2,000 authors from randomly selected 2016 articles in 5 journals. We categorized payments by type (Research, General, and Associated Research/institutional), sponsoring entity, and year (from 2013 to 2016). Each author's self-disclosures were compared to OPD-listed Industry relationships to measure discordance. Payments were manually reviewed to identify those from manufacturers of products that were directly tested or discussed in the article. We also quantified the prevalence and value of these nondisclosed, relevant COI.ResultsTwo hundred authors from 158 articles had at least one OPD payment. Median/mean annual payments per author were $4,229/$19,586 (General); $1,702/$5,966 (Research); and $67,512/$362,102 (Associated Research). Most neurologists received <$1,000/y (74.6%, 93.0%, and 79.5% for General, Research, and Associated Research, respectively), but a sizeable minority (>10% of authors) received more than $10,000 per year, and several received over $1 million. Of 3,013 payments deemed directly relevant to the article, 39.7% were not self-disclosed by the authors, totaling $3,379,093 ($1,446,603 General; $25,532 Research; $1,906,958 Associated Research).ConclusionIndustry-related financial relationships are prevalent among US-based physicians publishing in major neurology journals, and incomplete self-disclosure is common. As a profession, academic and other neurologists must work to establish firm rules to ensure and manage disclosure of financial COI.

scholarly journals Discrepancies in self-reported financial conflicts of interest disclosures by physicians: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e045306
Author(s):  
Cameron Taheri ◽  
Abirami Kirubarajan ◽  
Xinglin Li ◽  
Andrew C L Lam ◽  
Sam Taheri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Common Factor ◽  
Data Sources ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
High Prevalence ◽  
Food And Beverage ◽  
Financial Conflicts Of Interest

BackgroundThere is a high prevalence of financial conflicts of interest (COI) between physicians and industry.ObjectivesTo conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis examining the completeness of self-reported financial COI disclosures by physicians, and identify factors associated with non-disclosure.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO were searched for eligible studies up to April 2020 and supplemented with material identified in the references and citing articles.Data extraction and synthesisData were independently abstracted by two authors. Data synthesis was performed via systematic review of eligible studies and random-effects meta-analysis.Main outcomes and measuresThe proportion of discrepancies between physician self-reported disclosures and objective payment data was the main outcome. The proportion of discrepant funds and factors associated with non-disclosure were also examined.Results40 studies were included. The pooled proportion of COI discrepancies at the article level was 81% (range: 54%–98%; 95% CI 72% to 89%), 79% at the payment level (range: 71%–89%; 95% CI 67% to 89%), 93% at the authorship level (range: 71%–100%; 95% CI 79% to 100%) and 66% at the author level (range: 8%–99%; 95% CI 48% to 78%). The proportion of funds discrepant was 33% (range: 2%–77%; 95% CI 12% to 58%). There was high heterogeneity between studies across all five analyses (I2=94%–99%). Most undisclosed COI were related to food and beverage, or travel and lodging. While the most common explanation for failure to disclose was perceived irrelevance, a median of 45% of non-disclosed payments were directly or indirectly related to the work. A smaller monetary amount was the most common factor associated with nondisclosure.ConclusionsPhysician self-reports of financial COI are highly discrepant with objective data sources reporting payments from industry. Stronger policies are required to reduce reliance on physician self-reporting of financial COI and address non-compliance.

Scope and nature of financial conflicts of interest between neurologists and industry

Neurology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 93 (10) ◽  
pp. 438-449 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathaniel M. Robbins ◽  
Mark J. Meyer ◽  
James L. Bernat
Keyword(s):  
Medical Device ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
Trends Over Time ◽  
Financial Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Open Payments ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Financial Relationships

ObjectiveTo 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.MethodsPayments 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.ResultsAt 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.ConclusionsNeurologists 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.

scholarly journals Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Systematic Review Authors Investigating Interventions for Achilles Tendon Ruptures

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 247301142110197
Author(s):  
W. Tanner Cole ◽  
Cody Hillman ◽  
Adam Corcoran ◽  
J. Michael Anderson ◽  
Michael Weaver ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Achilles Tendon ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Tendon Rupture ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Achilles Tendon Rupture ◽  
Individual Characteristics ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Financial Conflicts Of Interest

Background: The primary aim of our study was to evaluate the effects of undisclosed financial conflicts of interest in Achilles tendon rupture repair–focused systematic reviews. Methods: Following a cross-sectional study design, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for Achilles tendon rupture repair systematic reviews. We performed screening and data extraction in a blind, triplicate fashion. Each systematic review was evaluated on the individual characteristics of the study, presence of undisclosed and disclosed conflicts of interest, favorability of results and conclusions, and the relationship between conflicts of interest and the favorability of results and conclusions. Results: Our search produced 172 total systematic reviews pertaining to Achilles tendon rupture repair; of those, only 12 were included in our study. Undisclosed conflicts of interest were found in half (6/12) of the included reviews. However, no significant association was found between conflict of interest and the favorability of results and conclusions. Conclusion: Undisclosed conflicts of interests were discovered in a large percentage of our sample. This lack of disclosure did not appear to increase the likelihood of the systematic review results or conclusions reporting favorability of the intervention being investigated. Level of Evidence: Level II.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document