Financial relationships between neurologists and industry

Neurology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 90 (23) ◽  
pp. 1063-1070 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aditi Ahlawat ◽  
Pushpa Narayanaswami
Keyword(s):  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
The United States ◽  
Prescribing Practices ◽  
Physician Compensation ◽  
Regional Trends ◽  
Food And Beverage ◽  
Data Book ◽  
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 51% of US neurologists received nonresearch payments totaling $6,210,414. The median payment per physician was $81. Payments to the top 10% of compensated neurologists amounted to $5,278,852 (84.5%). Food and beverage was the most frequent category (86.5% of the total number of payments). The highest amount was paid for serving as faculty/speaker for noncontinuing medical education activities (58%). The top sponsor of nonresearch payments was Teva Pharmaceuticals ($1,162,900; 18.5%). 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 compensation from industry, in response to legislative and public concerns over 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.

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.

scholarly journals Industry Payment to Vascular Neurologists

Stroke ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 1339-1343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krishna Nalleballe ◽  
Sen Sheng ◽  
Chenghui Li ◽  
Ruchira Mahashabde ◽  
Amarnath R. Annapureddy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
American Heart Association ◽  
American Heart ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Heart Association ◽  
The United States ◽  
Regional Trends ◽  
Impact Patient Care ◽  
And Behavior

Background and Purpose— Industry payments to physicians raise concerns regarding conflicts of interest that could impact patient care. We explored nonresearch and nonownership payments from industry to vascular neurologists to identify trends in compensation. Methods— Using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology data, we explored financial relationships between industry and US vascular neurologists from 2013 to 2018. We analyzed payment characteristics, including payment categories, payment distribution among physicians, regional trends, and biomedical manufacturers. Furthermore, we analyzed the top 1% (by compensation) of vascular neurologists with detailed payment categories, their position, and their contribution to stroke guidelines. Results— The number of board certified vascular neurologist increased from 1169 in 2013 to 1746 in 2018. The total payments to vascular neurologist increased from $99 749 in 2013 to $1 032 302 in 2018. During the study period, 16% to 17% of vascular neurologists received industry payments. Total payments from industry and mean physician payments increased yearly over this period, with consulting fee (31.1%) and compensation for services other than consulting (30.7%) being the highest paid categories. The top 10 manufacturers made the majority of the payments, and the top 10 products changed from drug or biological products to devices. Physicians from south region of the United States received the highest total payment (38.72%), which steadily increased. Payments to top 1% vascular neurologists increased from 64% to 79% over the period as payments became less evenly distributed. Among the top 1%, 42% specialized in neuro intervention, 11% contributed to American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines, and around 75% were key leaders in the field. Conclusions— A small proportion of US vascular neurologists consistently received the majority of industry payments, the value of which grew over the study period. Only 11% of the top 1% receiving industry payments have authored American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines, but ≈75% seem to be key leaders in the field. Whether this influences clinical practice and behavior requires further investigation.

Abstract WMP96: Industry Payments to Vascular Neurologists, a Six-Year Analysis of the Open Payments Program From 2013 to 2018

Stroke ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sen Sheng ◽  
Krishna Nalleballe ◽  
Aliza Brown ◽  
Syed Ali ◽  
Rohan Sharma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Growth Rate ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Retrospective Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Steady Growth ◽  
Regional Trends ◽  
Open Payments ◽  
Total Payment

Objective: To analyze and characterize industry payment to vascular neurologists from 2013 to 2018 using open Payments Database. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of open payments database, which is available publicly. We calculated the percentage of vascular neurologists in the United States receiving payments and payment characteristics. We have analyzed the top 1% payment to vascular neurologist with detailed payment category analysis, payment regional trends, and sponsors each year. The number of board-certified vascular neurologists is available from the database of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Results: From Jan 2013 to Dec 2018, industry payments to vascular neurologists have increased significantly each year, while a relatively stable fraction (17%) of US vascular neurologists received industry payments totaling $ 3,782,222 (6 years combined). The median payment per physician ranges from $ 115 to $ 241, while 90th percentile payments vary from $1,766 to $ 4,988 with a maximum payment up to $190,551. Nine payment categories are available and the highest amounts were paid for "Consulting Fee". The payment proportion from top 10 sponsors consists of 75% of the total amount since 2013. The payment to the south region has a steady growth rate among the other regions and has the highest payment amount of $ 470,551 in 2018. Top 1% vascular neurologists received more than 60% of the total payment. Among the top 1% vascular neurologists, 73% are likely to be key leaders in the field. Among the top 1%, 42% are specialized in neuro-intervention and less than 15% have Authored AHA/ASA guideline papers. Conclusion: Payments to vascular neurologists is highly skewed with the top 1% receiving around one-third of all payments, less than 15% of these vascular neurologists have authored AHA/ASA guidelines. The industry is known to target key leaders in the field whether this is translating to changes in clinical practice should be looked into more thoroughly.

Trends in financial relationships between industry and individual medical oncologists in the United States from 2014 to 2017: A cohort study.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6520-6520
Author(s):  
Deborah Catherine Marshall ◽  
Elizabeth Stieglitz Tarras ◽  
Kenneth Rosenzweig ◽  
Deborah Korenstein ◽  
Susan Chimonas
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
The United States ◽  
Absolute Number ◽  
Medical Oncologists ◽  
Trends Over Time ◽  
Inappropriate Relationships ◽  
Open Payments ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Financial Relationships

6520 Background: Industry-physician financial relationships in medical oncology are common and introduce conflicts of interest. The Open Payments (OP) program collects and discloses data on industry payments to physicians, in part to discourage inappropriate relationships. However, the effect of OP on how oncologists engage with industry is unknown. Our aim was to evaluate trends in physician-level payments to test whether the implementation of OP has resulted in fewer physicians engaging with industry and has shifted the nature of interactions towards those considered more appropriate. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of US medical oncologists in 2014 from the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System. OP data for general (non-research) payments between 2014-2017 were matched to physician to evaluate receipt of payments over time. We calculated the percentage of physicians receiving payments, annual value and number of payments, and average annual trends over time, including by nature of payment. Results: From 2014-2017, medical oncologists received 1.4 million industry payments totaling $330.6 million. The absolute number of medical oncologists receiving payments decreased 4% on average annually ( P= .006), and proportionally from 67.2% to 59.6% overall. The value and number of payments have not significantly changed. The value and number of payments increased for accredited/certified CME (+821% and +209% annually) and decreased for non-accredited/certified CME (-18% and -25% annually). The value and number of food/beverage payments remained the same. The value and number of royalty/licensing payments increased. Conclusions: Fewer oncologists are receiving payments, but spending has not decreased suggesting that physicians are less likely to engage and industry is more selective. Increased payments for accredited CME suggest that less appropriate speaker’s fees are being avoided. Food/beverage payments are not decreasing, thus these interactions may not be recognized as problematic. Increasing royalty/licensing payments require ongoing scrutiny. Changes in physician payments since the inception of OP highlight the importance of transparency in policymaking.

scholarly journals P.119 Industry relationships with neurological surgery in the 2015 Open Payments Database

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (s2) ◽  
pp. S47-S48
Author(s):  
MP de Lotbiniere-Bassett ◽  
PJ McDonald
Keyword(s):  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Novel Device ◽  
Device Development ◽  
Food And Beverage ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Neurological Surgery ◽  
Open Payments ◽  
Total Payment

Background: The 2013 Physician Payments Sunshine Act mandates that all US drug and device manufacturers disclose payments to physicians annually in the Open Payments Database (OPD). We aimed to determine the prevalence, magnitude and nature of these payments to neurological surgery in 2015. Methods: Records of payments to physicians identified by the ‘neurological surgery’ taxonomy code in 2015 were accessed via the OPD. The data were analyzed in terms of the type and amounts of payments, companies making payments, and in comparison to previous studies. Results: In 2015, 330 companies made 83,690 payments ($99,048,607) to 7,613 physicians. The mean payment ($13,010) was substantially greater than the median ($114). Royalties and licensing accounted for the largest proportion of total payment value (74.2%), but only 1.7% of the total number. Food and beverage payments were the most commonly reported transaction (75%), but only 2.5% of the total value. Neurological surgery had the second highest average total payment per physician of any specialty. Conclusions: The overall value of payments to the neurological surgery specialty is driven by a small number of payments that may represent appropriate compensation for novel device development. The OPD provides an opportunity for increased transparency and for the interpretation of research in light of potential conflicts of interest.

scholarly journals Food Industry Donations to Academic Programs: A Cross-Sectional Examination of the Extent of Publicly Available Data

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 1624
Author(s):  
Marie A. Bragg ◽  
Brian Elbel ◽  
Marion Nestle
Keyword(s):  
Food Industry ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
The United States ◽  
Academic Programs ◽  
Online Data ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Federal Policies ◽  
Monetary Value ◽  
Food And Beverage ◽  
Interest In Research

No studies have documented the prevalence of the food industry’s funding of academic programs, which is problematic because such funding can create conflicts of interest in research and clinical practice. We aimed to quantify the publicly available information on the food industry’s donations to academic programs by documenting the amount of donations given over time, categorizing the types of academic programs that receive food industry donations, cataloguing the source of the donation information, and identifying any stated reasons for donations. Researchers cataloged online data from publicly available sources (e.g., official press releases, news articles, tax documents) on the food industry’s donations to academic programs from 2000 to 2016. Companies included 26 food and beverage corporations from the 2016 Fortune 500 list in the United States. Researchers recorded the: (1) monetary value of the donations; (2) years the donations were distributed; (3) the name and type of recipient; (4) source of donation information; and (5) reasons for donations. Adjusting for inflation, we identified $366 million in food industry donations (N = 3274) to academic programs. Universities received 45.2% (n = 1480) of donations but accounted for 67.9% of total dollars given in the sample. Community colleges, schools (i.e., preschool, elementary, middle, and high schools), and academic nonprofits, institutes, foundations, and research hospitals collectively received 54.8% of the donations, but made up less than one-third of the monetary value of donations. Half of the donations (49.0%) did not include a stated reason for the donation. In our sample, donations grew from $3 million in 2000 to $24 million in 2016. Food companies in our sample donated millions of dollars to universities and other academic programs but disclosed little information on the purpose of the donations. Achieving transparency in donation practices may only be possible if federal policies begin to require disclosures or if companies voluntarily disclose information.

scholarly journals Conflicts of Interest of Pediatric Journal Authors

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca L Petlansky ◽  
Amadea D Bekoe-Tabiri ◽  
Vanessa N Bueno ◽  
AnnMarie N Onwuka ◽  
Michael R Gionfriddo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Medical Profession ◽  
The United States ◽  
Gender Disparities ◽  
Teaching Hospitals ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
Medical Device Manufacturers ◽  
The Mean ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Open Payments

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires disclosure of payments made by drug and medical device manufacturers to physicians or teaching hospitals. Academic literature extensively documents gender disparities in the medical profession with regard to salary, promotion, and government funded research. This investigation sought to quantify potential conflicts of interest (CoIs) in pediatric medical journals, specifically examining sex differences. To identify potential CoIs, we examined manuscripts published prior to 2019 in six pediatric journals (JAMA Pediatrics, Pediatrics, The Journal of Pediatrics, Pediatric Blood and Cancer, Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, and The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal). We collected physician demographics and specialty from the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System National Provider Identifier Registry and compensation data from both ProPublicas Dollars for Docs (PDD) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments (CMSOP). Data was collected on 2,747 authors from 929 manuscripts. Of the 1,088 authors based in the United States with medical degrees (40.5% female), 510 (46.9%) had entries in PDD and CMSOP. Overall, 11,791 payments to these physician-authors totaled $9,586,089.97. Males were 19.6% more likely to receive payments (RR = 1.20, 95% CI [1.05, 1.37], p = 0.008). The mean amount received by males was $23,250.71 while that received by females was $10,970.78 (mean difference = 12,279.92, 95% CI = (2036.31, 22,523.54), p = 0.019). A comprehensive understanding of these CoIs can inform the disclosure policies of journals to promote transparency of authors.

scholarly journals Physicians payment in the United States between 2014 and 2018: An analysis of the CMS Open Payments database

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. e0252656
Author(s):  
Raphael E. Cuomo ◽  
Mingxiang Cai ◽  
Neal Shah ◽  
Tim K. Mackey
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Hot Spot ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Physician ◽  
Retrospective Data Analysis ◽  
Physician Characteristics ◽  
Match Rate ◽  
Python Programming ◽  
Open Payments

The Open Payments database reports payments made to physicians by industry. Given the potential for financial conflicts of interest relating to patient outcomes, further scrutiny of these data is valuable. Therefore, the objective of this study was to analyze physician-industry relationships by specialty type, payment type, geospatial trend, and longitudinal trend between 2014–2018. We conducted an observational, retrospective data analysis of payments from the Open Payments database for licensed United States physicians listed in the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System (NPPES). Datasets from 2013–2018 were joined using the Python programming language. Aggregation and sub-setting by characteristics of interest was done in R to calculate means and frequencies of reported general physician payments from industry across different specialties, locations, timeframes, and payment types. Normalization was applied for numbers of physicians or payments. Geospatial statistical hot spot analysis was conducted in ArcGIS. 51.73 million payment records were analyzed. In total, 50,047,930 payments were issued to 771,113 allopathic or osteopathic physicians, representing $8,702,631,264 transferred from industry to physicians over the five-year period between 2014 and 2018. The mean payment amount was $179, with a standard deviation of $12,685. Variability in physicians’ financial relationships with industry were apparent across specialties, regions, time, and payment type. A limited match rate between records in the NPPES and Open Payments databases may have resulted in selection bias of trends related to physician characteristics. Further research is necessary, particularly in the context of changing industry payment trends and public perceptions of the appropriateness of these relationships.

The Impact of Oil Price Fluctuations on Industry Stock Returns: Evidence from International Markets

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Elias Randjbaran ◽  
Reza Tahmoorespour ◽  
Marjan Rezvani ◽  
Meysam Safari
Keyword(s):  
Stock Returns ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Negative Relationship ◽  
The United States ◽  
Oil Price ◽  
Price Variation ◽  
Price Changes ◽  
Price Fluctuations ◽  
Food And Beverage ◽  
The Impact

This study investigates the impact of oil price variation on 14 industries in six markets, including Canada, China, France, India, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Panel weekly data were collected from June 1998 to December 2011. The results indicate that price fluctuations primarily affect the Oil and Gas as well as the Mining industries and have the least influence on the Food and Beverage industry. Furthermore, in three out of six of these countries (Canada, France, and the U.K.), oil price changes negatively affect the Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology industry. One possible reason for the negative relationship between oil price changes and the Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology industries in the above-mentioned countries is that the governments of these countries fund their healthcare systems. Portfolio managers and investors will find the results of this study useful because it enables adjusting portfolios based on knowledge of the industries that are impacted the most or the least by oil price fluctuations.

scholarly journals Food Bank Donations in the United States: A Landscape Review of Federal Policies

Nutrients ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (12) ◽  
pp. 3764
Author(s):  
Katelin M. Hudak ◽  
Emily Friedman ◽  
Joelle Johnson ◽  
Sara E. Benjamin-Neelon
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Nutritional Quality ◽  
Food System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Healthy Food ◽  
Food Banks ◽  
Food Bank ◽  
Federal Policies ◽  
Food And Beverage

Rates of food insecurity have increased substantially in the United States (US), and more families are turning to the charitable food system to help meet their needs. Prior studies have examined the nutritional quality of foods offered through food banks, but little is known about what government policies may shape the healthy food donation landscape. The purpose of this study was to review US federal policies that impact food and beverage donations to food banks and assess whether policies encourage healthy food donations. In spring 2020, two researchers independently reviewed federal food and beverage donation policies using predefined search terms in two legal databases. We identified six categories of policies based on the existing food donation literature and themes that emerged in the policy review. We identified 42 federal policies spanning six categories that addressed food and beverage donations to food banks. The largest category was “government programs,” with 19 (45%) policies. The next largest category was “donation via schools,” with 12 (29%) policies. However, no policies specifically addressed the nutritional quality of food donations. There is an opportunity for the federal government to strengthen food bank donation policies and improve the nutritional quality of donated foods and beverages.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document