Understanding Financial Relationships Between Orthopedic Surgeons and Industry for Research

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to understand trends in industry payments for research awarded to orthopedic surgeons.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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%).

CONCLUSION

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.].

An In-Depth Analysis of Public and Private Research Funding in Orthopaedic Surgery from 2015 to 2021

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

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.

Academic productivity correlates with industry earnings in foot and ankle fellowship programs in the United States: A retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

The study investigates the connection between academic productivity and industry earnings in foot and ankle orthopedic surgery fellowships. Utilizing metrics like the H-index and Open Payments Database (OPD) data, it addresses a gap in understanding the relationship between scholarly achievements and financial outcomes, providing a basis for further exploration in this specialized medical field.

AIM

To elucidate the trends between academic productivity and industry earnings across foot and ankle orthopedic surgery fellowship programs in the United States.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of the relationship between academic productivity and industry earnings of foot and ankle orthopedic surgery fellowships at an individual faculty and fellowship level. Academic productivity was defined via H-index and recorded from the Scopus website. Industry earnings were recorded from the OPD.

RESULTS

Forty-eight foot and ankle orthopedic surgery fellowships (100% of fellowships) in the United States with a combined total of 165 physicians (95.9% of physicians) were included. Mean individual physician (n = 165) total life-time earnings reported on the OPD website was United States Dollar (USD) 451430.30 ± 1851084.89 (range: USD 25.16-21269249.85; median: USD 27839.80). Mean physician (n = 165) H-index as reported on Scopus is 14.24 ± 12.39 (range: 0-63; median: 11). There was a significant but weak correlation between individual physician H-index and individual physician total life-time earnings (P < 0.001; Spearman's rho = 0.334) and a significant and moderate positive correlation between combined fellowship H-index and total life-time earnings per fellowship (P = 0.004, Spearman's rho = 0.409).

CONCLUSION

There is a significant and positive correlation between academic productivity and industry earnings at foot and ankle orthopedic surgery fellowships in the United States. This observation is true on an individual physician level as well as on a fellowship level.

Research and Nonresearch Industry Payments to Nephrologists in the United States between 2014 and 2021

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

Concerns about the financial relationships between nephrologists and the health care industry have been reported in the United States over the past decade. However, since the 2014 launch of the federal transparency database, Open Payments, few documents have explored the whole picture of research and nonresearch payments to US nephrologists from industry sources. In this study, the authors found that 87% of nephrologists have received nonresearch payments, and the aggregate amount of these payments has been increasing since 2014. Only 12% of nephrologists received research payments; these recipients were disproportionately male. In addition, the top 5% of nephrologists receiving nonresearch funds received 81% of all such payments. Nonresearch payments were larger among male nephrologists than among female nephrologists and increased by 8% annually among male nephrologists between 2014 and 2019.

BACKGROUND

Financial relationships between nephrologists and the health care industry have been a concern in the United States over the past decade.

METHODS

To evaluate industry payments to nephrologists, we conducted a cross-sectional study examining nonresearch and research payments to all US nephrologists registered in the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System between 2014 and 2021, using the Open Payments database. Payment data were descriptively analyzed on the basis of monetary value, and payment trends were evaluated by using a generalized estimating equations model.

RESULTS

From 2014 through 2021, 10,463 of 12,059 nephrologists (87%) received at least one payment from the US health care industry, totaling $778 million. The proportion of nephrologists who did not receive nonresearch payments varied each year, ranging from 38% to 51%. Nonresearch payments comprised 22% ($168 million) of overall industry payments in monetary value but 87% in the number of payments. Among those receiving payments, the median per-physician 8-year aggregated payment values were $999 in nonresearch payments and $102,329 in associated research payments. Male nephrologists were more likely than female nephrologists to receive research payments, but the per-physician amount did not differ. However, nonresearch payments were three times larger for male nephrologists and increased by 8% annually between 2014 and 2019 among male nephrologists but remained stable among female nephrologists. The top 5% of nephrologists receiving nonresearch payments received 81% of all such payments.

CONCLUSIONS

Between 2014 and 2021, 87% of US nephrologists received at least one payment from the health care industry. Notably, nonresearch payments to nephrologists have been increasing since the Open Payments database's 2014 launch. Male nephrologists were more likely than female nephrologists to receive research payments.

Evaluating the Correlation Between Various Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Fellowship Characteristics and Total Industry Payments Through the Open Payments Database

Background

Since the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010, a substantial body of work has explored the supplemental income received by physicians to understand trends in industry payments and investigate sources of bias. To date, no study has examined how various fellowship characteristics impact industry earning levels at foot and ankle orthopaedic surgery fellowships. The purpose of this study is to examine the various fellowship and faculty-specific variables in correlation with industry earnings in foot and ankle orthopaedic surgery fellowships.

Methods

This study is a retrospective analysis of foot and ankle orthopaedic surgery fellowships and respective faculty along with various fellowship characteristics in correlation to industry lifetime earning levels as of March 2023. Industry total lifetime earnings represent income directly paid to physicians, is not part of the physician's salary, and does not include any research grants or funding. Lifetime earnings represent all years recorded on the Open Payments Database website (2015-2021).

Results

There are 165 faculty physicians and 48 programs with complete data out of all foot and ankle orthopaedic surgery fellowship programs in the United States. The mean fellowship H-Index per fellowship was 48.94 ± 38.92, and the mean fellowship lifetime earning was $1 551 791.66 ± $4 136 091.64. There was no significant association between fellowship lifetime earnings and Newsweek ranking of fellowship-affiliated hospitals (P = .906), Doximity ranking of fellowship-affiliated residencies (P = .703), and region of the United States (P = .126). There was a statistically significant increase in total lifetime earnings in programs with 4 fellows as compared to 1 fellow (P = .035).

Conclusion

There was no statistically significant correlation between a variety of foot and ankle fellowship-specific factors and lifetime industry earnings, aside from increased earnings in programs having 4 fellows. Prestige factors, such as Doximity and Ranked Hospital Newsweek List rank, as well as region of the United States is not associated with industry earnings.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

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

OBJECTIVE

To characterize industry nonresearch payments made to general and fellowship-trained surgeons between 2016 and 2020.

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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%). Texas, California, Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania received the most payments; however, the top dollar payments were in California ($65,702,579; 12.3%), Michigan ($52,990,904, 9.9%), Texas ($39,362,131; 7.4%), Maryland ($37,611,959; 7%), and Florida ($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 >$5000, of which 1614 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 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.

CONCLUSIONS

General and fellowship-trained surgeons received substantial industry nonresearch payments. The 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.

Assessment of Financial Relationships Between Otorhinolaryngologists and Pharmaceutical Companies in Japan Between 2016 and 2019

INTRODUCTION

There are prevalent financial relationships between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry in medical specialties, including otorhinolaryngology. Although these relationships might cause conflicts of interest, no studies have assessed the size and contents of the financial relationships between otorhinolaryngologists and pharmaceutical companies in Japan. This study aims to evaluate the magnitude, prevalence, and trend of the financial relationship between Japanese otolaryngologists and pharmaceutical companies.

METHODS

 Using payment data publicly disclosed by 92 pharmaceutical companies, we examined the size, prevalence, and trend in personal payments made to the otorhinolaryngologist board certified by the Japanese Society of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (JSO-HNS) between 2016 and 2019 in Japan. Furthermore, differences in payments were evaluated by whether otolaryngologists were clinical practice guideline authors, society board members, and academic journal editors or not. Trends in payments were evaluated by generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

 Of 8,190 otorhinolaryngologists, 3,667 (44.8%) were paid a total of $13,873,562, in payments for lecturing, consulting, and writing by 72 pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. The median four-year combined payment per physician was $1,022 (interquartile range: $473-$2,526). Top 1%, 5%, and 10% of otorhinolaryngologists received 42.3% (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 37.2%-47.4%), 69.3% (95% CI: 65.9%-72.8%), and 80.6% (95% CI: 78.3%-82.9%) of overall payments, respectively. The median payments per physician were significantly higher among otorhinolaryngologists authoring clinical practice guidelines ($11,522), society board members ($22,261), and journal editors ($35,143) than those without. The payments and number of otorhinolaryngologists receiving payments remained stable between 2016 and 2019.

CONCLUSION

 This study demonstrates that a minority but a large number of otorhinolaryngologists received personal payments from pharmaceutical companies for the reimbursement of lecturing, consulting, and writing in Japan. Large amounts of these personal payments were significantly concentrated on a small number of leading otorhinolaryngologists.

Comparing pharmaceutical company payments in the four UK countries: a cross-sectional and social network analysis

OBJECTIVES

To examine the characteristics of pharmaceutical payments to healthcare and patient organisations in the four UK countries. Compare companies spending the most; types of organisations receiving payments and types of payments in the four countries. Measure the extent to which companies target payments at the same recipients in each country and whether it differs depending on the type of recipient.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional comparative and social network analysis.

SETTING

England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland.

PARTICIPANTS

100 donors (pharmaceutical companies) reporting payments to 4229 recipients (healthcare organisations and patient organisations) in 2015.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

For each country: payment totals and distribution; average number of common recipients between companies; share of payments to organisations fulfilling different roles in the health ecosystem and payments for different activities.

RESULTS

Companies prioritised different types of recipient and different types of activity in each country. There were significant differences in the distribution of payments across the four countries, even for similar types of recipients. Recipients in England and Wales received smaller individual payments than in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Overall, targeting shared recipients occurred most frequently in England, but was also common in certain pockets of each country's health ecosystem. We found evidence of reporting errors in Disclosure UK.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest a strategic approach to payments tailored to countries' policy and decision-making context, indicating there may be specific vulnerabilities to financial conflicts of interest at subnational level. Payment differences between countries may be occurring in other countries, particularly those with decentralised health systems and/or high levels of independence across its decision-making authorities. We call for a single database containing all recipient types, full location details and published with associated descriptive and network statistics.

Pharmaceutical Payments to Japanese Board‐Certified Head and Neck Surgeons Between 2016 and 2019

Objective

To evaluate the magnitude, prevalence, and trend of the financial relationship between Japanese head and neck surgeons and pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019.

Study Design

Cross-sectional analysis.

Setting

Japan.

Methods

This study evaluated personal payments concerning lecturing, consulting, and writing paid by 92 major pharmaceutical companies to all Japanese head and neck surgeons board-certified by the Japan Society for Head and Neck Surgery between 2016 and 2019. The payments were descriptively analyzed and payment trend were assessed using population-averaged generalized estimating equations. Further, the payments to board executive board members with specialist certification were also evaluated separately.

Results

Of all 443 board-certified head and neck surgeons in Japan, 365 (82.4%) received an average of $6443 (standard deviation: $12,875), while median payments were $2002 (interquartile ranges [IQR] $792-$4802). Executive board specialists with a voting right received much higher personal payments (median $26,013, IQR $12,747-$35,750) than the non-executive specialists (median $1926, IQR $765‒$4134, p < .001) and the executive board specialists without a voting right (median $4411, IQR $963-$5623, p = .015). The payments per specialist and prevalence of specialists with payments annually increased by 11.4% (95% CI: 5.8%-17.2%; p < .001) and 7.3% (95% CI: 3.8%-11.0%; p < .001), respectively.

Conclusion

There were increasingly widespread and growing financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies among head and neck surgeons in Japan, alongside of introduction of novel drugs. The leading head and neck surgeons received much higher personal payments from pharmaceutical companies, and no sufficient regulation was implemented by the society in Japan.

Tip of the Iceberg? Country- and Company-Level Analysis of Drug Company Payments for Research and Development in Europe

BACKGROUND

Creating new therapies often involves drug companies paying healthcare professionals and institutions for research and development (R&D) activities, including clinical trials. However, industry sponsorship can create conflicts of interest (COIs). We analysed approaches to drug company R&D payment disclosure in European countries and the distribution of R&D payments at the country and company level.

METHODS

Using documentary sources and a stakeholder survey we identified country- regulatory approaches to R&D payment disclosure. We reviewed company-level descriptions of disclosure practices in the United Kingdom, a country with a major role in Europe's R&D. We obtained country-level R&D payment data from industry trade groups and public authorities and company-level data from eurosfordocs.eu, a publicly available payments database. We conducted content analysis and descriptive statistical analysis.

RESULTS

In 32 of 37 studied countries, all R&D payments were reported without named recipients, following a self-regulatory approach developed by the industry. The methodological descriptions from 125 companies operating in the United Kingdom suggest that within the self-regulatory approach companies had much leeway in deciding what activities and payments were considered as R&D. In five countries, legislation mandated the disclosure of R&D payment recipients, but only in two were payments practically identifiable and analysable. In 17 countries with available data, R&D constituted 19%-82% of all payments reported, with self-regulation associated with higher shares. Available company-level data from three countries with self-regulation suggests that R&D payments were concentrated by big funders, and some companies reported all, or nearly all, payments as R&D.

CONCLUSION

The lack of full disclosure of R&D payments in countries with industry self-regulation leaves considerable sums of money unaccounted for and potentially many COIs undetected. Disclosure mandated by legislation exists in few countries and rarely enhances transparency practically. We recommend a unified European approach to R&D payment disclosure, including clear definitions and a centralised database.

CMS Open Payments Database Analysis of Industry Payments for Foot and Ankle Surgery Research

With decreasing federal funding, the role of industry in supporting medical investigations continues to grow. To increase transparency between physicians and industry, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services introduced the Open Payments Program, providing a searchable database of physician payments from entities including medical device companies. This study describes industry research payments and trends among foot and ankle surgeons. Research Payment Data among foot and ankle surgeons from the Open Payments Database was reviewed from 2013 through 2020. Payment year, value, type, and physician name were collected, and descriptive statistics were presented. Linear regression assessed trends in the number and value of payments. Analysis of variance and subsequent post hoc testing assessed differences in mean payment value. A p value of ≤.05 was considered statistically significant. Overall, 10,872 payments totaling $69,595,393.10 among 446 foot and ankle surgeons were analyzed. No statistically significant increase in number of physicians, payments, or mean payment value per physician was observed from 2013 through 2020. However, the average value of payments in 2019 and 2020 was greater than 2015 and 2017 (p ≤ .05). The top 50 physicians according to cumulative payment value received $54,696,623.10 with 9427 (86.7%) cash and cash-equivalent payments representing the most common payment type overall. Industry continues to provide financial support to foot and ankle surgery research. Results of this investigation spur future studies to examine the relationship between payments and positive results reported by lead investigators in published research.

An Analysis of Otolaryngology's NIH Research Funding Compared to Other Specialties

OBJECTIVE

To compare NIH funding in the field of Otolaryngology to other medical and surgical specialties between 2009 and 2019.

METHODS

Data was collected from the NIH RePORTER database on funding dollars received by each specialty from 2009 to 2019. Along with data on total active physicians per specialty using the Physician Specialty Data Book, comparisons were drawn between Otolaryngology and other medical and surgical specialties with regards to trends in total funding and NIH funding dollars per physician. The distributions of grant funding, within Otolaryngology from various NIH institutes among principal investigators, organizations, and subspecialties were further explored.

RESULTS

There were 3810 grants (1147 unique projects) for a total of $1 276 198 555 funded by the NIH to Otolaryngology departments from 2009 to 2019. Statistically insignificant funding increases (P > .05) caused otolaryngology to fall from first to fourth in funding among studied specialties. The National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders funded 57% of all unique projects, and 57.2% of all unique NIH projects were otology related. Most projects were basic science related. The top 10 principal investigators obtained 22.3% of the total NIH funding for Otolaryngology. The top 3 organizations over the studied period comprised 26.55% of the total funding, generating a combined 729 grants. Among principal investigators, 63.0% had a PhD degree, 25.3% had an MD, and 9.6% had an MD/PhD.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

NIH funding in Otolaryngology has remained stable and is highly concentrated among a small number of organizations, geographic regions, and principal investigators. Recent initiatives by academic communities have sought to address funding disparities by incorporating diversity and inclusion into clinician-scientist pipelines. We urge our colleagues to strive toward identification of the factors that contribute to successful acquisition of funding and implementation of a more conducive institutional infrastructure to produce research.

Analysis of payments to GI physicians in the United States: Open payments data study

Background and Aim

The purpose of this study was to review and analyze the nature of industry payments to gastroenterology and hepatology (GI) physicians.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of open payments (OP) data for the year 2017. Payments to individual physicians were aggregated using a unique physician profile identification number. General payments to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services regions were also analyzed. The nature of financial transactions in general payments was reported overall and per physician payment. Research, ownership, and general payments were aggregated and analyzed by drug/device companies.

Results

During the study period, more GI physicians received contributions in the form of general payments compared to ownership or research payments. A small percentage of physicians received contributions greater than $100 000. The most frequent contributions were for food and beverages. Only 10 manufacturers made about 71% ($43 271 938) of general payments.

Conclusions

We found that only a small number of GI physicians received a significant portion of industry payments. A large portion of those payments came from drug or device companies. The impact of these payments on gastroenterologists needs to be examined further.

Financial Transactions from Manufacturers to Otolaryngologists in 2018

OBJECTIVE

To characterize in depth non-research and research payments from industry to otolaryngologists in 2018 with an emphasis on product types.

METHODS

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments program was used for data collection: payment amount, the nature of payments, products associated with the payments, date of the payments, and companies making the payments were studied. Products associated with the payments were classified by categorical type. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

There were 70,172 payments for a total of $11,001,875 made to otolaryngologists in 2018 with a median payment of $19. Food and beverage had the highest number of payments made (89.96%). Consulting fees (33.46%) composed the highest total payment amount. The two companies that contributed the highest amount were Stryker Corporation and Intersect ENT Inc. Sinus conditions had the most products within the top 25 products associated with payments. The top five products with the highest payments received were for balloon sinus dilation, nasal spray, sinus implant, Botox, and cochlear implant. There was a bimodal payment distribution demonstrating a higher number of payments made in the spring and fall.

CONCLUSION

Our study is the first to review payments to otolaryngologists in 2018 and classify these payments into product types. The products and companies that contributed the highest payments were associated with sinus conditions. The products that dominated in each subspecialty of otolaryngology coincide with clinical practice trends and emerging technologies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 131:E388-E394, 2021.