Disclosure of financial conflicts of interest: an evaluation of orthopaedic surgery patients' understanding

Industry Payment Trends to Orthopaedic Surgeons From 2014 to 2018: An Analysis of the First 5 Years of the Open Payments Database

INTRODUCTION

The Open Payments Database (OPD) provides transparent reporting of all payments made to physicians from private industry. Previous studies have described the nature of these financial relationships using the first year of publicly available data. However, long-term trends of these relationships have not been well described. Therefore, we report on the value and distribution of payments within the OPD and analyze trends of payments made to orthopaedic surgeons from 2014 to 2018.

METHODS

The OPD was queried from 2014 to 2018. Payments within the database were categorized into (1) general payments, (2) research interests, and (3) ownership interests. We report on the number, value, and payment trends between private industry and all licensed orthopaedic surgeons who have completed residency training.

RESULTS

A total of 631,000 physicians and 23,859 orthopaedic surgeons were included, representing 79.8% of US board-certified orthopaedic surgeons (n = 29,908). Although orthopaedic surgeons received an average of 2.9% of the number of payments made annually, payments to orthopaedic surgeons represented 10.0% of the value of payments made to all physicians. From 2014 to 2018, payments to orthopaedic surgeons increased in both number and value, from 313,194 separate payments ($883.8 million) in 2014 to 335,815 separate payments ($958.6 million) in 2018. In 2018, the top 1% of orthopaedic surgeons (n = 239) accounted for 58.0% ($265.8 million) of all payments to the field. Despite representing only 2.4% of the number of general payments, royalties represented 68.9% ($290.4 million) of the value of general payments to orthopaedic surgeons. Payments for research and education both increased.

DISCUSSION

Industry payments to orthopaedic surgeons represent 10.0% of all physician payments, with increases in payments for research and education. Royalties represented most (68.9%) of the value of general payments made to orthopaedic surgeons. Transparency in physician payments from industry is essential to avoid conflicts of interest.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Perceptions of Financial Conflict of Interest and Knowledge of the Sunshine Act Among Orthopedic Surgery Patients

The orthopedic surgical specialty is strongly tied to partnerships with industry that have fostered innovation and greatly enhanced patient care. A substantial number of orthopedic surgeons currently receive some form of industry support. These relationships are highly scrutinized because they present the possibility of both personal and financial conflicts of interest (COI). The authors examined orthopedic patients' awareness of existing regulation and perceptions of financial COI by performing a prospective survey-based study of patients seen in an academic orthopedic department. Data were collected during 1 year, in a cross-section of hospital-based and community clinical settings. The authors collected 513 surveys during a 1-year period between 4 clinical locations. Of all respondents, 55% were unconcerned regarding gifts or direct compensation their physicians received from industry, and only 16% were very or extremely concerned regarding these benefits. Patients' opinions regarding possible influence of benefits were similarly ambivalent, with 54% of patients minimally or not at all concerned regarding the potential influence of industry gifts or compensation. Seventy-six percent of patients had never heard of the Sunshine Act, and only 3% indicated that they were aware of the legislation and its intention. The income of the respondents and their level of education were positively correlated with increased concern about handling of COI, as well as knowledge regarding the Sunshine Act. These data suggest that orthopedic surgery patients are widely unconcerned regarding physician COI, but specific subsets of patients may be more likely to have concerns regarding these relationships. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(5):e682-e686.].

Addressing Conflicts of Interest in Health and Medicine: Current Evidence and Implications for Patient Decision Aid Development

BACKGROUND

More stringent policies for addressing conflicts of interest have been implemented around the world in recent years. Considering the value of revisiting conflict of interest quality standards set by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration, we sought to review evidence relevant to 2 questions: 1) What are the effects of different strategies for managing conflicts of interest? and 2) What are patients' perspectives on conflicts of interest?

METHODS

We conducted a narrative review of English-language articles and abstracts from 2010 to 2019 that reported relevant quantitative or qualitative research.

RESULTS

Of 1743 articles and 118 abstracts identified, 41 articles and 2 abstracts were included. Most evidence on the effects of conflict of interest management strategies pertained only to subsequent compliance with the management strategy. This evidence highlighted substantial noncompliance with prevailing requirements. Evidence on patient perspectives on conflicts of interest offered several insights, including the existence of diverse views on the acceptability of conflicts of interest, the salience of conflict of interest type and monetary value to patients, and the possibility that conflict of interest disclosure could have unintended effects. We identified no published research on the effects of IPDAS Collaboration conflict of interest quality standards on patient decision making or outcomes.

LIMITATIONS

Because we did not conduct a systematic review, we may have missed some evidence relevant to our review questions. In addition, our team did not include patient partners.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review have implications for the management of conflicts of interest not only in patient decision aid development but also in clinical practice guideline development, health and medical research reporting, and health care delivery.

Deciphering the Sunshine Act: Transparency Regulation and Financial Conflicts in Health Care

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act ("Sunshine Act"), enacted to address financial conflicts in health care, is the first comprehensive federal legislation mandating public reporting of payments between drug companies, device manufacturers, and medicine. This article analyzes the Sunshine Act's uneven record, exploring how the law serves as an intriguing example of the uncertain case for transparency regulation in health care. The Sunshine Act's bumpy rollout demonstrates that commanding transparency through legislation can be arduous because of considerable implementation challenges. Capturing all the relevant information about financial relationships and reporting it with sufficient contextual and comparative data has proven disappointingly difficult. In addition, the law suffers from uncertainty and poor design as to the intended audience. Indeed, there is strong reason to believe that it will not significantly impact decision-making of primary recipients like patients. Yet the Sunshine Act nonetheless retains important and perhaps underappreciated value. From the almost four years of information generated, we have learned that industry-medicine financial ties vary significantly by physician specialty, and somewhat by physician gender. In many medical fields the distribution of top dollar payments tends to be heavily skewed to a few recipients, all of which have important implications for optimal management of financial conflicts and for health policy more generally. Accordingly, the Sunshine Act's greatest potential is not guiding decisions of individual patients or physicians, but its downstream effects. This Article traces how secondary audiences, such as regulators, watchdogs, and counsel are already starting to make productive use of Sunshine Act information. Public reporting has, for example, made more feasible linking industry payment information with Medicare reimbursement data. As a result, policymakers can more closely examine correlations between industry spending directed at individual physicians and their prescribing and referral decisions. Moreover, savvy counsel are recognizing that Sunshine Act information provides explosive evidence in private civil litigation and this Article explores the first wave of cases.

"We can't get along without each other": Qualitative interviews with physicians about device industry representatives, conflict of interest and patient safety

Objectives

Physician relationships with device industry representatives have not been previously assessed. This study explored interactions with device industry representatives among physicians who use implantable cardiovascular and orthopedic devices to identify whether conflict of interest (COI) is a concern and how it is managed.

Design

A descriptive qualitative approach was used. Physicians who implant orthopedic and cardiovascular devices were identified in publicly available directories and web sites, and interviewed about their relationships with device industry representatives. Sampling was concurrent with data collection and analysis. Data were analyzed and discussed using constant comparative technique by all members of the research team.

Results

Twenty-two physicians (10 cardiovascular, 12 orthopedic) were interviewed. Ten distinct representative roles were identified: purchasing, training, trouble-shooting, supplying devices, assisting with device assembly and insertion, supporting operating room staff, mitigating liability, conveying information about recalls, and providing direct and indirect financial support. Participants recognized the potential for COI but representatives were present for the majority of implantations. Participants revealed a tension between physicians and representatives that was characterized as “symbiotic”, but required physicians to be vigilant about COI and patient safety, particularly because representatives varied regarding disclosure of device defects. They described a concurrent tension between hospitals, whose policies and business practices were focused on cost-control, and physicians who were required to comply with those policies and use particular devices despite concerns about their safety and effectiveness.

Conclusions

Given the potential for COI and threats to patient safety, further research is needed to establish the clinical implications of the role of, and relationship with device industry representatives; and whether and how hospitals do and should govern interaction with representatives, or support their staff in this regard.

Variable Reporting by Authors Presenting Arthroplasty Research at Multiple Annual Conferences

BACKGROUND

Prior studies have demonstrated discrepancies in financial conflict of interest (COI) disclosure among authors presenting research at multiple spine and sports medicine conferences. The purpose of this study was to quantify the variability of self-reported financial disclosures of individual authors presenting at multiple arthroplasty conferences during the same year.

METHODS

The author disclosure information published for the 2012 annual meetings of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, the Hip Society, and the Knee Society were compiled. We tabulated the author disclosures, the number of companies/entities represented, and the types of disclosures reported. The disclosures made by authors presenting at more than one meeting were then compared for discrepancies.

RESULTS

Of the 209 authors who presented at both the AAOS and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons meetings, 79 (37.79%) demonstrated discrepancies in their disclosures with 7 (8.8%) reporting no disclosures to the AAOS. Of the 84 authors who presented at both the AAOS and Hip Society meetings, 1 (1.19%) had discrepancies in their disclosures. Of the 52 authors who presented at both the AAOS and Knee Society meetings, 2 (3.84%) had discrepancies in their disclosures.

CONCLUSION

There is variability in reported financial COIs by authors presenting at multiple arthroplasty conferences within the same year. Further work is warranted to improve transparency of COI disclosures among arthroplasty surgeons presenting research at national meetings.

Knowledge, Beliefs and Attitudes of Patients and the General Public towards the Interactions of Physicians with the Pharmaceutical and the Device Industry: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the evidence on the knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of patients and the general public towards the interactions of physicians with the pharmaceutical and the device industry.

METHODS

We included quantitative and qualitative studies addressing any type of interactions between physicians and the industry. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE in August 2015. Two reviewers independently completed data selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological features. We summarized the findings narratively stratified by type of interaction, outcome and country.

RESULTS

Of the 11,902 identified citations, 20 studies met the eligibility criteria. Many studies failed to meet safeguards for protecting from bias. In studies focusing on physicians and the pharmaceutical industry, the percentages of participants reporting awareness was higher for office-use gifts relative to personal gifts. Also, participants were more accepting of educational and office-use gifts compared to personal gifts. The findings were heterogeneous for the perceived effects of physician-industry interactions on prescribing behavior, quality and cost of care. Generally, participants supported physicians' disclosure of interactions through easy-to-read printed documents and verbally. In studies focusing on surgeons and device manufacturers, the majority of patients felt their care would improve or not be affected if surgeons interacted with the device industry. Also, they felt surgeons would make the best choices for their health, regardless of financial relationship with the industry. Participants generally supported regulation of surgeon-industry interactions, preferably through professional rather than governmental bodies.

CONCLUSION

The awareness of participants was low for physicians' receipt of personal gifts. Participants also reported greater acceptability and fewer perceived influence for office-use gifts compared to personal gifts. Overall, there appears to be lower awareness, less concern and more acceptance of surgeon-device industry interactions relative to physician-pharmaceutical industry interactions. We discuss the implications of the findings at the patient, provider, organizational, and systems level.

Patient Attitudes Toward Orthopedic Surgeon Ownership of Related Ancillary Businesses

BACKGROUND

Physician ownership of businesses related to orthopedic surgery, such as surgery centers, has been criticized as potentially leading to misuse of health care resources. The purpose of this study was to determine patients' attitudes toward surgeon ownership of orthopedic-related businesses.

METHODS

We surveyed 280 consecutive patients at 2 centers regarding their attitudes toward surgeon ownership of orthopedic-related businesses using an anonymous questionnaire. Three surgeon ownership scenarios were presented: (1) owning a surgery center, (2) physical therapy (PT), and (3) imaging facilities (eg, Magnetic Resonance Imaging scanner).

RESULTS

Two hundred fourteen patients (76%) completed the questionnaire. The majority agreed that it is ethical for a surgeon to own a surgery center (73%), PT practice (77%), or imaging facility (77%). Most (>67%) indicated that their surgeon owning such a business would have no effect on the trust they have in their surgeon. Although >70% agreed that a surgeon in all 3 scenarios would make the same treatment decisions, many agreed that such surgeons might perform more surgery (47%), refer more patients to PT (61%), or order more imaging (58%). Patients favored surgeon autonomy, however, believing that surgeons should be allowed to own such businesses (78%). Eighty-five percent agreed that patients should be informed if their surgeon owns an orthopedic-related business.

CONCLUSION

Although patients express concern over and desire disclosure of surgeon ownership of orthopedic-related businesses, the majority believes that it is an ethical practice and feel comfortable receiving care at such a facility.

Are Financial Conflicts of Interest for the Surgeon A Source of Concern for the Patient?

We surveyed 269 consecutive patients (81% response rate) with an anonymous questionnaire to assess their attitudes toward conflicts-of-interest (COIs) resulting from three financial relationships between orthopedic surgeons and orthopedic industry: (1) being paid as a consultant; (2) receiving research funding; (3) receiving product design royalties. The majority perceived these relationships favorably, with 75% agreeing that surgeons in such relationships are top experts in the field and two-thirds agreeing that surgeons engage in such relationships to serve patients better. Patients viewed surgeons who designed products more favorably than those who are consultants (P=0.03). The majority (74%) agreed that these COIs should be disclosed to patients. Given patients' desires for disclosure and their favorable perceptions of these relationships, open discussions about financial COIs is appropriate.

Conflicts of interest in research: looking out for number one means keeping the primary interest front and center

Conflicts of interest represent circumstances in which professional judgments or actions regarding a primary interest, such as the responsibilities of a medical researcher, may be at risk of being unduly influenced by a secondary interest, such as financial gain or career advancement. The secondary interest may be financial or non-financial, and the resultant bias may be conscious or unconscious. The presence of conflicts of interest poses a problem for professional, patient, and public trust in research and the research enterprise. Effective means of identifying and managing conflicts are an important element in successfully achieving the goals of research. These strategies typically focus on the investigator and rely upon disclosure, which has substantial limitations. Additional management strategies include process-oriented steps and outcomes-oriented strategies. More attention to identifying and managing non-financial conflicts is needed. Future empirical research will be important for defining which conflicts need to be better addressed and how to achieve this goal.

Joint issues--conflicts of interest, the ASR hip and suggestions for managing surgical conflicts of interest

Background

Financial and nonfinancial conflicts of interest in medicine and surgery are troubling because they have the capacity to skew decision making in ways that might be detrimental to patient care and well-being. The recent case of the Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) hip provides a vivid illustration of the harmful effects of conflicts of interest in surgery.

Discussion

We identify financial and nonfinancial conflicts of interest experienced by surgeons, hospitals and regulators in the ASR case. These conflicts may have impacted surgical advice, decision-making and evidence gathering with respect to the ASR prosthesis, and contributed to the significant harms experienced by patients in whom the hip was implanted. Drawing on this case we explore shortcomings in the standard responses to conflicts of interest – disclosure and recusal. We argue disclosure is necessary but by no means sufficient to address conflicts of interest. Using the concept of recusal we develop remedies including second opinions and third party consent which may be effective in mitigating conflicts, but their implementation introduces new challenges.

Summary

Deployment of the ASR hip is a case of surgical innovation gone wrong. As we show, there were multiple conflicts of interest involved in the introduction of the ASR hip into practice and subsequent attempts to gloss over the mounting body of evidence about its lack of safety and effectiveness. Conflicts of interest in surgery are often not well managed. We suggest strategies in this paper which can minimise the conflicts of interest associated with surgical innovation.