Analysis of Open Payments Receipts Among Surgical Faculty at a Large Academic Institution

A Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Publication Bias in the Plastic Surgery Literature

BACKGROUND

Publication bias (PB) is the preferential publishing of studies with statistically significant results. PB can skew findings of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), with potential consequences for patient care and health policy. This study aims to determine the extent to which SRs and MAs in the plastic surgery literature evaluate and report PB.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study assessed PB reporting and analysis from plastic surgery studies published between January 1, 2015, and June 19, 2020. Full texts of SRs and MAs were assessed by two reviewers for PB assessment methodology and analysis. Post hoc assessment of studies that did not originally analyze PB was performed using Egger regression, Duval, Tweedie trim-and-fill, and Copas selection models.

RESULTS

There were 549 studies evaluated, of which 531 full texts were included. PB was discussed by 183 studies (34.5%), and formally assessed by 97 studies (18.3%). Among SRs and MAs that formally assessed PB, PB was present in 24 studies (10.7%), not present in 52 (23.1%), and inconclusive in eight (3.6%); 141 studies (62.7%) did not report the results of their PB assessment. Funnel plots were the most common assessment method [ n = 88 (39.1%)], and 60 studies (68.2%) published funnel plots. The post hoc assessment revealed PB in 17 of 20 studies (85.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

PB is inadequately reported and analyzed among studies in the plastic surgery literature. Most studies that assessed PB found PB, as did post hoc analysis of nonreporting studies. Increased assessment and reporting of PB among SRs and MAs would improve the quality of evidence in plastic surgery.

Association Between Gender and Payments Received From Pharmaceutical Companies Among Medical Professors and Associate Professors in Japan

Introduction While prior research showed gender gaps in industry payments for medical professionals in the United States, there are limited data in Japan. So, this study seeks to investigate the potential gender gap in the receipt of pharmaceutical companies (PFCs) across all medical fields in Japan. Based on the results of previous studies, we developed a hypothesis that male doctors get more PFC than female doctors. Materials and methods Data from 92 pharmaceutical companies in Japan, covering 2016 to 2019, were analyzed. The analysis was conducted on professors and associate professors at all national and public medical universities in Japan, with gender as a factor variable and payments as an outcome variable, and variables that may have influenced the factor or outcome variables in previous studies, such as specialization, university type, region, rank and years since graduation, as control variables. Payments were converted to US dollars using the December 31, 2021, rate of 115 yen to the dollar for comparison purposes. Results Out of 1,825 subjects, 1,755 were males and 70 females. Males consistently received higher median payments from pharmaceutical companies (PFCs) than females across categories. In particular, among physicians specializing in internal medicine, the median PFC for men was $25 compared to $8 for women. For physicians affiliated with former imperial universities (the seven former imperial universities founded before World War II), the median PFC for men was $32 compared to $5 for women. Multivariate analysis confirmed significantly higher total benefits for males from 2016 to 2019, with the gender gap widening during this period (incidence rate ratio (IRR) for 2016: 0.51, IRR for 2019: 0.44). Conclusions Japanese male professors and associate professors received significantly higher PFCs than their female counterparts, and this gender gap expanded from 2016 to 2019, highlighting persistent gender inequality in the medical field in Japan, similar to trends observed in the United States.

Financial Relationships in General Surgery Education: Recent Trends in Industry Payments to General Surgery Residency Leadership

INTRODUCTION

Residency programs and their directors frequently receive funding from industry payers. Both general surgery residency program directors (PDs) and assistant program directors (APDs) receive industry funding for various reasons, including educational advancement. This study investigates recent trends in industry payments to both PDs and APDs to better understand the financial relationships among leaders in residency education.

METHODS

We compared industry payments to general surgery residency PDs and APDs from 2019 to 2021 utilizing the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) open payments database. In addition, secondary analyses were performed among PDs to assess differences based on gender, practicing surgical specialty, and geographical region.

RESULTS

During the study period (2019-2021), PDs received payments amounting to 2,882,821 USD. PDs were found to receive more funding than APDs, with each receiving average funding of 10,045 vs. 323 USD (p < 0.01), respectively, over the study period. There was a significant decrease in total payments from 2019 to 2020 (1,512,190 vs. 868,811 USD; p < 0.01). Total payments made in 2021 were similar compared to 2020 (905,836 vs. 868,811 USD; p = 0.1). We found that male PDs received significantly more in-industry payments when compared to female PDs (11,702 USD per PD vs. 3971 USD per PD, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

This study presents initial data that residency program leadership has robust biomedical industry relationships, and further research is warranted to investigate the impacts of these payments on program resources, educational opportunities for residents, and program outcomes. Male PDs received significantly more industry payments when compared to female PDs. Leaders in the surgical training community must cautiously ensure that these industry relationships are appropriately navigated.

The Association of Subspecialty and Sex with Industry Payments to Internal Medicine Physicians Who Recently Completed Training

BACKGROUND

Financial relationships with drug and medical device companies may impact quality of care and academic research. However, little is known when and how these financial relationships develop among newly independent physicians who recently completed from residency or fellowship programs in internal medicine (IM).

OBJECTIVE

To compare patterns of industry payments among IM graduates.

DESIGN

Retrospective, observational cohort study.

SUBJECTS

IM graduates from residency or fellowship programs between January 2015 and December 2019.

MAIN MEASURES

We analyzed Open Payments reports made between July 2015 and June 2021 to recent graduates of U.S. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited residency and fellowship programs in IM. The primary outcome was general payments accepted by these physicians, stratified by procedural (i.e., critical care medicine/pulmonary medicine, cardiac/cardiovascular disease, and gastroenterology) and non-procedural (i.e., infectious disease, general internal medicine, and other specialties) subspecialties. The secondary outcomes included general payments stratified by sex and age at residency or fellowship training completion.

KEY RESULTS

There were 41,669 IM physicians with a median age of 33.0 years. In the first 3 years after completion, the proportion of physicians accepting any general payments was 72.6%, 91.9%, and 86.8% in Critical Care Medicine/Pulmonary Medicine, Cardiac/Cardiovascular Disease, and Gastroenterology, compared to 56.1%, 52.6%, and 52.3% in Infectious Disease, General Internal Medicine, and Other Specialties (p<0.0001). After adjusting for confounding variables, the procedural group showed an increased hazard ratio (HR) for accepting any general payments and at least $5000 of general payments compared to the non-procedural group. The HRs of accepting any general payments in the procedural subspecialty were 2.26 (95% CI, 2.11-2.42) and 2.83 (95% CI, 2.70-2.97) in female and male physicians, respectively (p-value < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Industry financial relationships among newly independent physicians in IM exist immediately after completion of training and are influenced by subspecialty, sex, and age.

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.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure Among the Highest Earning Physicians Receiving Compensation From Vascular Device Companies

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the association between payments made by vascular device companies to clinicians, and the conflict of interest (COI) declarations on relevant publications.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Close association between medical device companies and clinicians is essential in the advancement of surgical technology. When evaluating the efficacy of novel equipment, identification of these relationships can minimize the risk of bias in relevant studies.

METHODS

Using the Open Payments Database (OPD), the 10 highest compensated clinicians from 10 vascular device companies were identified. In the population based bibliometric analysis, general payments, number of payments, h-index, and academic rank were identified. PubMed and Scopus were queried to identify author publications. Relevance to payment received and COI disclosures were identified for each article.

RESULTS

The physicians identified earned $33,442,266.74 with a median of $92,500 in 2017. The authors published an average of 6.46+/-9.08 articles in 2018. Relevant COI was identified in 74%. In 50.5% of the relevant publications was a COI declared. The median h index of authors was 18+/-23. Community based physicians had a higher rate of COI disclosure (65.6%) compared to academic physicians (47.6%) (P = .008). Low h-index authors had a higher rate of COI declaration (71.4%) compared to high h-index (43.6%) (P = .001).

CONCLUSION

A high degree of inconsistency was found between self-declared COI and relevant articles published by the highest compensated physicians. We propose a policy of full disclosure and the addition of a link to each author's OPD page on all publications to increase access to potential COI.

Industry Payments to Plastic Surgeons: What Has Changed Over the Last 6 Years Following Implementation of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act?

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

The authors 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

A total 61,000,728 unique payments totaling $11,815,248,549 were identified over the 6-year study period; 9089 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 and 2019 (mean $76,420.75). California had the greatest number of plastic surgeons who received payments (1452 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 6 years, geographic trends in industry payments have remained stable.

Industry payments made to academic endodontists: Sex differences and other insights into financial relationships

BACKGROUND

Industry payments made to health care providers can create competing interests. The purpose of this study was to define the overall financial relationships between industry and academic endodontics faculty members, detail any variation in such payment data as related to individual faculty member characteristics and leadership position by institution type, and comment on the potential impacts from conflicts of interest (COIs) created by such relationships.

METHODS

The author identified and characterized academic endodontists from information on their institutional websites. The author obtained reported industry payments from 2013 through 2019 from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database. The author also noted the distributions of academic endodontists and industry payments by institution, academic rank, sex, and residency program director position. The author subjected the data to descriptive and nonparametric analyses.

RESULTS

Of the 302 academic endodontists included, 240 (80%) accepted reported industry payments totaling $4,260,316.97. Overall, the median of total industry payments for all 302 faculty members was $217.89 (interquartile range [IQR], $34.06-$3,070.00). Among those accepting payments, the median amount was $382.80 (IQR, $110.40-$6,234.00). The top decile of paid academic endodontists received $3,669,291.47 in industry payments (86% of the total), with a median payment of $24,013 (IQR, $17,043-$91,190). Significant sex-associated industry payment differences were seen among the overall faculty and among those with the residency program director position.

CONCLUSIONS

Most academic endodontists accept industry payments. Significant sex differences exist in overall faculty member academic rank distribution, leadership role, and accepted median industry payment amounts. COI issues have the potential to arise among academic endodontists when such industry payments are accepted.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Existing sex disparities in academic endodontics within the United States ideally should be acknowledged. COI issues can arise when academic faculty members accept industry payments. Public knowledge of these conflicts could negatively affect individual faculty members, their institutions, and related areas such as academic publishing. Appropriate faculty member COI disclosure, attestation, annual updates, and transparency are important mitigation measures.

Gender Disparity in 2013-2018 Industry Payments to Plastic Surgeons

BACKGROUND

The gender pay gap in medicine has been under intense scrutiny in recent years; female plastic surgeons reportedly earn 11% less than their male peers. "Hidden" pay in the form of industry-based transfers exposes compensation disparity not captured by traditional wage-gap estimations.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to reveal the sex distribution of industry payments to board-certified plastic surgeons across all years covered by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payment Database (CMS OPD).

METHODS

We obtained the National Provider Identifier (NPI) for each surgeon in the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) member directory to record gender. Next, "General Payments" data points from annual files for all years present in the CMS OPD, 2013 to 2018, were aggregated and joined to provider details by Physician Profile ID before quantitative analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Of 4840 ASPS surgeons, 3864 (79.8%) reporting ≥1 industry payment were included with 3220 male (83.3%) and 644 female (16.7%). Over 2013 to 2018, females received mean [standard deviation] 56.01 [2.51] payments totaling $11,530.67 [$1461.45] each vs 65.70 [1.80] payments totaling $25,469.05 [$5412.60] for males. The yearly ratio of male-to-female payments in dollars was 2.36 in 2013, 2.69 in 2014, 2.53 in 2015, 2.31 in 2016, 1.72 in 2017, and most recently 1.96 in 2018.

CONCLUSIONS

Individual male plastic surgeons received over twice the payment dollars given to their female counterparts, accepting both more frequent and higher-value transfers from industry partners. Payment inequity slightly declined in recent years, which may indicate shifting industry engagement gender preferences.