Pharmaceutical Industry Payments and Oncologists' Selection of Targeted Cancer Therapies in Medicare Beneficiaries

Pharmaceutical Industry Payments to Medical Oncologists in the Netherlands: Trends and Patterns Provided by an Open-Access Transparency Data Set

PURPOSE

Health care expenditure related to oncologic treatments is skyrocketing although many treatments offer marginal, if any, clinical benefit. Financial conflicts of interest (fCOI) resulting from pharmaceutical industry (pharma) payments to physicians is increasingly recognized as a predictive factor for regulatory board approval and guideline incorporation of low-value treatments. We sought to study the extent to which pharma payments to medical oncologists occur in the Netherlands, the amount of money involved, and whether these occur more frequently and are higher for key opinion leaders (KOLs).

METHODS

In our cross-sectional retrospective database study, we used several Dutch open-access databases and extracted data registered between 2019 and 2021.

RESULTS

A cumulative amount of €899,863 was paid to 48.8% of the 408 registered medical oncologists. Over time, there was a marked decline in both the proportion of medical oncologists receiving payments (from 40.4% in 2019 to 19.1% in 2021) and the mean annual value of payments (from €2,962 in 2019 to €2,188 in 2021) with the latter mainly resulting from a decline in hospitality-related transactions. KOLs were more likely to receive industry payments and received a higher median payment value.

DISCUSSION

Our findings should contribute to the increasing awareness in the Netherlands of the potential effects of fCOI.

Evaluation of non-research and research industry payments to pediatric hematologist/oncologists in the United States between 2013 and 2021

Financial interactions between healthcare industry and pediatric hematologist/oncologists (PHOs) could be conflicts of interest. Nevertheless, little is known about financial relationships between healthcare industry and PHOs. This cross-sectional analysis of the Open Payments Database examined general and research payments to PHOs from healthcare industry in the United States between 2013 and 2021. Payments to the PHOs were analyzed descriptively. Trends in payments were assessed using generalized estimating equation models. Of 2784 PHOs, 2142 (76.9%) PHOs received payments totaling $187.3 million from the healthcare industry between 2013 and 2021. Approximately, $46.3 million (24.8%) were general payments and $137.7 million (73.5%) were funding for research where PHOs served as principal investigators (associated research funding). Both general payments and associated research funding considerably increased between 2014 and 2019. The number of PHOs receiving general payments and associated research funding annually increased by 2.2% (95% CI: 1.2-3.3%, p < .001) and 5.0% (95% CI: 3.3-6.8%, p < .001) between 2014 and 2019, respectively.

Biosimilars engage in low levels of direct-to-physician marketing relative to reference biologics

Biosimilars have the potential to greatly reduce US spending on biologic drugs, but uptake of these competitor products varies. We used Open Payments data from 2014 to 2022 to proxy for direct-to-physician marketing and compared levels of activity between biologic and biosimilar drug manufacturers. Our analysis focused on 6 reference biologics that recently faced competition in the years immediately before and after the launch of the first biosimilar. We used Medicare Part B dosage units to measure market penetration of biosimilars and its relationship with biosimilar marketing activity. Last, we conducted a sensitivity test, comparing payments for primarily office- or hospital-based physicians, using affiliations constructed from Medicare Carrier claims. Reference biologic manufacturers greatly reduced the amount of direct-to-physician marketing in the post-launch period. Biosimilar manufacturers generally engaged in low levels of activity relative to the historic performance of reference biologics. These trends were consistent across office- and hospital-based physicians. The intensity of biosimilars' direct-to-physician marketing also had no apparent relationship with achieved market penetration. Our findings demonstrate that persistently high market shares of reference biologics cannot be explained by ongoing direct-to-physician marketing activities. At the same time, while such activities could educate physicians or induce switching, biosimilar entrants engaged in little direct-to-physician marketing.

Financial conflicts of interest of physicians followed by oncology journals on Twitter

BACKGROUND

Physicians have increasingly adopted Twitter as a discussion and distribution platform for oncology research. While the influence of financial conflicts of interests (FCOI) on medical research is well documented, their role in the dissemination of research on social media platforms is not well known. In this study, we sought to evaluate the FCOIs of physicians followed by the top three oncology journals on Twitter.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used the Open Payments Search Tool ( https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov ) to assess FCOIs between 2016 and 2021 of United States (US) physicians followed by three oncology journals (Journal of Clinical Oncology, The Lancet Oncology, and Annals of Oncology) on Twitter.

RESULTS

Of 1914 Twitter accounts followed by the top three oncology journals on Twitter, 547 (28.6%) belonged to US physicians. Of these, 463 (84.6%) received general payments between 2016 and 2021. After excluding 30 US physicians currently in residency or fellowship, this percentage increased to 88.2% (n = 456/517). Combined, the median (interquartile range) general payment amount was $8100 ($200-90,000). Additionally, over $42 million in general payments were made between 2016 and 2021.

CONCLUSION

Our findings offer insight on FCOIs between oncology journals and US physicians on Twitter. These findings may serve as the foundation for future research regarding optimal medical journal conduct on social media platforms.

Pharmaceutical industry payments and delivery of non-recommended and low value cancer drugs: population based cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the association between oncologists' receipt of payments from the pharmaceutical industry and delivery of non-recommended or low value interventions among their patients.

DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTING

Fee-for-service Medicare claims.

PARTICIPANTS

Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of incident cancer (new occurrence of a cancer diagnosis code in proximity to claims for cancer treatment, and no such diagnosis codes during a ≥1 year washout period) during 2014-19, who met additional requirements identifying them as at risk for one of four non-recommended or low value interventions: denosumab for castration sensitive prostate cancer, granulocyte colony stimulating factors (GCSF) for patients at low risk for neutropenic fever, nab-paclitaxel for cancers with no evidence of superiority over paclitaxel, and a branded drug in settings where a generic or biosimilar version was available.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Receipt of the non-recommended or low value drug for which the patient was at risk. The primary association of interest was the assigned oncologist's receipt of any general payments from the manufacturer of the corresponding non-recommended or low value drug (measured in Open Payments) within 365 days before the patient's index cancer date. The two modeling approaches used were general linear model controlling for patients' characteristics and calendar year, and general linear model with physician level indicator variables.

RESULTS

Oncologists were in receipt of industry payments for 2962 of 9799 patients (30.2%) at risk for non-recommended denosumab (median $63), 76 747 of 271 485 patients (28.3%) at risk for GCSF (median $60); 18 491 of 86 394 patients (21.4%) at risk for nab-paclitaxel (median $89), and 4170 of 13 386 patients (31.2%) at risk for branded drugs (median $156). The unadjusted proportion of patients who received non-recommended denosumab was 31.4% for those whose oncologist had not received payment and 49.5% for those whose oncologist had (prevalence difference 18.0%); the corresponding values for GCSF were 26.6% v 32.1% (5.5%), for nab-paclitaxel were 7.3% v 15.1% (7.8%), and for branded drugs were 88.3% v 83.5% (-4.8%). Controlling for patients' characteristics and calendar year, payments from industry were associated with increased use of denosumab (17.5% (95% confidence interval 15.3% to 19.7%)), GCSF (5.8% (5.4% to 6.1%)), and nab-paclitaxel (7.6% (7.1% to 8.1%)), but lower use of branded drugs (-4.6% (-5.8% to -3.3%)). In physician level indicator models, payments from industry were associated with increased use of denosumab (7.4% (2.5% to 12.2%)) and nab-paclitaxel (1.7% (0.9% to 2.5%)), but not with GCSF (0.4% (-0.3% to 1.1%)) or branded drugs (1.2% (-6.0 to 8.5%)).

CONCLUSIONS

Within some clinical scenarios, industry payments to physicians are associated with non-recommended and low value drugs. These findings raise quality of care concerns about the financial relationships between physicians and industry.

Industry Payments to Physicians Are Kickbacks. How Should Stakeholders Respond?

Payments from the pharmaceutical industry to US physicians are common. In determining which payments rise to the level of an illegal kickback under the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General (OIG) has stated in nonbinding guidance that influencing or "swaying" physician prescribing is key. OIG has highlighted as a compliance standard the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Code on Interactions with Health Professions, which stipulates that permissible payments are those that do not interfere with prescribing. However, recent evidence has shown that most payments influence physician prescribing, driving higher prescription drug costs by increasing use of brand-name and low-value drugs. This evidence implies that many payments that are currently commonplace could be subject to prosecution under AKS. Given that these payments increase costs to patients and the health care system, there is a public interest in curtailing them. This article proposes a range of actions available to stakeholders-including industry, providers, regulators, and payers-to mitigate the cost-increasing effect of industry payments to physicians.

Nature and Trends in Personal Payments Made to the Respiratory Physicians by Pharmaceutical Companies in Japan between 2016 and 2019

BACKGROUND

Financial relationships between healthcare professionals and pharmaceutical companies have historically caused conflicts of interest and unduly influenced patient care. However, little was known about such relationship and its effect in clinical practice among specialists in respiratory medicine.

METHODS

Based on the retrospective analysis of payment data made available by all 92 pharmaceutical companies in Japan, this study evaluated the magnitude and trend of financial relationships between all board-certified Japanese respiratory specialists and pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. Magnitude and prevalence of payments for specialists were analyzed descriptively. The payment trends were assessed using the generalized estimating equations for the payment per specialist and the number of specialists with payments.

RESULTS

Among all 7,114 respiratory specialists certified as of August 2021, 4,413 (62.0%) received a total of USD 53,547,391 and 74,195 counts from 72 (78.3%) pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. The median (interquartile range) 4-year combined payment values per specialist were USD 2,210 (USD 715-8,178). At maximum, one specialist received USD 495,332 personal payments over the 4 years. Both payments per specialist and number of specialists with payments significantly increased during the 4-year period, with 7.8% (95% CI: 5.5-9.8; p < 0.001) in payments and 1.5% (95% CI: 0.61-2.4; p = 0.001) in number of specialists with payments, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The majority of respiratory specialists had increasingly received more personal payments from pharmaceutical companies for the reimbursement of lecturing, consulting, and writing between 2016 and 2019. These increasing financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies might cause conflicts of interest among respiratory physicians.

Physician Payments from Pharmaceutical Companies Related to Cancer Drugs

BACKGROUND

Drug manufacturers claim that the purpose of financial payments to physicians is to facilitate education about new drugs. This claim suggests 2 testable hypotheses: payments should not be associated with drug revenue and payments for each drug should decline over time as physicians become educated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used open payments data on industry payments. We included payments for cancer drugs without generic/biosimilar competitors and used federal data sources to measure Medicare spending (a proxy for overall drug revenue) and a number of prescribers. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) to model the drug-level association between industry payments and Medicare spending. Separately, we used GEE to estimate the change in payments with respect to the duration of time since initial FDA approval.

RESULTS

The sample included 89 drugs and 361 drug-year observations. The total value of industry payments for oncology drugs increased, from $53 333 854 in 2014 to $90 343 731 in 2018. There was no association between log-transformed mean, per-physician industry payments, and per-physician Medicare spending (estimate -0.001, 95%CI, -0.005 to 0.004). Payments for individual drugs decreased over time; estimated payments in the subsequent year for a drug with mean, per-physician payments of $1000 in the index year was: $681* for drugs 0-4 years since approval, $825 for 5-9 years, and $679* for ≥10 years (*P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Although industry-sponsored education may also serve marketing purposes, the absence of association between industry payments and Medicare spending and the decline in payments subsequent to approval are consistent with claims that industry payments function to facilitate physician education.

Pharmaceutical Payments to Japanese Board-Certified Infectious Disease Specialists: A Four-Year Retrospective Analysis of Payments from 92 Pharmaceutical Companies between 2016 and 2019

Backgrounds: Conflict of interest with pharmaceutical companies is one of the most concerned issues in infectious diseases. However, there is a lack of whole picture of detailed payments in Japan. Methods: This retrospective study assessed financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and all infectious disease specialists board-certified by the Japanese Association for Infectious Disease, using publicly disclosed payment data from 92 major pharmaceutical companies. Descriptive analyses were conducted for the payments. Payment trends were examined by the generalized estimating equations. Results: Of 1614 board-certified infection disease specialists, 1055 (65.4%) received a total of $17,784,070 payments, corresponding to 21,680 contracts between 2016 and 2019. The mean ± SD and median (interquartile range: IQR) were $16,857 ± $45,010 and $3183 ($938–$11,250) in payments. All board executive members of Japanese Association of Infectious Disease received higher payments averaging $163,792. There were no significant changes in payments per specialist (annual change rate: −1.4% [95% CI: −4.7–2.3%], p = 0.48) and prevalence of specialists with payments (annual change rate: −1.4% [95% CI: −3.1–0.2%], p = 0.093) over the four years. Conclusion: There were substantial financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and board-certified infectious disease specialists in Japan. Furthermore, high ranked specialists such as those in the executive board had stronger financial ties with the companies.

Health Care Clinicians and Product Promotion by Industry

Medical pharmaceutical and device manufacturers are essential in making products that benefit patients, and collaboration between health care clinicians and the industry is necessary for the design and manufacture of these medical products. However, health care clinicians must recognize that their duties and the interests of the industry may at times diverge. Relationships with the industry, even seemingly minor ones, have the potential to shape the decisions made on behalf of patients. The marketing divisions of pharmaceutical and medical device firms view health care clinicians as targets of their efforts, and some of the interactions that occur between the industry and health care clinicians have the potential to alter decision making in ways that may not necessarily benefit patients. Health care clinicians have an ethical duty to recognize situations and marketing strategies that are designed to influence their choice of diagnostic and therapeutic options for their patients. At a minimum, health care clinicians should be aware of the techniques used to attempt to alter their behavior and guard against them.

Promotional Payments to Medical Oncologists and Urologists and Prescriptions for Abiraterone and Enzalutamide

OBJECTIVE

To understand the influence of drug manufacturers on the prescribing patterns of medical oncologists and urologists, we examined the relationship between promotional payments from the manufacturers of abiraterone and enzalutamide and prescriptions for either drug by medical oncologists and urologists.

METHODS

Promotional payments for abiraterone or enzalutamide made to medical oncologists and urologists between January 2014 and December 2017 reported through the Open Payments Program were categorized as $0, $1$999, and $1000 or more. Prescriptions filled between January 2013 and December 2017 were identified in the Medicare Part D File. Associations between promotional payments and prescribing were assessed using generalized linear models.

RESULTS

From 2013 through 2017, the number of medical oncologists and urologists prescribing abiraterone or enzalutamide increased by 38% - 298%, respectively. The odds of prescribing among medical oncologists receiving $1--$999 and those receiving $1,000 or more were 1.69 (95%CI:1.59--1.79) and 2.61 (95% CI: 2.14--3.18) times that of medical oncologists receiving no payments. Among urologists receiving $1--$999 and those receiving $1,000 or more, the odds of prescribing were 4.04 (95%CI: 3.59--4.54) and 13.57 (95%CI: 9.69--19.0) times that of urologists receiving no payments.

CONCLUSION

Increasing promotional payments were associated with prescribing among medical oncologists and urologists, with a stronger relationship evident for urologists. Prescribing patterns for abiraterone and enzalutamide, particularly among urologists, may be influenced by payments from drug manufacturers.

Ten years later: a review of the US 2009 institute of medicine report on conflicts of interest and solutions for further reform

Conflicts of interest (COIs) in healthcare are increasingly discussed in the literature, yet these relationships continue to influence healthcare. Research has consistently shown that financial COIs shape prescribing practices, medical education and guideline recommendations. In 2009, the Institute of Medicine (IOM, now the National Academy of Medicine) published Conflicts of Interest in Medical Research, Practice, and Education-one of the most comprehensive reviews of empirical research on COIs in medicine. Ten years after publication of theIOM's report, we review the current state of COIs within medicine. We also provide specific recommendations for enhancing scientific integrity in medical research, practice, education and editorial practices.

Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and the practice, knowledge and beliefs of medical oncologists and clinical haematologists: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

No previous review has assessed the extent and effect of industry interactions on medical oncologists and haematologists specifically.

METHODS

A systematic review investigated interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and how these might affect the clinical practice, knowledge and beliefs of cancer physicians. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science Core Collection databases were searched from inception to February 2021.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine cross-sectional and two cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. These were classified into three categories of investigation: (1) extent of exposure to industry for cancer physicians as whole (n = 11); (2) financial ties among influential cancer physicians specifically (n = 11) and (3) associations between industry exposure and prescribing (n = 9). Cancer physicians frequently receive payments from or maintain financial ties with industry, at a prevalence of up to 63% in the United States (US) and 70.6% in Japan. Among influential clinicians, 86% of US and 78% of Japanese oncology guidelines authors receive payments. Payments were associated with either a neutral or negative influence on the quality of prescribing practice. Limited evidence suggests oncologists believe education by industry could lead to unconscious bias.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial evidence of frequent relationships between cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry in a range of high-income countries. More research is needed on clinical implications for patients and better management of these relationships.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO identification number CRD42020143353.

Increasing Financial Payments From Industry to Medical Oncologists in the United States, 2014-2017

BACKGROUND

Personal payments from the pharmaceutical industry to US physicians are common and are associated with changes in physicians' clinical practice and interpretation of clinical trial results. We assessed temporal trends in industry payments to oncologists, with particular emphasis on payments to authors of oncology clinical practice guideline and on payments related to immunotherapy drugs.

METHODS

We included US physicians with active National Plan and Provider Enumeration System records and demographic data available in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician Compare system who had a specialty type of medical oncology or general internal medicine. Medical oncologists serving on NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) Panels were identified manually. Industry payments, and the subset associated with PD-1/PD-L1 drugs, were identified in Open Payments, the federal repository of all transactions of financial value from industry to physicians and teaching hospitals, from 2014 to 2017.

RESULTS

There were 13,087 medical oncologists and 85,640 internists who received payments. The mean, annual, per-physician value of payments to oncologists increased from $3,811 in 2014 to $5,854 in 2017, and from $444 to $450 for internists; the median payment increased from $152 to $199 for oncologists and remained at $0 for internists. Oncologists who served on NCCN Guidelines Panels received a greater value in payments and experienced a greater relative increase: mean payments increased from $10,820 in 2014 to $18,977 in 2017, and median payments increased from $500 to $1,366. Among companies marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs, mean annual per-oncologist payments associated with PD-1/PD-L1 drugs increased from $28 to $773. Total per-oncologist payments from companies marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs experienced a 165% increase from 2014 to 2017, compared with a 31% increase among similar companies not marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmaceutical industry payments increased for US oncologists from 2014 to 2017 more than for general internists. The increase was greater among oncologists contributing to clinical practice guidelines and among pharmaceutical companies marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs. The increasing flow of money from industry to US oncologists supports ongoing concern regarding commercial interests in guideline development and clinical decision-making.

Orthopaedic Trauma Surgeons' Financial Relationships With Industry: An Analysis of the Sunshine Act Reporting of Physician Open Payments From 2014 to 2019

INTRODUCTION

Orthopaedic trauma surgeons have an intricate relationship with the medical device industry. In the past decade, legislation has created transparency of monetary exchanges between physicians and industry. In 2013, the Physician Payments Sunshine Act was passed and ultimately led to the creation of the Open Payments Database. The purpose of this study was to evaluate trends in industry payments to orthopaedic trauma surgeons.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Open Payments Database was conducted for general industry payments to orthopaedic trauma surgeons from 2014 to 2019. Total payments and subtype payments were analyzed for yearly trends. All payments were converted to 2019 US dollars to adjust for inflation. Descriptive statistics included analysis of payments, number of surgeons, types of payments, top contributing companies, and regional comparisons. Trends were assessed through the Jonckheere-Terpstra test. Statistical significance was defined at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

From 2014 to 2019, 45,312 individual payments were given to orthopaedic trauma surgeons (N = 3208) accounting for a total of $41,376,397.85 (USD), with a mean of $919.54 per payment. Increased trends were noted for median annual payments, number of payments, and number of surgeons receiving payments. Compared with 2014 ($460.91), median payments were increased by 90.9% in 2016 ($879.85), 102.6% in 2018 ($933.81), and 178.6% in 2019 ($1284.06). Payment subtypes that demonstrated increasing median payments included consulting fees (P = 0.028); education (P < 0.001); entertainment, food, and beverage (P < 0.001); and travel (P = 0.019). Decreases in median payments were seen in royalties (P = 0.044) and grant funding (P < 0.001). Regional comparisons demonstrated increasing trends in median payments in the midwest (P = 0.011), south (P < 0.001), and west (P = 0.003), but not in the northeast (P = 0.081).

DISCUSSION

In our study, we found that industry payments to orthopaedic trauma surgeons were increasing markedly between 2014 and 2019, particularly among consulting fees, education, entertainment, food and beverage, and travel.

Personal Payments from Pharmaceutical Companies to Authors of Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Oncologists who author clinical practice guidelines frequently have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. It is unknown whether participation on clinical practice guideline committees is associated with differences in the amounts of industry money received.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a nested case-control study from August 2013 to December 2018. We manually abstracted membership records of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines committees for the 20 most common cancers and linked to Open Payments. The study sample included medical oncologists selected to join an NCCN Guidelines committee ("joiners") during the study period. Joiners were matched 1:2 to medical oncologists who had no participation on NCCN committees (controls) by gender, NCCN institution, and medical school graduation year. We performed difference-in-differences (DiD) estimation to assess whether selection to an NCCN committee was associated with the dollar value of payments received from industry, using generalized estimating equations to address correlation between matched pairs and between repeated observations of the same pair.

RESULTS

During the study period, 54 physicians joined an NCCN Guidelines committee. These physicians received more payments than matched controls in the year prior to joining ($11,259 vs. $3,427; p = .02); this difference did not increase in the year after joining (DiD = $731; p = .45).

CONCLUSION

Medical oncologists selected to NCCN Guidelines committees had greater financial ties to industry than their peers. The potential influence of industry in oncology clinical practice guidelines may be reduced through the selection of committee members with fewer ties to industry.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Oncologists who author clinical practice guidelines frequently have financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. This creates concern about the potential for industry influence on guidelines. However, it is unknown whether oncologists who author guidelines have greater industry relationships than their peers. This study compared medical oncologists who were newly selected to join a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines panel with medical oncologists at the same institutions and at similar career stages. At the time they joined, oncologists joining NCCN Guidelines panels had received more than three times the dollar value of industry payments than their peers. The potential for industry influence may be reduced by the selection of less-conflicted panel members.

Otolaryngologists Trail Other Specialties in Industry Payments From Dermal Filler Companies

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Dermal filler (DF) is a widely used nonsurgical option for facial rejuvenation with a rapidly expanding market. Physician payments by DF industry leaders have yet to be characterized. We sought to investigate trends in physician-industry payments by DF companies over 6 years. Differences in payments based on physician specialty and time were characterized.

STUDY DESIGN

Database review.

METHODS

The Open Payments Database was queried from 2013 to 2018. Payments made by the three largest DF companies by market share to otolaryngologists, plastic surgeons, and dermatologists were analyzed. Total dollars paid, number of payments made, type of payments made, and total number of specialists paid were recorded. One-way ANOVA was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Otolaryngologists, plastic surgeons, and dermatologists received average annual payments of $0.36 million, $6.3 million, and $6.6 million respectively (P < .001). An average of 330 otolaryngologists, 2,128 plastic surgeons, and 5,980 dermatologists were paid annually (P < .001). Accredited speaking arrangements, consulting fees, and royalty/licensing fees comprised the majority of dollars paid to physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Average physician payment by DF companies exceeds $12 million annually, with otolaryngologists receiving significantly less compared to plastic surgeons and dermatologists.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Not applicable Laryngoscope, 2021.

The Role of Physician Professional Networks in Physicians' Receipt of Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Industries' Payments

BACKGROUND

Financial relationships between physicians and the pharmaceutical and medical device industries are common, but the factors associated with physicians receiving payments are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to evaluate the influence of physicians' professional networks' characteristics on the receipt of payments among physicians.

DESIGN

Network analysis of cross-sectional data PARTICIPANTS: US physicians who shared Medicare patients with other physicians in 2015 (N=357,813).

EXPOSURE (INTERVENTION)

Proportion of a physician's professional network that received industry payments and other network characteristics including number of physician connections, how central the physician is within the network, and the tightness of the referral network in which a physician is located.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Relative risk of receiving industry payments. We used modified Poisson regression to control for confounding by gender, time since graduation, practice size, and practice setting (teaching hospital vs. not). We included dummy variables for specialty and hospital referral region level.

KEY RESULTS

The proportion of a physician's peers in their professional network that received payments was strongly associated with receipt of pharmaceutical or device industry payments by the physician (top vs bottom quartile aRR=1.28, 95%CI=1.25-1.31). Physician's centrality within a network had a small positive effect on receiving payment (top vs bottom quartile aRR=1.02, 95%CI=1.01-1.04). Network density also had a small negative association with receipt of payment (top vs bottom quartile aRR=0.97, 95%CI=0.96-0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Network characteristics, particularly the receipt of payments among physicians one shares patients with, are associated with whether a physician receives payments. This finding has implications for institutional regulation of industry payments to physicians and demonstrates how institutional policy may impact not only the physicians within the institution but also physicians outside of the institution.

Industry Payments to Rheumatologists Ought to be Going Down, Not Up

In the current issue of Arthritis & Rheumatology, Putman et al report findings regarding the distribution and temporal trends of industry payments to US rheumatologists [cite ar-21-0182]. Their findings are in line with similar reports from other medical and surgical specialties, and highlight the overarching concern regarding the ability of industry payments to adversely affect care quality within the specific context of rheumatology practice.

Retaining VA Women's Health Primary Care Providers: Work Setting Matters

BACKGROUND

When an experienced provider opts to leave a healthcare workforce (attrition), there are significant costs, both direct and indirect. Turnover of healthcare providers is underreported and understudied, despite evidence that it negatively impacts care delivery and negatively impacts working conditions for remaining providers. In the Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system, attrition of women's health primary care providers (WH-PCPs) threatens a specially trained workforce; it is unknown what factors contribute to, or protect against, their attrition.

OBJECTIVE

Based on evidence that clinic environment, adequate support resources, and workload affect provider burnout and intent to leave, we explored if such clinic characteristics predict attrition of WH-PCPs in the VA, to identify protective factors.

DESIGN

This analysis drew on two waves of existing national VA survey data to examine predictors of WH-PCP attrition, via logistic regression.

PARTICIPANTS

All 2,259 providers from 140 facilities VA-wide who were WH-PCPs on September 30, 2016.

MAIN MEASURES

The dependent variable was WH-PCP attrition in the following year. Candidate predictors were clinic environment (working in: a comprehensive women's health center, a limited women's health clinic, a general primary care clinic, or multiple clinic environments), availability of co-located specialty support resources (mental health, social work, clinical pharmacy), provider characteristics (gender, professional degree), and clinic workload (clinic sessions per week).

KEY RESULTS

Working exclusively in a comprehensive women's health center uniquely predicted significantly lower risk of WH-PCP attrition (adjusted odds ratio 0.40; CI 0.19-0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive women's health center clinical context may promote retention of this specially trained primary care workforce. Exploring potential mechanisms-e.g., shared mission, appropriate support to meet patients' needs, or a cohesive team environment-may inform broader efforts to retain front-line providers.

Are Financial Payments From the Pharmaceutical Industry Associated With Physician Prescribing? : A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Financial payments from the drug industry to U.S. physicians are common. Payments may influence physicians' clinical decision making and drug prescribing.

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether receipt of payments from the drug industry is associated with physician prescribing practices.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EconLit were searched without language restrictions. The search had no limiting start date and concluded on 16 September 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies that estimated the association between receipt of industry payments (exposure) and prescribing (outcome).

DATA EXTRACTION

Pairs of reviewers extracted the primary analysis or analyses from each study and evaluated risk of bias (ROB).

DATA SYNTHESIS

Thirty-six studies comprising 101 analyses were included. Most studies (n = 30) identified a positive association between payments and prescribing in all analyses; the remainder (n = 6) had a mix of positive and null findings. No study had only null findings. Of 101 individual analyses, 89 identified a positive association. Payments were associated with increased prescribing of the paying company's drug, increased prescribing costs, and increased prescribing of branded drugs. Nine studies assessed and found evidence of a temporal association; 25 assessed and found evidence of a dose-response relationship.

LIMITATION

The design was observational, 21 of 36 studies had serious ROB, and publication bias was possible.

CONCLUSION

The association between industry payments and physician prescribing was consistent across all studies that have evaluated this association. Findings regarding a temporal association and dose-response suggest a causal relationship.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute.

Industry Payments to Orthopedic Spine Surgeons Reported by the Open Payments Database: 2014-2017

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective study of publicly available data.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to characterize and assess trends in Open Payments Database (OPD) industry payments reported to orthopedic spine surgeons from 2014 to 2017.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There have been a lack of studies characterizing OPD industry payments to orthopedic spine surgeons over the 4 full years of data available.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

General industry payments made to orthopedic spine surgeons from 2014 to 2017 were characterized by year with analysis of: number of compensated surgeons, median payment per surgeon, top strata of compensated surgeons, and subtype (ie, food/beverage). Research and Ownership Payments were characterized by median payment per surgeon. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare payments.

RESULTS

For General Payments, the number of compensated orthopedic spine surgeons increased from 1539 in 2014 to 1673 in 2017. Later year median General Payments per surgeon were compared with the 2014 median ($1051): 2015 ($1070: P=0.375), 2016 ($1263: P=0.012), and 2017 ($978: P=0.561). In 2014, the top 10% of compensated orthopedic spine surgeons received 89% of the total General compensation to orthopedic spine surgeons, top 5% received 79%, and the top 1% received 55%. The median General Payment for these 3 top strata remained similar over the 4 years evaluated (P>0.05). For subtype analyses, the median aggregate General Payment for "education" increased (P=0.002) across the years. Finally, it was determined that the median payment per surgeon for Research and Ownership Payment categories remained stable across the time period (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Many expected industry payments to surgeons to decrease under public scrutiny of the OPD, but the present study showed no net change in median payment (General, Research, and Ownership) over the years studied. In the age of greater transparency, these findings shed insight into the orthopedic spine surgeon-industry relationship.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Trends in Financial Relationships Between Industry and Radiation Oncologists Versus Other Physicians in the United States from 2014 to 2018

PURPOSE

The Open Payments transparency program publishes data on industry-physician payments, in part to discourage relationships considered inappropriate including gifts, meals, and speaker's bureau fees. We evaluated trends in physician-level payments to test whether implementation of Open Payments resulted in fewer industry-radiation oncologist (RO) interactions or shifted interactions toward those considered more appropriate compared with medical oncologists (MOs) and other hospital-based physicians (HBPs).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We performed a retrospective, population-based cohort study of practicing US ROs versus MOs and HBPs in 2014 matched to general (nonresearch) payments between 2014 and 2018. Trends in payments were analyzed and reported by nature of payment. Values of payments to ROs from the top 10 companies were identified.

RESULTS

From 2014 to 2018, 3379 (90.3%) ROs accepted 106,930 payments totaling $40.8 million. The per-physician number and value of payments was lower in radiation oncology than in medical oncology and higher than HBPs. The proportion of ROs accepting payments increased from 61.8% in 2014 to 64.2% in 2018; the proportion of MOs accepting payments decreased from 78.7% to 77.7%; and the proportion of HBPs decreased from 40.8% to 37.5%, respectively. The annual per-physician value and number of payments accepted by ROs and MOs increased. Payments in entertainment, meals, travel and lodging, and gifts increased among ROs and remained stable or decreased among MOs and HBPs. Consulting payments increased across all groups. Top RO payors produced novel cancer therapeutics, hydrogel spacers, radiation treatment machines, and opioids.

CONCLUSIONS

Industry payments to ROs have become more common since OP's inception, while becoming less common for MOs and HBPs. Payments to ROs and MOs have become more frequent and of modestly increasing value compared with other HBPs, for whom the value is decreasing. No large changes in the nature of relationships were seen in ROs. Increased engagement with financial conflicts of interest is needed in radiation oncology.

Industry payments to Australian medical oncologists and clinical haematologists: a cross-sectional analysis of publicly available disclosures

BACKGROUND

Payments to medical oncologists and clinical haematologists can negatively affect prescribing practice, but the extent of payments to these specialists is unknown in Australia.

AIMS

To analyse the extent of payments from the pharmaceutical industry to Australian cancer physicians as reported during the first collated period of the Disclosure Australia website.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of payments made from November 2018 to April 2019, using a file downloaded from the Disclosure Australia website. We checked the names of listed medical practitioners against Medical Board of Australia records to assign specialties. The number of medical oncologists, clinical haematologists, other specialist physicians and non-specialist physician medical practitioners was calculated, along with the payments to each of these groups.

RESULTS

A total of A$7 332 407 was paid to 2775 medical practitioners. Of these, 236 were medical oncologists, 189 were haematologists and 1145 were other specialist physicians. This represents 31.7% of Australian medical oncologists and 30.9% of Australian haematologists, compared with 11.7% of all other specialist physicians and 1.1% of all other non-specialist physician medical practitioners. Medical oncologists received significantly higher payments (median A$2131.26) than other specialist physicians (median A$1376.00, 2-tailed P = 0.004) and other medical practitioners (median A$709.00, 2-tailed P < 0.001), while haematologists received significantly higher payments (median A$1519.95) than other medical practitioners (2-tailed P < 0.001), but similar payments to other specialist physicians (2-tailed P = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Australian cancer physicians receive payments at a higher proportional frequency and in greater dollar amounts than other specialist physicians and other medical practitioners in general.

Nonresearch Pharmaceutical Industry Payments to Oncology Physician Editors

Journal editors are gatekeepers of knowledge, and pharmaceutical industry payments to oncology editors have not been previously characterized. We performed a cross-sectional study of nonresearch industry payments to editors of 26 oncology research journals. A total of 433 editors were eligible for inclusion in the CMS Open Payments database from 2013 to 2018. A total of 80% of eligible editors had nonresearch payments, and the mean value of payments per editor was $106,778, which has increased over time. Only 5 out of 26 journals disclosed editor conflicts of interest and 3 of these journals reported at least one editor with no nonresearch industry payments but were found to have nonresearch payments. There was a positive correlation between journal impact factor and the average payment per editor for each journal. Our study shows the high prevalence and lack of transparency of nonresearch industry payments to oncology editors. Higher impact journals appear to be associated with greater nonresearch industry payments.

Conflicts of Interest in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Articles on UpToDate

Background

Financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) are widespread in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and may be particularly important in point-of-care (POC) resources, such as UpToDate, that are used to aid clinical decision making. In this study, we determined the prevalence of industry payments from companies making biologic medications for IBD to contributors of UpToDate articles on IBD.

Methods

This cross-sectional analysis included UpToDate articles that mention the use of biologic medications for IBD. We collected the names of the contributors (authors and editors) and their disclosures on UpToDate. We then searched for their names on the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Open Payments database and compared the payment information from 2013 to 2018 with UpToDate's disclosures. We presented data per episode, which describes one instance of participation by one person in one article, regardless of whether that person contributed to multiple articles.

Results

We identified 23 articles on the treatment of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis that mentioned the use of biologic medications, with 86 total episodes. Sixty-two (72%) episodes involved FCOIs. The median payment associated with each episode was $$55 (interquartile range = $44 to $145,241). Contributors did not fully disclose FCOIs in 41 (48%) episodes. Deputy editors, who are required to be free of FCOIs, in general did not have substantial episodes involving FCOI.

Conclusions

We found that UpToDate articles on inflammatory bowel disease involve substantial FCOI, many of which are not disclosed. The presence of these FCOIs may hamper trust in the objectivity of treatment recommendations.

Association between physician characteristics and payments from industry in 2015-2017: observational study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between physician characteristics and the value of industry payments.

DESIGN

Observational study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Using the 2015-2017 Open Payments reports of industry payments linked to the Physician Compare database, we examined the association between physician characteristics (physician sex, years in practice, medical school attended and specialty) and the industry payment value, adjusting for other physician characteristic and institution fixed effects (effectively comparing physicians practicing at the same institution).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Our primary outcome was the value of total industry payments to physicians including (1) general payments (all forms of payments other than those classified for research purpose, eg, consulting fees, food, beverage), (2) research payments (payments for research endeavours under a written contract or protocol) and (3) ownership interests (eg, stock or stock options, bonds). We also investigated each category of payment separately.

RESULTS

Of 544 264 physicians treating Medicare beneficiaries, a total of $5.8 billion in industry payments were made to 365 801 physicians during 2015-2017. The top 5% of physicians, by cumulative payments, accounted for 91% of industry payments. Within the same institution, male physicians, physicians with 21-30 years in practice and physicians who attended top 50 US medical schools (based on the research ranking) received higher industry payments. Across specialties, orthopaedic surgeons, neurosurgeons and endocrinologists received the highest payments. When we investigated individual types of payment, we found that orthopaedic surgeons received the highest general payments; haematologists/oncologists were the most likely to receive research payments and surgeons were the most likely to receive ownership interests compared with other types of physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Industry payments to physicians were highly concentrated among a small number of physicians. Male sex, longer length of time in clinical practice, graduated from a top-ranked US medical school and practicing certain specialties, were independently associated with higher industry payments.

Analysis of Pharmaceutical Industry Payments to UK Health Care Organizations in 2015

Importance

Drug company payments to health care organizations can create conflicts of interest. However, little is known about such financial relationships, especially outside the United States.

Objective

To examine the concentration and patterns of drug company payments to health care organizations in the United Kingdom.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study examined nonresearch payments reported in the industry-run Disclosure UK database. Companies participating in Disclosure UK in 2015 and health care organizations receiving their payments were included in the analysis. The data were analyzed descriptively at the health care organization, payment, and donor levels, considering health care organization categories, payment categories, and companies from February 5 through May 28, 2017, with follow-up checks from June 1 through August 31, 2018. Analysis was conducted from July 10 through December 20, 2018.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Share of funding and the Gini index (GI) to measure payment concentration (0 indicates perfect deconcentration [eg, all drug companies provide the same value of payments]; 1, perfect concentration [eg, 1 company provides the entire value of payments]) and median and interquartile range (IQR) to measure payment patterns.

Results

A total of 4028 health care organizations received 19 933 payments, worth US $72 110 156.6, from 100 companies. This study identified 11 categories of health care organizations, with 3-public-sector secondary and tertiary care providers, education and research providers, and professional organizations-accumulating 67.2% of funding. The health care organization categories had varying GIs (range, 0.65-0.92), medians (range, $750.3-$45 862.4), and IQRs (range, $389.1-$1843.9 to $3104.4-$199 868.2). Of 4 payment categories, the top category-donations and grants-captured 50.6% of funding. Joint working (collaborative projects with nonindustry partners) had a lower GI (0.64) than other payment categories (range, 0.79-0.84). The median and IQR were the lowest for contributions to costs of events ($366.8; IQR, $229.3-611.3) and highest for joint working ($14 903.7; IQR, $3185.0-34,748.4). The top 10 firms (58.6% of funding) had payments with varying medians (from $366.8 [IQR, $244.5-611.3] to $9781.3 [IQR, $1834.0-48 906.7]).

Conclusions and Relevance

Although organizations from across the health care system received funding, the payments were concentrated on a few large donors, payments, and recipients. Different payment and recipient categories had different patterns of payment values, suggesting that the industry has diversified its funding strategies across different parts of the health care system. These results suggest that Disclosure UK requires improved transparency, particularly by including built-in recipient categories, and that organizational conflicts of interest need more policy attention, including disclosure of payments independent of the industry.

Evaluating the Strength of the Association Between Industry Payments and Prescribing Practices in Oncology

BACKGROUND

Financial relationships between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry are common, but factors that may determine whether such relationships result in physician practice changes are unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated physician use of orally administered cancer drugs for four cancers: prostate (abiraterone, enzalutamide), renal cell (axitinib, everolimus, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib), lung (afatinib, erlotinib), and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML; dasatinib, imatinib, nilotinib). Separate physician cohorts were defined for each cancer type by prescribing history. The primary exposure was the number of calendar years during 2013-2015 in which a physician received payments from the manufacturer of one of the studied drugs; the outcome was relative prescribing of that drug in 2015, compared with the other drugs for that cancer. We evaluated whether practice setting at a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center, receipt of payments for purposes other than education or research (compensation payments), maximum annual dollar value received, and institutional conflict-of-interest policies were associated with the strength of the payment-prescribing association. We used modified Poisson regression to control confounding by other physician characteristics.

RESULTS

Physicians who received payments for a drug in all 3 years had increased prescribing of that drug (compared with 0 years), for renal cell (relative risk [RR] 1.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.58-2.07), CML (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08-1.39), and lung (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.58-1.82), but not prostate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.93-1.02). Physicians who received compensation payments or >$100 annually had increased prescribing compared with those who did not, but NCI setting and institutional conflict-of-interest policies were not consistently associated with the direction of prescribing change.

CONCLUSION

The association between industry payments and cancer drug prescribing was greatest among physicians who received payments consistently (within each calendar year). Receipt of payments for compensation purposes, such as for consulting or travel, and higher dollar value of payments were also associated with increased prescribing.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Financial payments from pharmaceutical companies are common among oncologists. It is known from prior work that oncologists tend to prescribe more of the drugs made by companies that have given them money. By combining records of industry gifts with prescribing records, this study identifies the consistency of payments over time, the dollar value of payments, and payments for compensation as factors that may strengthen the association between receiving payments and increased prescribing of that company's drug.