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

Quantifying Industry Spending on Promotional Events Using Open Payments Data

Importance

Sponsorship of promotional events for health professionals is a key facet of marketing campaigns for pharmaceuticals and medical devices; however, there appears to be limited transparency regarding the scope and scale of this spending.

Objective

To develop a novel method for describing the scope and quantifying the spending by US pharmaceutical and medical companies on industry-sponsored promotional events for particular products.

Design and Setting

This was a cross-sectional study using records from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid's Open Payments database on payments made to prescribing clinicians from January 1 to December 21, 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

An event-centric approach was used to define sponsored events as groupings of payment records with matching variables. Events were characterized by value (coffee, lunch, dinner, or banquet) and number of attendees (small vs large). To test the method, the number of and total spending for each type of event across professional groups were calculated and used to identify the top 10 products related to dinner events. To validate the method, we extracted all event details advertised on the websites of 4 state-level nurse practitioner associations that regularly hosted industry-sponsored dinner events during 2022 and compared these with events identified in the Open Payments database.

Results

A total of 1 154 806 events sponsored by pharmaceutical and medical device companies were identified for 2022. Of these, 1 151 351 (99.7%) had fewer than 20 attendees, and 922 214 (80.0%) were considered to be a lunch ($10-$30 per person). Seven companies sponsored 16 031 dinners for the top 10 products. Of the 227 sponsored in-person dinner events hosted by the 4 state-level nurse practitioner associations, 168 (74.0%) matched events constructed from the Open Payments dataset.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings indicate that an event-centric analysis of Open Payments data is a valid method to understand the scope and quantify spending by pharmaceutical and medical device companies on industry-sponsored promotional events attended by prescribers. Expanding and enforcing the reporting requirements to cover all payments to all registered health professionals would improve the accuracy of estimates of the true extent of all sponsored events and their impact on clinical practice.

Characteristics of Advanced Practice Nurses Receiving Top Industry Payments and Their Practice Settings: a Cross-sectional Study

BACKGROUND

The pharmaceutical industry promotes prescribing through the cultivation of key opinion leaders. Advanced practice nurses (APNs) are a growing and influential group of prescribers across generalist and specialty practice. Public reporting of industry payments to APNs allows for exploration of their influence within practice settings.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the characteristics of APNs with top industry payments including their positions of influence and other payment recipients at the same address.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional study of US national Open Payments reports of industry payments made between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

APNs who received > $50,000 USD in industry payments for speaking, consulting, and honoraria ("personal fees").

MEASURES

Description of top APN recipients' practice setting type, clinical specialty, presence of other payment recipients, value of payments attributed to the same address, and top manufacturers and therapeutic categories associated with payments to top APN recipients. Structured content analysis of public-facing websites for evidence of APNs' clinical, research, and teaching leadership.

RESULTS

A total of 99 APNs received > $50,000 USD in aggregate personal fees and a median $74,080 USD (IQR $57,303-101,702) in aggregate payments. They shared a practice setting with a median of 1 (IQR 0-5) physician and 0 (IQR 0-3) other APN payment recipients and were often the only (39%, 42/109) or the dominant (45%, 30/67) payment recipient in their practice setting. In total, 36% held clinical leadership positions, 25% led scientific research, and 18% had university appointments. Forty-two percent (37/88) owned a clinical practice, including cosmetic clinics (51%, 19/37) and mental/behavioral health clinics (24%, 9/37).

CONCLUSIONS

Top APN payment recipients attracted high-value payments in practice settings and specialities associated with high-cost drug development; however, there may be little oversight of APNs' industry relationships. Policy development related to industry relationships must be inclusive of and responsive to the activities of interprofessional providers.

Characterizing industry payments to US teaching hospitals and affiliated physicians: a cross-sectional analysis of the Open Payments datasets from 2016 to 2022

Industry payments to US teaching hospitals are common; however, little is known about whether these financial relationships influence affiliated physicians to engage in similar financial relationships with industry. Using national hospital, physician, and industry payment data we investigated trends in industry payments made to US teaching hospitals and affiliated physicians to characterize the magnitude and nature of payments. In addition, we assessed if physicians may be influenced to accept higher value industry payments depending on the value of promotional payments accepted by the teaching hospital they affiliate with. We found that physicians with a US teaching hospital affiliation are associated with accepting higher value industry payments as the total value of industry payments of the teaching hospital increases. Our findings varied by specialty, with surgeons accepting the highest value payments. These results highlight the need for greater public disclosure and awareness of payments to better manage and mitigate industry-biased clinical decision making.

The Role of Physician Networks and Receipt of Opioid-Related Payments

BACKGROUND

Opioid-related promotional payments are associated with increased prescribing of the promoted drug, but little is known about whether physicians receiving payments influence peers to accept similar payments.

OBJECTIVE

We examine the association of physician network-level position among peers and the acceptance of opioid-related promotional payments using national publicly available datasets from 2015. Design National cross-sectional data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) National Downloadable File and Open Payment data.

SUBJECTS

Physicians who shared Medicare patients with at least two other physicians in 2015.

MAIN MEASURES

Modified Poisson's regressions are used to estimate the adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) for social network position (i.e., degree, betweenness, and transitivity) and number of peers with payments as a function of individual receipt of opioid-related promotional payment and among those with payments, those who have five or more payments, and those who have $100 or more in payments.

KEY RESULTS

Physicians with opioid-related payments were significantly more likely to have at least one peer with an opioid-related payment (IRR: 2.5, 95% CI: 2.3-2.8), but had fewer shared patients (i.e., top quartile compared to the first quartile for degree centrality: 0.4, 95% CI: 0.3-0.4) and belonged to less cohesive networks (i.e., top quartile compared to the first quartile for betweenness centrality: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.8-0.9).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that physicians receiving opioid-related payments are more likely to cluster within physician networks.

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.