The Physician Payment Sunshine Act: Evaluating Industrial Payments in Radiology

Distribution and Disparities of Industry Payments to Radiologists (2016-2020)

BACKGROUND

The frequency, magnitude, and distribution of industry payments to radiologists are not well understood.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to analyze the distribution of industry payments to physicians working in diagnostic radiology, interventional radiology, and radiation oncology, study the categories of payments and determine their correlation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Open Payments Database from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services was accessed and analyzed for the period from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020. Payments were grouped into six categories: consulting fees, education, gifts, research, speaker fees, and royalties/ownership. The total amount and types of industry payments going to the top 5% group were determined overall and for each category of payment.

RESULTS

From 2016 to 2020, a total of 513 020 payments, amounting to $370 782 608, were made to 28 739 radiologists suggesting that approximately 70% of the 41 000 radiologists in the US received at least one industry payment during the 5-year period. The median payment value was $27 (IQR: $15-$120) and the median number of payments per physician over the 5-year period was 4 (IQR: 1-13). Gifts were the most frequent payment type made (76.4%), but accounted for only 4.8% of payment value. The median total value of payments earned by members of the top 5% group over the 5-year period was $58 878 (IQR: $29 686-$162 425) ($11 776 per year) compared to $172 (IQR: $49-877) ($34 per year) in the bottom 95% group. Members of the top 5% group received a median of 67 (IQR: 26-147) individual payments (13 payments per year) while members of the bottom 95% group received a median of 3 (IQR: 1-11) (0.6 payments per year).

CONCLUSION

Between 2016 and 2020, industry payments to radiologists were highly concentrated both in terms of number/frequency and value of payments.

Industry Payments to Radiologists During the Last 5 Years and Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to assess the trends in industry payments to radiologists and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, including trends in different categories of payments.

METHODS

The Open Payments Database from CMS was accessed and analyzed for the period from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2021. Payments were grouped into six categories: consulting fees, education, gifts, research, speaker fees, and royalties or ownership. The total number, value, and types of industry payments to radiologists were subsequently determined and compared pre- and postpandemic from 2016 to 2021.

RESULTS

The total number of industry payments and the number of radiologists receiving these payments dropped by 50% and 32%, respectively, between 2019 and 2020, with only partial recovery in 2021. However, the mean payment value and total payment value increased by 177% and 37%, respectively, between 2019 and 2020. Gifts and speaker fees experienced the largest decreases between 2019 and 2020 (54% and 63%, respectively). Research and education grants were also disrupted, with the number of payments decreasing by 37% and 36% and payment value decreasing by 37% and 25%, respectively. However, royalty or ownership increased during the first year of the pandemic (8% for number of payments and 345% for value of payments).

CONCLUSIONS

There was significant decline in overall industry payments coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic, with biggest declines in gifts and speaker fees. The impact on the different categories of payments and recovery in the last 2 years has been heterogeneous.

Health Care Industry Payments to Editorial Board Members of Imaging-related Journals

Background Editorial board members may be biased due to conflicts of interest (COIs). Purpose To investigate the frequency and amount of payments from industry to editorial board members of imaging-related journals and whether they are in agreement with the disclosure status as provided by the journal. Materials and Methods Editorial board members of 15 U.S.-based imaging-related journals who were listed in the Open Payments database (OPD) were included. Payments from industry to editorial board members in the year 2020 were extracted from the OPD and compared with publicly available COI disclosure data as provided by the journals. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for statistical analysis. Results A total of 519 editorial board members were included, of whom 214 (41%) received industry payment and 305 (59%) did not. Payments to editorial board members by the industry ranged from $12.63 to $404 625.47 (median, $2397.48). Most payments from industry (59%) were ascribed to consulting. Editorial board members of the journals JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging and Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology received significantly higher amounts of individual payments from industry than editorial board members of most other journals. Financial COI disclosures were not publicly listed for 413 of the 519 (80%) editorial board members, 169 of whom received payments from industry according to the OPD. Of the 106 editorial board members whose financial COI disclosures were publicly listed, 36 (34%) were discordant with the OPD. Conclusion Payments from industry to Open Payments database-listed editorial board members of imaging-related journals are prevalent. Imaging-related journals often do not report or do not accurately report payments from industry to their editorial board members © RSNA, 2022.

Accuracy of Disclosed Financial Relationships between Radiologists and Industry at the 2018 RSNA Annual Meeting

Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Grant in this issue.

Industry Payments to Pain Medicine Physicians: An Analysis of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Program

OBJECTIVE

To analyze industry payments to pain medicine physicians in the United States.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study using publicly available databases.

SUBJECTS

The study includes U.S. pain medicine physicians (PMPs) with reports in the Open Payments program from 2013 to 2018.

METHODS

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments program was analyzed for general, investment, and ownership payments to PMPs reported from 2013 to 2018. The nature, type, and geographic variation of payments were analyzed.

RESULTS

The main findings of the study are as follows: 1) Payments made to PMPs constituted a small proportion of the payments made to all physicians in the United States, and the number of transactions and the total dollar amount seem to have decreased from 2016 to 2018. 2) The median number of payments among physicians with reported payments was around 4 (interquartile range: 18), and the majority of them were under $20. 3) The majority of payments were for in-kind items and services (85%) and were made for food and beverages (91%), travel and lodging (5.5%). 4) Some of the ownership and investment interest payments exceeded $500,000. 5) The top five drugs associated with physician payments included medications with opioids. 6) A very small minority of payments were made for entertainment or gifts. 7) A third of PMPs with reports had payments reported under more than one taxonomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall payments made to PMPs seem to be decreasing since 2016. The majority of the payments are made for the food, beverage, and travel categories. Public and physician awareness of the Open Payments system reports is essential to promote transparency and to minimize adverse effects of financial relationships on patient care.

Exploring the Psychiatrist-Industry Financial Relationship: Insight from the Open Payment Data of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

OBJECTIVE

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act (PPSA) requires reporting of financial payments by pharmaceutical and medical device companies to teaching hospitals and individual physicians in the US. Industry payments made to psychiatrists were quantified.

METHODS

Using the 2016-2017 Sunshine Act Open Payments database, general payments made to psychiatrists were descriptively analyzed. The number of psychiatrists who received payments, and median number, value (in US dollar), and nature of payments to psychiatrists were quantified. Top 10 manufacturers who paid the most to psychiatrists were also reported.

RESULTS

Over half of active psychiatrists (55.7%) received some form of payments from pharmaceutical manufacturers. Of these, top 2.8% of psychiatrists received 82.6% of the payments. Pharmaceutical manufacturers provided 812,877 payments worth $110,512,607.18 to 26,422 psychiatrists in the US. Compensation for services (e.g., speaker's bureaus) and consulting fees altogether constituted 71.4% of the total payment, with a median value of $1725.00 and $700, respectively. Among all psychiatrists who received payments, manufacturers that paid the most included Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, Alkermes, and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals.

CONCLUSIONS

The PPSA was created to foster transparent disclosure of any financial relationship between physicians and industry. Findings highlight that many active psychiatrists receive payments from pharmaceutical industry and payment forms were varied (e.g., food/beverage, educational materials, and compensation for services).