Effects of the physician payments sunshine act on the patient experience and perception of care amongst neurosurgeons: A comparative study of online PRW ratings and industry payments

Assessing the impact of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act on pharmaceutical companies' payments to physicians

Enacted in 2010 as part of the Affordable Care Act, the Physician Payments Sunshine Act (PPSA) mandates transparency in financial interactions between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers. This study investigates the PPSA's effectiveness and its impact on industry payments to physicians. Utilizing ProPublica and Open Payments databases, a difference-in-difference analysis was conducted across ten states. Results reveal a significant reduction in pharmaceutical companies' meal-related payments post-PPSA, impacting both the total payment amount and the number of unique physicians reached. Conversely, travel payments showed no significant impact in the primary analysis. However, subsequent analyses revealed nuanced reductions in the number of unique physicians reached, highlighting a more intricate relationship wherein pharmaceutical companies likely adjusted their financial interaction strategies with physicians differently across states. State-level variations in meals further underscore the complexity of PPSA's influence. This pioneering research contributes valuable empirical evidence, addressing gaps in prior studies and emphasizing the ongoing need for policy assessment to guide industry-physician relationships.

Academic Productivity at Orthopedic Spine Surgery Fellowships is Positively Correlated With Nonresearch Lifetime Industry Earnings: A Retrospective Study

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective Analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to assess the impact of academic productivity at both individual and program levels on lifetime industry earnings within US orthopedic spine fellowships.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Physician-industry transparency was codified by the Physician Payments Sunshine Act (PSSA) in 2010. No study has explored the relationship between academic productivity and industry earnings at the fellowship level.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria encompassed physicians with complete academic and industry data from orthopedic spine fellowship programs listed on the North American Spine Society (NASS) 2022-2023 fellowship directory. Academic productivity was defined via H-index on the Scopus website, and industry productivity by total lifetime earnings on the Open Payments Database (OPD).

RESULTS

This analysis included 75 orthopedic spine fellowship programs with 320 individual physicians. Median individual physician lifetime earnings were $86,852.71 (mean: $666,580.23 ± $1,887,734.64; minimum-maximum: $10.86-$27,164,431.49) and the median individual physician (n=320 physicians) H-index was 17.0 (mean: 21.82 ± 19.28; minimum-maximum: 0-109). Median combined physician H-index per fellowship (n=75 fellowships) was 65.0 (mean: 93.08 ± 85.67; minimum-maximum: 3-434) and median combined physician lifetime earnings was $927,771.60 (mean: $2,844,075.64 ± $4,942,089.56; minimum-maximum: $1,112.32-$29,983,900.69). A positive correlation was observed between academic productivity and industry productivity at an individual level (P<0.001; Spearman's rho = 0.467). This correlation was stronger at the fellowship level (P<0.001; Spearman's rho = 0.734). There was no significant difference in total lifetime earnings (P=0.369) or H-index per fellowship (P=0.232) when stratified by region of the fellowship program in the United States.

CONCLUSION

Orthopedic spine surgery fellowship programs in the United States exhibit a positive correlation between academic productivity and nonresearch industry lifetime earnings at both individual and program levels. This correlation is stronger at the program level, and regional differences among fellowship programs do not significantly impact academic or industry productivity.

CMS Open Payments Database Analysis of Industry Payments for Foot and Ankle Surgery Research

With decreasing federal funding, the role of industry in supporting medical investigations continues to grow. To increase transparency between physicians and industry, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services introduced the Open Payments Program, providing a searchable database of physician payments from entities including medical device companies. This study describes industry research payments and trends among foot and ankle surgeons. Research Payment Data among foot and ankle surgeons from the Open Payments Database was reviewed from 2013 through 2020. Payment year, value, type, and physician name were collected, and descriptive statistics were presented. Linear regression assessed trends in the number and value of payments. Analysis of variance and subsequent post hoc testing assessed differences in mean payment value. A p value of ≤.05 was considered statistically significant. Overall, 10,872 payments totaling $69,595,393.10 among 446 foot and ankle surgeons were analyzed. No statistically significant increase in number of physicians, payments, or mean payment value per physician was observed from 2013 through 2020. However, the average value of payments in 2019 and 2020 was greater than 2015 and 2017 (p ≤ .05). The top 50 physicians according to cumulative payment value received $54,696,623.10 with 9427 (86.7%) cash and cash-equivalent payments representing the most common payment type overall. Industry continues to provide financial support to foot and ankle surgery research. Results of this investigation spur future studies to examine the relationship between payments and positive results reported by lead investigators in published research.

Gender differences in the medical industries’ payments to physicians: a systematic review

Purpose

This paper aims to explore gender differences in payments made to physicians by the pharmaceutical and medical device industries via the performance of a systematic review of articles based on the Open Payments Database (OPD).

Design/methodology/approach

Three databases (Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed) were searched for articles published from September 30, 2014 to May 10, 2019, using two search terms: “Sunshine Act” and “Open Payments.” The systematic review is reported according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Findings

The search identified 359 abstracts. Thirty-nine articles were selected for full review, and 17 of these met the inclusion criteria. Although the articles considered are based on the same database, they adopt diverse approaches and analyses are conducted in different ways. A substantial proportion of the studies show total payments from the two industries to be higher for male physicians than for female physicians. However, a few exceptions exist, higher female mean or median values occurring for payments involving research, ownership, honoraria, grants, royalties/licenses and travel/lodgings. Also, in the case of obstetric–gynecological specializations, a higher proportion of women than men are shown to cooperate with the industries.

Originality/value

There is gender inequality in terms of industries’ funding for doctors. While analyses of secondary OPD data show that a gender inequality exists, they do not provide an understanding of why this occurs. However, from the exceptions identified, it can be speculated that this phenomenon is connected with greater adherence to ethical standards on the part of female physicians and/or the likelihood that fewer opportunities for industrial cooperation are extended to them.

Dissecting the Financial Relationship Between Industry and Academic Neurosurgery

BACKGROUND

Established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the Open Payments Database (OPD) has reported industry payments to physicians since August 2013.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the frequency, type, and value of payments received by academic neurosurgeons in the United States over a 5-yr period (2014-2018).

METHODS

The OPD was queried for attending neurosurgeons from all neurosurgical training programs in the United States (n = 116). Information from the OPD was analyzed for the entire cohort as well as for comparative subgroup analyses, such as career stage, subspecialty, and geographic location.

RESULTS

Of all identified neurosurgeons, 1509 (95.0%) received some payment from industry between 2014 and 2018 for a total of 106 171 payments totaling $266 407 458.33. A bimodal distribution was observed for payment number and total value: 0 to 9 (n = 438) vs > 50 (n = 563) and 0-$1000 (n = 418) vs >$10 000 (n = 653), respectively. Royalty/License was the most common type of payment overall (59.6%; $158 723 550.57). The median number (40) and value ($8958.95) of payments were highest for mid-career surgeons. The South-Central region received the most money ($117 970 036.39) while New England received the greatest number of payments (29 423). Spine surgeons had the greatest median number (60) and dollar value ($20 551.27) of payments, while pediatric neurosurgeons received the least (8; $1108.29). Male neurosurgeons received a greater number (31) and value ($6395.80) of payments than their female counterparts (11, $1643.72).

CONCLUSION

From 2014 to 2018, payments to academic neurosurgeons have increased in number and value. Dollars received were dependent on geography, career stage, subspecialty and gender.

Characteristics of Reported Industry Payments to Neurosurgeons: A 5-Year Open Payments Database Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to characterize the payments made by medical industry to neurosurgeons from 2014 to 2018.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2018 of the Open Payments Database. Collected data included the total number of industry payments, the aggregate value of industry payments, and the mean value of each industry payment made to neurosurgeons per year over the 5-year period.

RESULTS

A total of 105,150 unique surgeons, with 13,668 (12.99%) unique neurosurgeons, were identified to have received an industry payment during 2014-2018. Neurosurgeons were the second highest industry-paid surgical specialty, with a total 421,151 industry payments made to neurosurgeons, totaling $477,451,070. The mean average paid amount per surgeon was $34,932 (±$936,942). The largest proportion of payments were related to food and beverage (75.5%), followed by travel and lodging (14.9%), consulting fees (3.5%), nonconsulting service fees (2.1%), and royalties or licensing (1.9%), totaling 90.4% of all industry payments to neurologic surgeons. Summed across the 5-year period, the largest paid source types were royalties and licensing (64.0%; $305,517,489), consulting fees (11.8%; $56,445,950), nonconsulting service fees (7.3%; $34,629,109), current or prospective investments (6.8%, $32,307,959), and travel and lodging (4.8%, $22,982,165).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that over the most recent 5-year period (2014-2018) of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database, there was a decreasing trend of the total number of payments, but an increasing trend of the total amount paid to neurosurgeons.

What Do Patients Complain About Online: A Systematic Review and Taxonomy Framework Based on Patient Centeredness

Background

Complaints made online by patients about their health care experiences are becoming prevalent because of widespread worldwide internet connectivity. An a priori framework, based on patient centeredness, may be useful in identifying the types of issues patients complain about online across multiple settings. It may also assist in examining whether the determinants of patient-centered care (PCC) mirror the determinants of patient experiences.

Objective

The objective of our study was to develop a taxonomy framework for patient complaints online based on patient centeredness and to examine whether the determinants of PCC mirror the determinants of patient experiences.

Methods

First, the best fit framework synthesis technique was applied to develop the proposed a priori framework. Second, electronic databases, including Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed, were searched for articles published between 2000 and June 2018. Studies were only included if they collected primary quantitative data on patients’ online complaints. Third, a deductive and inductive thematic analysis approach was adopted to code the themes of recognized complaints into the framework.

Results

In total, 17 studies from 5 countries were included in this study. Patient complaint online taxonomies and theme terms varied. According to our framework, patients expressed most dissatisfaction with patient-centered processes (101,586/204,363, 49.71%), followed by prerequisites (appropriate skills and knowledge of physicians; 50,563, 24.74%) and the care environment (48,563/204,363, 23.76%). The least dissatisfied theme was expected outcomes (3651/204,363, 1.79%). People expressed little dissatisfaction with expanded PCC dimensions, such as involvement of family and friends (591/204,363, 0.29%). Variation in the concerns across different countries’ patients were also observed.

Conclusions

Online complaints made by patients are of major value to health care providers, regulatory bodies, and patients themselves. Our PCC framework can be applied to analyze them under a wide range of conditions, treatments, and countries. This review has shown significant heterogeneity of patients’ online complaints across different countries.