Changes in industry marketing payments to physicians during the covid-19 pandemic: quasi experimental, difference-in-difference study

Trends in financial payments from industry to US cancer centers, 2014-2021

BACKGROUND

Industry payments to US cancer centers are poorly understood.

METHODS

US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer centers were identified (n = 51). Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers from 2014 to 2021 were obtained from Open Payments and National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding from NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). Given our focus on cancer centers, we measured the subset of industry payments related to cancer drugs specifically and the subset of NIH funding from the NCI.

RESULTS

Despite a pandemic-related decline in 2020-2021, cancer-related industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased from $482 million in 2014 to $972 million in 2021. Over the same period, NCI research grant funding increased from $2 481  million to $2 724  million. The large majority of nonresearch payments were royalties and licensing payments.

CONCLUSION

Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased substantially more than NCI funding in recent years but were also more variable. These trends raise concerns regarding the influence and instability of industry payments.

A Nine-Year Investigation of Industry Research and Nonresearch Payments to Emergency Physicians in the United States Between 2014 and 2022

BACKGROUND

Financial relationships between physicians and the health care industry are common in the United States. Yet, there are limited data on payments to emergency physicians since the 2014 launch of the Open Payments Database.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the trends and characteristics of industry payments to U.S. emergency physicians from 2014 to 2022.

METHODS

This retrospective study used the Open Payments Database to examine all general and research payments to all active emergency physicians. Descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equations were employed.

RESULTS

Between 2014 and 2022, 50.1% (33,021) of emergency physicians received $640.1 million in payments. Of these, 50.1% received general payments, and 1.2% received research payments. General payments constituted 18.7% ($119.7 million) of the overall industry payments. Median general and research payments were $149 ($49-$401) and $72,083 ($13,903-$370,142), respectively. Compared with other specialties, fewer emergency physicians received general payments, and the amounts were lower. The top 1% of emergency physicians received 80.5% of the general payments. No significant trends in payment amounts were observed from 2014 to 2019, but there was a significant decrease in both types of payments in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of emergency physicians received payments from the health care industry, although these payments were typically minimal compared with other specialties. Payment trends remained consistent from 2014 to 2019, with a notable decrease in 2020 due to the pandemic.

Cross-sectional analysis of financial relationships between board certified allergists and the pharmaceutical industry in Japan

BACKGROUND

Financial interactions between pharmaceutical companies and physicians lead to conflicts of interest. This study examines the extent and trends of non-research payments made by pharmaceutical companies to board-certified allergists in Japan between 2016 and 2020.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of disclosed payment data from pharmaceutical companies affiliated with the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association was conducted. The study focused on non-research payments for lecturing, consulting, and manuscript drafting made to board-certified allergists from 2016 to 2020. We performed descriptive analyses on payment data. Trends were analyzed using generalized estimating equation models.

RESULTS

Of the 3,943 board-certified allergists, 2,398 (60.8%) received non-research payments totaling $43.4 million over five years. Lecturing fees comprised 85.7% ($37.2 million) of the total payment amounts. For allergists who received at least one payment, the median amount per allergist was $3,106 (interquartile range: $966 - $12,124), in contrast to a mean of $18,092 (standard deviation: $49,233) over the five-year span. The top 1% and 10% of these allergists accounted for 20.8% and 68.8% of all non-research payments, respectively. The annual payment amounts significantly increased by 7.2% annual increase (95% CI: 4.4 - 10.0%, p < 0.001) each year until 2019, but saw a significant decrease in 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSION

The majority of allergists received non-research payments, with a notable concentration among a small group. Payments increased annually until the pandemic's onset, which coincided with a substantial decrease. Further research is needed to explore the implications of these financial interactions on clinical practice and patient care in Japan.

Associations between pharmaceutical industry payments to physicians and prescription of PARP inhibitors in the United States

PURPOSE

To evaluate the association between industry payments to physicians related to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) and physicians' prescribing behaviors for PARPis.

METHODS

This panel-data analysis used the publicly accessible Open Payments Database and Medicare Part D database between 2017 and 2021. All physicians who reported >10 claims for either olaparib, rucaparib, or niraparib were included in this study. Non-research payments for the PARPis to the physicians from the PARPi manufacturers were extracted from the Open Payments Database. Associations between the physicians' receipt of payments and likelihood of prescribing PARPis were assessed with logistic generalized estimating equations (GEEs). Dose-response associations between the number of payments and prescription volumes and Medicare expenditures were evaluated with linear GEEs.

RESULTS

Of the 1686 eligible physician prescribers, 68.7% received one or more non-research payments related to any of the three PARPis from the manufacturers between 2017 and 2021. Median annual payments per physician were $57 for olaparib, $39 for rucaparib, and $62 for niraparib. Receipt of payments for each PARPi was associated with higher odds of prescribing olaparib (odds ratio [OR]: 1.30 [95% CI: 1.14-1.48], p < 0.001), rucaparib (OR: 2.07 [95% CI: 1.58-2.72], p < 0.001), and niraparib (OR: 1.49 [95% CI: 1.22-1.81], p < 0.001). Dose-response effects were observed between the number of annual payments and the number of prescriptions and/or Medicare expenditures for olaparib and rucaparib.

CONCLUSION

Non-research payments to physician prescribers of PARP inhibitors from the manufacturers were significantly associated with increased prescriptions and Medicare expenditures for olaparib and rucaparib in the United States.

Is the Availability of Biosimilar Adalimumab Associated with Budget Savings? A Difference-in-Difference Analysis of 14 Countries

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to assess the influence of the presence of biosimilar adalimumab on adalimumab budget savings in 14 high- and upper-middle-income countries.

METHODS

This study analyzed Multinational Integrated Data Analysis System (MIDAS)-IQVIA data from the fourth quarter (Q4) of 2018 to the Q4 of 2019, comparing adalimumab expenditure (in United States dollars) and consumption (in standard units [SU]) across 14 countries (Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan). The countries were divided into two groups based on the availability of adalimumab biosimilars during the study period. A difference-in-difference design was employed to analyze the groups, focusing on changes from Q4 2018 to Q4 2019. Additionally, changes in adalimumab expenditure were decomposed into price, quantity, and drug mix during the study period.

RESULTS

Among countries with adalimumab biosimilars, there was a significant decrease in expenditure (- $371.0 per gross domestic product per capita; p = 0.03) over four quarters, while the consumption significantly increased (1.0 SU per 1000 population; p = 0.02). This was consistent with visual observations and differed from countries without adalimumab biosimilar. Sensitivity analysis with a narrowed list of countries (12 high-income countries) showed a consistent trend. Adalimumab expenditure decreased by 14% during the study period in countries where adalimumab biosimilars were available, mainly due to the price changes (Pt = 0.85; - 15%) and the drug-mix effect (εt  = 0.88; - 12%). Yet, adalimumab expenditure (Et = 1.04; +4%) changed in a quantity-dependent manner (Qt = 1.06; +6%) in countries where adalimumab biosimilars were absent.

CONCLUSION

The availability of biosimilars was associated with a decrease in adalimumab expenditure without compromising the consumption of adalimumab.

Industry Payments Received by Residents During Training

Importance

Those responsible for medical education-specialties, sponsoring institutions, and program directors (PD)-are independently associated with the professional identity formation of the trainees with respect to potential conflicts of interest.

Objective

To identify the relative degree to which factors in the training environment are associated with resident acceptance of payments from pharmaceutical and medical device companies.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cross-sectional, retrospective study of residents enrolled in the 3 largest primary-care specialties (internal medicine [IM], family medicine [FM], obstetrics and gynecology [OBGYN]) and 3 largest surgical disciplines (general surgery [GS], orthopedic surgery, and urology) during academic year 2020 to 2021. All analyses were conducted January through August 2023.

Exposures

Specialty, sponsoring institutions' ownership (nonprofit, for-profit, federal government, local government, or state government), and the number of payments PDs accepted.

Main outcomes and measures

Modified Poisson regression assessed the relative risk of ownership, specialty, and PD behavior on residents' acceptance of industry payments as recorded in the Open Payments Program (OPP) database.

Results

In total, there were 124 715 residents in all training programs during 2020 to 2021, 12% of whom received payments totaling $6.4 million. There were 65 992 residents in training during 2020 to 2021 in the 6 specialties evaluated in this study, with 4438 in orthopedics, 1779 in urology, 9177 in GS, 5819 in OBGYN, 14 493 in FM, and 30 286 in IM. OPP records $3.9 million in payments to the 8750 residents (13.4%) who received at least 1 industry payment. The record of all payments to residents in OPP totals $6.4 million. Compared with residents in federal sponsoring institutions, those affiliated with for-profit institutions were 3.50 (95% CI, 2.32-5.28) times more likely to accept industry payments, while those affiliated with nonprofit organizations were 2.00 (95% CI, 1.36-2.93) times more likely to accept payments. Compared with IM, residents in each of the following specialties have an elevated risk of accepting payments: orthopedics, 3.21 (95% CI, 2.73-3.77) times; urology, 2.95 (95% CI, 2.44-3.56) times; GS, 1.21 (95% CI, 1.00-1.45) times; OBGYN, 1.30 (95% CI, 1.05-1.62) times. The difference in the risk of accepting a payment between FM and IM residents was not statistically significant. The number of payments PDs accepted slightly elevated the risk of residents to accept a payment by 1.01 (95% CI, 1.01-1.01).

Conclusions and relevance

In this cross-sectional, retrospective study, receipt of industry payments by residents was associated with specialty, institutional control, and PD behavior.

Characterizing industry payments to ophthalmologists before and after onset of the COVID-19 pandemic

Purpose

The COVID-19 pandemic had profound effects on many different aspects of our healthcare system and the relationship between industry and physicians was no exception. The present database study evaluates industry payments to ophthalmologists in order to identify whether there are significant differences in industry payments to ophthalmologists before and after onset of the pandemic.

Methods

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database was queried for all ophthalmologists who received industry payments between 2018 and 2021. Pre-Covid was defined as 2018-2019 while post-Covid was defined as 2020-2021. Payment date, value, type, company making payment, and state of recipient were recorded. The top ten companies and states in terms of payment value were included in analysis. Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) modeling was used to assess significance.

Results

There were 729,263 industry payments to 20,832 ophthalmologists totaling $817,892,867.54 included for analysis in this study. We found that there was a significant increase in the mean value of research payments and a significant decrease in the mean value of general payments after the onset of the pandemic (both p < 0.001). We also report significant changes in industry payments to ophthalmologists based on the company making the payment and the state in which the ophthalmologist practices.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that significant differences exist in industry payment patterns to ophthalmologists following onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding underlying reasons for the observed differences may improve our understanding of the relationship between industry and clinical ophthalmology.

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.

Trends in Industry Payments to Diabetologists and Endocrinologists in the United States During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Introduction Limited evidence suggests there were substantial amounts of payments from the healthcare industry to diabetologists and endocrinologists in the United States before the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic period. However, there is no study on how these industry payments changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to evaluate trends in non-research industry payments to physicians specializing in diabetology and endocrinology in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Methods Using the open payments database between 2013 and 2021, we examined trends in general payments made to physicians whose primary specialty was diabetology and endocrinology by the healthcare industry in the United States. Trends in industry payments during the COVID-19 pandemic were evaluated by interrupted time series analysis with generalized estimating equation models. Results Of 7965 active endocrinologists and diabetologists, 6991 (87.8%) received one or more general payments from the healthcare industry in the United States between August 2013 and December 2021. Median per-physician payments were $116.68 (interquartile range (IQR): $41.66-$390.00) before the COVID-19 pandemic period and $97.91 (IQR: $32.81-$314.04) during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Monthly per-physician payments, the number of per-physician payments, and the number of physicians receiving payments decreased by 61.0% (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 58.1%-63.7%, p<0.001), 59.2% (95% CI: 57.9%-60.4%, p<0.001), and 39.7% (95% CI: 38.3%-41.0%, p<0.001) at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020), compared to those before pandemic period, respectively.  Conclusion The non-research payments to endocrinologists and diabetologists from the healthcare industry sharply decreased by about 60% in payment amounts due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.

The Trend in Industry Payments During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists in the United States

Background Although the sudden coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic would have significantly influenced financial relationships between the healthcare industry and gastroenterologists and hepatologists, little is known about the trend in financial relations in the United States. This study, thus, aimed to examine the trends in industry payments made to gastroenterologists and hepatologists during the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and methods Using the Open Payments Database between 2013 and 2021, we evaluated trends in financial relationships between the healthcare industry and gastroenterologists and hepatologists in the United States. Trends in general payments during the COVID-19 pandemic were evaluated by interrupted time series analysis with monthly and yearly payments at the physician level. Results A total of 16,808 or 89.4% of all active gastroenterologists received general payments totaling $393,823,094 from the pharmaceutical and medical device companies between 2013 and 2021. The payment per gastroenterologist and the number of gastroenterologists receiving payments decreased by 70.9% (95% CI: -73.4% - -68.1%, p<0.001) and by 51.5% (95%CI: -52.2% - -50.7%, p<0.001) due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, respectively. However, both payments and the number of physicians with payments have recovered monthly since the COVID-19 pandemic, with relative monthly change rates of 4.1% (95% CI: 3.5% ‒ 4.7%, p<0.001) and 3.2% (95%CI: 3.1% ‒ 3.2%, p<0.001). Additionally, the general payments per gastroenterologist significantly decreased by 2.5% (95%CI: -3.9% - -1.1%, p<0.001) each year before the COVID-19 pandemic, while there was a very small change in the number of gastroenterologists with payments. Conclusions The industry payments to gastroenterologists and hepatologists significantly decreased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but the payments have recovered right after the pandemic in the United States.