The Association of Industry Payments to Physicians with Prescription of Brand-Name Intranasal Corticosteroids

Assessment of conflicts of interest in literature on monoclonal antibodies for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis using the Open Payments Database

BACKGROUND

Accurate conflict of interest (COI) information is essential for promoting transparency and trust in research. We aim to assess COI disclosure patterns in monoclonal antibodies (MABs) research for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) using the Open Payments Database (OPD).

METHODS

Studies on FDA-approved MABs for CRSwNP (dupilumab, omalizumab, mepolizumab) published between 2019 and 2021 with at least one US author were identified through PubMed. Industry-reported payments from the manufacturers (Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline) between 2018 and 2021 in OPD's General Payments category were collected. Authors were cross-checked against OPD metadata using a previously published ChatGPT-based algorithm. Additionally, this novel algorithm analyzed COI statements for relevant author‒company specific disclosures, identifying disclosed and undisclosed payments made 3‒15 months prior to publication.

RESULTS

A total of 214 unique authors from 76 studies were included. Of 30 articles that received at least one relevant payment, 21 (70%) were found to have an undisclosed COI, with a mean total undisclosed payment of $4890 and a median of $10,331. Fifty-six authors had relevant OPD payments and 40 (71.4%) authors did not declare a potential COI. Interestingly, 158 authors had no relevant payments and 62 (39.2%) declared a potential COI. Author order was not significantly associated with potential under- or over-disclosure.

CONCLUSION

This study characterizes COI disclosure patterns in rhinosinusitis-relevant MABs research using a novel automated approach. Given the discrepancy between disclosures and industry-reported payments, our findings suggest a need for improved disclosure education and practices.

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.

Assessment of Financial Relationships Between Otorhinolaryngologists and Pharmaceutical Companies in Japan Between 2016 and 2019

INTRODUCTION

There are prevalent financial relationships between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry in medical specialties, including otorhinolaryngology. Although these relationships might cause conflicts of interest, no studies have assessed the size and contents of the financial relationships between otorhinolaryngologists and pharmaceutical companies in Japan. This study aims to evaluate the magnitude, prevalence, and trend of the financial relationship between Japanese otolaryngologists and pharmaceutical companies.

METHODS

 Using payment data publicly disclosed by 92 pharmaceutical companies, we examined the size, prevalence, and trend in personal payments made to the otorhinolaryngologist board certified by the Japanese Society of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (JSO-HNS) between 2016 and 2019 in Japan. Furthermore, differences in payments were evaluated by whether otolaryngologists were clinical practice guideline authors, society board members, and academic journal editors or not. Trends in payments were evaluated by generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

 Of 8,190 otorhinolaryngologists, 3,667 (44.8%) were paid a total of $13,873,562, in payments for lecturing, consulting, and writing by 72 pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. The median four-year combined payment per physician was $1,022 (interquartile range: $473-$2,526). Top 1%, 5%, and 10% of otorhinolaryngologists received 42.3% (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 37.2%-47.4%), 69.3% (95% CI: 65.9%-72.8%), and 80.6% (95% CI: 78.3%-82.9%) of overall payments, respectively. The median payments per physician were significantly higher among otorhinolaryngologists authoring clinical practice guidelines ($11,522), society board members ($22,261), and journal editors ($35,143) than those without. The payments and number of otorhinolaryngologists receiving payments remained stable between 2016 and 2019.

CONCLUSION

 This study demonstrates that a minority but a large number of otorhinolaryngologists received personal payments from pharmaceutical companies for the reimbursement of lecturing, consulting, and writing in Japan. Large amounts of these personal payments were significantly concentrated on a small number of leading otorhinolaryngologists.

Pharmaceutical Payments to Japanese Board‐Certified Head and Neck Surgeons Between 2016 and 2019

Objective

To evaluate the magnitude, prevalence, and trend of the financial relationship between Japanese head and neck surgeons and pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019.

Study Design

Cross-sectional analysis.

Setting

Japan.

Methods

This study evaluated personal payments concerning lecturing, consulting, and writing paid by 92 major pharmaceutical companies to all Japanese head and neck surgeons board-certified by the Japan Society for Head and Neck Surgery between 2016 and 2019. The payments were descriptively analyzed and payment trend were assessed using population-averaged generalized estimating equations. Further, the payments to board executive board members with specialist certification were also evaluated separately.

Results

Of all 443 board-certified head and neck surgeons in Japan, 365 (82.4%) received an average of $6443 (standard deviation: $12,875), while median payments were $2002 (interquartile ranges [IQR] $792-$4802). Executive board specialists with a voting right received much higher personal payments (median $26,013, IQR $12,747-$35,750) than the non-executive specialists (median $1926, IQR $765‒$4134, p < .001) and the executive board specialists without a voting right (median $4411, IQR $963-$5623, p = .015). The payments per specialist and prevalence of specialists with payments annually increased by 11.4% (95% CI: 5.8%-17.2%; p < .001) and 7.3% (95% CI: 3.8%-11.0%; p < .001), respectively.

Conclusion

There were increasingly widespread and growing financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies among head and neck surgeons in Japan, alongside of introduction of novel drugs. The leading head and neck surgeons received much higher personal payments from pharmaceutical companies, and no sufficient regulation was implemented by the society in Japan.

Association Between Open Payments-Reported Industry Transfers of Value and Prostaglandin Analog Prescribing in the US

Importance

Reported transfers of value (TOV) from pharmaceutical companies have been associated with greater use of branded anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents by ophthalmologists, but payment under the Medicare Part B buy-and-bill model includes a financial incentive to choose costlier agents, potentially confounding analyses of pharmaceutical TOV and prescribing patterns. How these reported TOV are associated with prescribing patterns for prescription eye drops, not subject to the incentives created by Part B payments, should be considered.

Objective

To assess the association between prostaglandin analog (PGA) eye drop prescribing and reported nonresearch TOV by makers of branded PGAs to US vision care professionals.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort analysis used a 20% nationally representative sample of 2018 Medicare Part D claims and industry TOV reported to the Open Payments program. Optometrists and ophthalmologists who had more than 10 claims for PGA drops in the 20% sample were analyzed. Analysis took place from June 2021 to February 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Multivariable logistic regression assessing the association between membership in strata of reported TOV and branded PGA prescribing rate, controlling for prescriber demographic factors, local area practices, total PGA prescribing volume, and plan formularies involved.

Results

A total of 20 612 ophthalmologists and 5426 optometrists (7449 [29%] female and 18 589 [71%] male) prescribed PGA eye drops. Of these, 9685 (37%) were reported to have received TOV from manufacturers of branded PGAs in 2018, totaling $5 060 346. The median (IQR) reported TOV was $65 ($24-$147). Multivariable logistic regression showed that the predicted probability of primarily prescribing branded PGAs among prescribers who reported receiving no TOV was 12.9% (95% CI, 12.4%-13.4%). This figure increased to 19.6% (95% CI, 18.8%-20.4%) among prescribers receiving TOV, a 50% increase. There was a dose-response association, such that the top 10% of TOV recipients had a 29.2% probability (95% CI, 26.4%-31.9%) of preferential branded use.

Conclusions and Relevance

While the median reported TOV to a PGA prescriber was relatively low in this study, there was a positive association between amount of reported nonresearch TOV received from PGA makers and the frequency of branded PGA use. This shows that small reported TOV were associated with differences in prescribing. High rates of branded PGA prescribing may pose a cost burden to patients that affects adherence. Clinicians and policy makers should be aware of these associations.

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.

Trends in Nasal Spray Prescribing Patterns by Otolaryngologists in the US Medicare Population

OBJECTIVES

To quantify national and state-level prescribing and cost trends for the 3 most prescribed nasal sprays by otolaryngologists in the Medicare population.

METHODS

Through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) database and the Kaiser Family Foundation, we retrieved data on Medicare enrollment and on claims and costs of fluticasone propionate, azelastine HCl, and ipratropium bromide prescribed by otolaryngologists from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017.

RESULTS

From 2013 to 2017, CMS reimbursed $128.8 million for 5.2 million claims of fluticasone propionate, azelastine HCl, and ipratropium bromide prescribed by otolaryngologists. The national claim rate for fluticasone propionate increased 6.5% per year from 2013 to 2015 and then decreased 4.3% per year from 2015 to 2017 while azelastine HCl and ipratropium bromide consistently increased annually (19.0% and 12.2% respectively) from 2013 to 2017. The cost for fluticasone propionate decreased 33.0% a year from 2013 to 2015 and then increased 5.4% annually to $13.60 per claim in 2017. Azelastine HCl decreased 14.8% annually from $91.30 to $50.23 per claim and ipratropium bromide increased 5.2% annually to $34.78 in 2017. Variations in the claim rate and cost for all 3 nasal sprays were observed in some states.

CONCLUSIONS

Otolaryngologists are prescribing azelastine HCl and ipratropium at an increasingly higher rate in the Medicare population, while the rate for fluticasone propionate has been decreasing nationally. Utilization and costs of nasal sprays also vary geographically across the United States.

Spending and Utilization on Drugs Prescribed by Otolaryngologists to Medicare Beneficiaries, 2013 to 2017

OBJECTIVES

The significant and rising cost of prescription drugs is a pressing concern for patients and payers. However, little is known about spending on and utilization of drugs prescribed by otolaryngologists.

METHODS

Utilizing publicly available Medicare Part D Prescriber Public Use data, we conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 34 small-molecule drugs commonly prescribed by otolaryngologists (defined as 2017 Medicare Part D spending ≥$500 000) to Medicare beneficiaries. Prescription data was characterized by drug type (brand name vs generic). Primary outcomes for each prescription drug included the total annual cost and the total annual number of days supplied.

RESULTS

From 2013 to 2017, spending on drugs prescribed by otolaryngologists to Medicare beneficiaries decreased by $32.1 million ($131.7-$99.5 million; relative decrease 24.4%; compound annual growth rate [CAGR] -5.4%), while total utilization increased by 24.9 million days supplied (74.6-99.5 million; relative increase 33.3%; CAGR 5.9%). For brand name drugs, there was a decrease in spending ($71.1-$26.7 million; relative decrease -62.4%; CAGR -17.8%) and utilization (11.2-3.1 million days supplied; relative decrease -72.5%; CAGR -22.8%). In contrast, generic drugs demonstrated increased spending ($60.6-$72.8 million; relative increase 20.2%; CAGR 3.7%) and utilization (63.5-96.4 million days supplied; relative increase 51.9%; CAGR 8.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Spending on drugs prescribed by otolaryngologists to Medicare Part D beneficiaries declined between 2013 and 2017 in part due to a transition from brand name drugs to lower-cost generic equivalents.

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.

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.

Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Surgeon Industry Compensation Reported by the Open Payments Database

Background. The current study aims to characterize and explore trends in Open Payments Database (OPD) payments reported to orthopaedic foot and ankle (F&A) surgeons. OPD payments are classified as General, Ownership, or Research. Methods. General, Ownership, and Research payments to orthopaedic F&A surgeons were characterized by total payment sum and number of transactions. The total payment was compared by category. Payments per surgeon were also assessed. Median payments for all orthopaedic F&A surgeons and the top 5% compensated were calculated and compared across the years. Medians were compared through Mann-Whitney U tests. Results. Over the period, industry paid over $39 million through 29,442 transactions to 802 orthopaedic F&A surgeons. The majority of this payment was General (64%), followed by Ownership (34%) and Research (2%). The median annual payments per orthopaedic F&A surgeon were compared to the 2014 median ($616): 2015 ($505; P = .191), 2016 ($868; P = .088), and 2017 ($336; P = .084). Over these years, the annual number of compensated orthopaedic F&A surgeons increased from 490 to 556. Averaged over 4 years, 91% of the total orthopaedic F&A payment was made to the top 5% of orthopaedic F&A surgeons. The median payment for this group increased from $177 000 (2014) to $192 000 (2017; P = .012). Conclusion. Though median payments to the top 5% of orthopaedic F&A surgeons increased, there was no overall change in median payment over four years for all compensated orthopaedic F&A surgeons. These findings shed insight into the orthopaedic F&A surgeon-industry relationship.Levels of Evidence: III, Retrospective Study.

Patient factors associated with oral generic olanzapine initiation and substitution among Medicaid beneficiaries: a new user cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Generic drugs typically are less expensive than branded products; however, several factors can limit generic drug utilization. This study assesses the associations of patient factors with generic olanzapine initiation and substitution.

METHODS

A retrospective new user cohort study was conducted using the 2011-2012 Medicaid administrative claims data. Beneficiaries continuously enrolled during the 6 month washout period prior to their initial oral brand or generic olanzapine prescription were included and followed up to 12 months. Among brand olanzapine new users, time to generic substitution and competing risk outcomes was estimated using the Fine-Gray cumulative incidence function. Patient demographic and health service utilization factors were assessed in the multivariate cause-specific hazards model.

RESULTS

Among olanzapine new users, 70.7% patients initiated generic treatment. Beneficiaries aged ≥21, and living in the Midwest and West regions were more likely to initiate generic olanzapine. Among brand new users, 28.2% switched to generic olanzapine, 23.6% switched to an alternative atypical antipsychotic treatment and 38.0% discontinued within 12 months. Beneficiaries who resided in urban areas (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR) = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.37-0.75) and had prior hospitalizations (AHR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.75-0.96) had lower rates of generic substitution, whereas those with emergency department (ED) visits (AHR = 1.06, 95% CI = 1.02-1.10) had a higher rate of generic substitution. In addition, beneficiaries in different age subgroups also had different rates of generic substitution in different regions.

CONCLUSION

Medicaid beneficiaries' age, geographic region, prior hospitalization and ED utilization were associated with generic olanzapine initiation and substitution. Tailored educational outreach targeting these patient subgroups might improve generic olanzapine utilization.

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.

The Association between Industry Payments and Brand-Name Prescriptions in Otolaryngologists

OBJECTIVE

To associate pharmaceutical industry payments to brand-name prescriptions by otolaryngologists.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cross-sectional analysis.

SETTING

Open Payments Database and the Medicare Part D Participant User File 2013-2016.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We identified otolaryngologists receiving nonresearch industry payments and prescribing to Medicare Part D recipients. Records were linked by physician name and state. The value of industry payments and the percentage of brand-name drugs prescribed per hospital referral region (HRR) were characterized as medians. Industry payments were correlated to the rate of brand-name prescription by Kendall's τ correlation. This was repeated at the individual physician level and stratified by payment type.

RESULTS

In total, 8167 otolaryngologists received a median of $434 (interquartile range, $138-$1278) in industry compensation over 11 (3-26) payments. Brand-name drugs made up a median of 12.9% (8.6%-18-4%) of each physician's drug claims. The number (τ = 0.05, P < .001) and dollar amount (τ = 0.04, P < .001) of industry payments were correlated with the rate of brand-name drug prescription at the individual physician level. The number of industry payments was also associated with the rate of brand-name prescription by HRR (τ = 0.14, P < .001), but the dollar amount was not. By HRR, food and beverage payments received by physicians were associated with the rate of brand-name drug prescription (τ = 0.04, P < .001), but travel and lodging payments were not.

CONCLUSIONS

Industry financial transactions are associated with brand-name drug prescriptions in otolaryngologists, and these associations are stronger at the regional level than at the individual physician level. These correlations are of modest strength and should be interpreted cautiously by readers.

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.

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.

Industry Involvement in Otolaryngology: Updates from the 2017 Open Payments Database

Objective

To characterize drug and device industry payments to otolaryngologists in 2017 and compare them with payments from 2014 to 2016.

Study Design

Retrospective cross-sectional analysis.

Setting

2017 Open Payments Database.

Subjects and Methods

We identified otolaryngologists in the Open Payments Database receiving nonresearch industry payments in 2017. We determined the total number and value of payments and the mean and median payments per compensated otolaryngologist. We characterized payments by census region, nature of payment, and sponsor subspecialty.

Results

A total of 8131 otolaryngologists received 66,414 payments totaling to $11.2 million in industry compensation in 2017. This is decreased from $14.5 million in 2016. The mean and median payment per compensated otolaryngologist was $1383 ($10,459) and $159 ($64-$420), respectively. Of the total compensation, 85% was received by the top 10th percentile of otolaryngologists. Speaking fees accounted for $3.1 million (28% of total payments), and food and beverage was the most common payment type (57,691 payments; 87%). Consulting fees decreased by $1 million from 2016 to 2017, and ownership interests decreased by $1.2 million from 2016 to 2017. The south had the highest total compensation value ($4.2 million), while the west had the highest mean payment value ($1561). Rhinology accounted for the highest proportion of payments of all otolaryngology subspecialties at $3.9 million (34%).

Conclusion

Industry payments to otolaryngologists decreased to $11.2 million in 2017 from $14.5 million in 2016. Much of the decrease can be attributed to decreases in consulting fees and ownership payments. It is important that otolaryngologists remain aware of changes in industry funding with each release of the Open Payments Database.

Industry Payments to Physicians and Prescriptions of Brand-Name Proton-Pump Inhibitors

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the association between industry payments and prescriptions of 2 brand-name proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs).

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional retrospective.

SETTING

Physicians nationwide.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We identified all physicians receiving industry payments for Dexilant and Nexium 2014-2015 from the Open Payments database. We linked this to records of prescriptions for PPIs paid for by Medicare Part D these same years and compared the proportion of prescriptions written for Dexilant and Nexium in industry-compensated vs nonindustry compensated physicians. The number and dollar amount of payments were associated with the rate of drug prescriptions.

RESULTS

We identified 254,452 physicians prescribing PPIs; 8586 and 2766 physicians received industry payments for Dexilant and Nexium, respectively. A total of 5052 of 7876 (64%) physicians compensated for Dexilant prescribed Dexilant vs 39,778 of 246,571 (16%) noncompensated physicians ( P < .001). For Nexium, 2525 of 2654 (95%) compensated physicians prescribed Nexium, compared to 123,913 of 252,067 (49%) noncompensated physicians. For both Dexilant and Nexium, there was a significant correlation between the number (ρ = 0.22, P < .001 and ρ = 0.12, P < .001) and dollar amount (ρ = 0.22, P < .001 and ρ = 0.13, P < .001) of payments and the percentage of prescriptions written for the compensated drug. Industry payments for Nexium remained associated with rate of prescription even after generic esomeprazole became available.

CONCLUSION

Both the number and dollar amount of industry payments were associated with increased prescriptions for both Dexilant and Nexium. Although unable to show causality, this study suggests that industry payments may increase physician prescriptions of costly, brand-name drugs.