Industry Payments Among Appropriate Use Criteria Voting Panels: An Open Payments Analysis

Nature and Magnitude of Industry Payments to Fellowship Program Directors in Orthopaedic Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Previous research has highlighted conflicts of interest stemming from industry funding and education of orthopaedic surgeons. This study sought to define the nature and magnitude of industry payments to orthopaedic surgery fellowship program directors (FPDs) in the United States.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of orthopaedic surgery FPDs during 2021. Data were obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Profiles of orthopaedic surgery FPDs were obtained for ACGME-accredited and non-ACGME-accredited training programs. Nonresearch industry payments from 2015 to 2021 were extracted and adjusted for inflation. Temporal trends were analyzed through the calculation of compound annual growth rates. Comparisons were made with nonparametric tests.

RESULTS

Of 600 orthopaedic surgery FPDs, 596 received industry funding (99%), which totaled $340.6 million over the study period. A trend toward greater total annual industry payments over the study period was observed (compound annual growth rate = 3.3%, P = 0.009). Most industry payments were for royalties or licensing ($246.6 million, 72.4%) and consulting fees ($53.6 million, 15.7%). The median total payment per orthopaedic surgery FPD was $49,971 (interquartile range [IQR], $291,674), with 22% receiving between $100,000 and $500,000 and 17% receiving more than $500,000. The highest annual industry payments existed in shoulder and elbow ($41,489, IQR, $170,613) and spine surgery ($26,103; IQR, $84,968). ACGME accreditation status did not influence the magnitude of industry compensation to orthopaedic surgery FPDs across subspecialties (P > 0.05). Men had higher total median annual industry payments versus women ($7,799 [IQR, $47,712] versus $1,298 [IQR, $6,169], P < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

Industry payments to orthopaedic surgery FPDs are ubiquitous, but the magnitude varies by subspecialty. Most industry funding was found in shoulder and elbow and spine surgery. Standards for orthopaedic fellowship education, such as those upheld by accrediting bodies, should include guidelines on how FPDs handle and disclose financial relationships with industry.

Understanding Financial Relationships Between Orthopedic Surgeons and Industry for Research

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to understand trends in industry payments for research awarded to orthopedic surgeons.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database was queried for the years 2016 to 2021 for industry payments for research. Financial analyses were performed to understand temporal trends and differences by orthopedic subspecialty and principal investigator characteristics such as sex. The threshold for statistical significance was set at .05.

RESULTS

A total of 2014 orthopedic surgeons were identified, among whom 542 adult reconstruction (27%) and 460 sports medicine (23%) surgeons were major beneficiaries. Seventy-one female orthopedic surgeons comprised the minority (4%). Total research payments awarded during the study period aggregated to $266,633,592, with adult reconstruction ($88,819,047; 33%) and sports medicine ($57,949,822; 22%) receiving the highest amounts. Total research payments awarded trended upward yearly except for a decline in 2020 that subsequently rebounded (P<.001). Median annual research payment per orthopedic surgeon was $13,375. Median total industry payments per orthopedic surgeon differed between specialties (P <.001), with the highest amounts for adult reconstruction ($44,063) and sports medicine ($34,567) and the lowest amounts for hand ($12,052) and foot and ankle ($19,233). Median total payments did not differ significantly when stratified by sex (P=.276) and region (P=.906). Specialties in which the respective top three companies offered the majority of the research funding were musculoskeletal oncology (90%), pediatric orthopedics (66%), and shoulder and elbow (64%).

CONCLUSION

These results can be used as a primer for orthopedic surgeons seeking to leverage industry relationships to fund translational research. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(3):172-178.].

Industry Payments Among Editorial Board Members of Orthopaedic Journals: An Open Payments Analysis From 2014 to 2019

INTRODUCTION

Although industry payments to physicians and surgeons remain a subject of controversy, relationships between industry and orthopaedic surgeons continue to grow. Notably, recent analyses have demonstrated significant increases in the rate and magnitude of payments among orthopaedic surgeons, despite the passing of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010. Given the concerns regarding how these relationships may affect the peer-review process, our analysis aimed to evaluate how payments among editorial board members of orthopaedic journals have changed over a contemporary time frame.

METHODS

The Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor tool was used to identify all orthopaedic journals with a 2019 impact factor of ≥1.5. Editorial board members from these respective journals were identified from each journal's website. Subsequently, the Open Payments database by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was queried to identify industry payments received by these board members between 2014 and 2019. The quantity and magnitude of payments were then evaluated and compared over this study period. All monetary values were adjusted for inflation.

RESULTS

A total of 18 orthopaedic journals were included in our analysis. Of the 1,519 editorial board members identified, 711 (46.81%) received some form of industry payment in 2019. The total, average, and median payments over this study period decreased for 6 (31.6%), 7 (36.8%), and 8 of the included journals (44.44%), respectively. Six hundred twenty board members had higher average payments in 2019 than in 2014.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis demonstrated high rates of industry payments among editorial board members of high-impact orthopaedic journals. In addition, we demonstrated marked growth in the total, average, and median magnitude of these payments since the inception of the Open Payments database. Our findings encourage a continued need for transparency in related payments to ensure a fair and unbiased peer-review process, one that is separated from undue industry influence.