Gender Disparity in Industry Relationships With Academic Interventional Radiology Physicians

Social Media Influence and Gender Are Correlated with Industry Payments to Orthopaedic Sports Surgeons

Social media, specifically Twitter, has become an increasingly used tool in academic orthopaedic surgery to help surgeons connect with patients and peers. This study seeks to understand correlations among social medial influence, academic influence, and gender among academic orthopaedic sport surgeons. A list of all orthopaedic sports surgeons serving as faculty of sports fellowships in the United States was compiled, along with publicly available demographic information. Their Hirsh indices (h-indices) were obtained using the Scopus database. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act Web site was used to determine their industry payments from 2014 through 2020. The number of Twitter followers was used as a measure of social media influence. Multivariable linear regression models were employed to explore the associations between these parameters and industry payments. Of the 633 surgeons, 33% had a Twitter account. Surgeons with > 1,000 followers (7.3%) were awarded 186% more in nonresearch funding (p = 0.01) and had a higher probability of receiving industry research funding compared with those with no followers (p = 0.03). Sports surgeons had an average h-index of 16, with 44% having ≤ 20 publications and 21% having ≥ 100 publications. Surgeons with ≥ 100 publications were awarded 453% more in nonresearch funding (p = 0.001) and had a 32% higher probability of receiving industry research funding (p < 0.001) when compared with their colleagues with ≤ 20 publications. Female sports surgeons accounted for only 7.9% of surgeons included in the study, and were awarded 65% less in industry nonresearch funding compared with their male colleagues (p = 0.004) when controlling for other factors. Both number of publications and a high level of Twitter activity (> 1,000 followers) had the strongest associations with the quantity of industry nonresearch funding and the highest probability of industry research funding. Female sports surgeons received significantly less industry nonresearch funding compared with their male colleagues. Future studies further exploring gender disparities in industry funding for orthopaedic surgeons may be warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:  Prognostic, Level III.

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.

Gender disparities in industry compensation and research payments among neurointerventional surgeons in the USA

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to examine the presence of gender disparity represented by industry payments and research funding within the field of interventional neuroradiology.

METHODS

Payment information was collected using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payment database for the year 2019. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to analyze differences in annual compensation based on sex in $US, while controlling for geographic factors, academic rank, and h-index. A sample t-test was performed to look at gender differences in h-indexes.

RESULTS

The study cohort was comprised of 893 interventional neuroradiologists, 73 (8.2%) of which were female. Of the $48889.20 in mean annual payments reported in the database, $5847.13 (11.2%) went to female interventional neuroradiologists (P<0.05). The significant difference in compensation between male and female neuroradiologists was evident after controlling for state-level variance and academic position. There was a statistically significant difference in total reimbursement (P<0.001), research (P<0.001), consulting (P<0.04), food and beverage (P<0.02), and compensation for services other than consulting between males and females (P<0.02). A statistically significant difference was found for h-index based on gender (males=16.7, females=10.1; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that in the field of interventional neuroradiology, females receive less research funding and private industry compensation, have lower h-indexes, and are less likely to occupy the highest academic positions. The difference in funding did not differ when accounting for geographic state of practice and academic rank. Future studies should work to identify potential contributory factors of these trends.

A Review of Healthcare Disparities Relevant to Interventional Radiology

Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities have received focused attention recently, as they became more visible in the COVID era. We continue to learn more about how healthcare disparities manifest for our patients and, more broadly, the structural underpinnings that result in predictable outcomes gaps. This review summarizes what we know about disparities relevant to interventional radiologists. The prevalence and magnitude of disparities are quantified and discussed where relevant. Specific examples are provided to demonstrate how factors like gender, ethnicity, social status, geography, etc. interact to create inequities in the delivery of interventional radiology (IR) care. Understanding and addressing health disparities in IR is crucial for improving real-world patient outcomes and reducing the economic burden associated with ineffective and low-value care. Finally, the importance of intentional mentorship, outreach, education, and equitable distribution of high-quality healthcare to mitigate these disparities and promote health equity in interventional radiology is discussed.

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.

Analysis of Industry-Related Payments Among Physician Editors of Pathology Journals

OBJECTIVES

Gender inequities in editorial board representation and physician compensation are well documented, but few studies have focused on how editors of journals are compensated.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we examined industry-related compensation (from 2014 to 2020) among physician editors of 35 pathology journals using publicly available data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database.

RESULTS

Of the physician editors included, 135 (69.9%) were men and 58 (30.1%) were women. Similar percentages of men and women physicians who were eligible received payments (112/135 [83.0%] men and 51/58 [87.9%] women; P = .38, χ2 test). Of the total transfer of value ($211,192,532), 112 men received $192,727,555 (91.3%), and 51 women received $18,464,978 (8.7%). Mean total payment per person was $1,720,782 for men and $362,058 for women (P = .05). The payment range for men was $18-$47,568,400 and the range of payments for women was $31-$2,375,637.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings highlight significant gender inequities in industry-related payments to physician editors of pathology journals. The financial relationships of journal editors and industry deserve further study, particularly as they relate to advancing science and closing both workforce and patient care inequities.

Issues Most Pressing to Early-Career Interventional Radiologists: Results of a Descriptive Survey

PURPOSE

To determine demographics, practice patterns, needs from Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR), and preferences of interventional radiologists (IRs) early in their careers.

METHODS

A 28-question descriptive survey was used to identify demographic and practice composition, practice issues, and needs of early career IRs. The survey was distributed to SIR members in the United States (US) (n = 859) within the first 8 years of practice, with 213 respondents (25%).

RESULTS

Respondents were primarily male (n = 181, 87%), less than 40 years old (n = 156, 73%), in practice for 6 years or less (n = 167, 79%), and satisfied with IR as a career (n = 183, 92.4%). The majority were in academic practice (n = 89, 43.2%) or large private practice group (n = 67, 32.5%). Most respondents read diagnostic imaging daily or weekly (n = 130, 61%). The majority of respondents perform complex procedures regularly including transarterial tumor therapy, percutaneous tumor ablation, peripheral arterial interventions, and biliary interventions monthly. Many respondents (n = 49, 23%) have changed jobs at least once citing career advancement, practice issues/disagreements, or compensation as reason. Most respondents would serve as mentors (n = 170, 80%) for trainees and were satisfied with their career mentorship (n = 166, 78%). Respondents felt that mentorship, identification of barriers facing early career IRs, and networking should be the most important functions of the Early Career Section (ECS)of the SIR.

CONCLUSION

As nearly all survey respondents indicated that early career IRs have different needs and priorities than established physicians, they felt that mentorship, identification of barriers facing early career IRs, and networking should be the most important functions of the ECS. Additionally, this same group of IRs report low comfort with the business side of medicine and may benefit from directed content provided by the SIR ECS.

Assessment of Medical Industry Compensation to US Physicians by Gender

Importance

It has been well established that female physicians earn less than their male counterparts in all specialties and ranks despite controlling for confounding variables.

Objective

To investigate payments made from highest-grossing medical industry companies to female and male physicians and to assess compensation and engagement disparities based on gender.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective, population-based cross-sectional study used data from the Open Payments database for the 5 female and 5 male physicians who received the most financial compensation from each of the 15 highest-grossing medical supply companies in the US from January 2013 to January 2019.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was total general payments received by female and male physicians from medical industry over time and across industries. The secondary outcome was trends in industry payment to female and male physicians from 2013 to 2019.

Results

Among the 1050 payments sampled, 1017 (96.9%) of the 5 highest earners were men and 33 (3.1%) were women. Female physicians were paid a mean (SD) of $41 320 ($88 695), and male physicians were paid a mean (SD) of $1 226 377 ($3 377 957) (P < .001). On multivariate analysis, male gender was significantly associated with higher payment after adjusting for rank, h-index, and specialty (mean [SD], $1 025 413 [$162 578]; P < .001). From 2013 to 2019, the payment gap between female and male physicians increased from $54 343 to $166 778 (P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that male physicians received significantly higher payments from the highest-grossing medical industry companies compared with female physicians. This disparity persisted across all medical specialties and academic ranks. The health care industry gender payment gap continued to increase from 2013 to 2019, with a wider compensation gap in 2019.

Industry Relationships With Medical Oncologists: Who Are the High-Payment Physicians?

PURPOSE:

Many oncologists have relationships with industry. Previous work has shown that these payments are usually modest; however, there exist a subset of medical oncologists who receive more than $100,000 US dollars (USD) annually. Here, we describe the characteristics of these physicians.

METHODS:

This retrospective cohort study used the Open Payments data set to identify all US-based medical oncologists/hematologists who received $100,000+ USD in general payments linked to cancer medications in 2018. Open Payments and a web-based search were used to identify physician characteristics, demographics, research profile, and leadership positions.

RESULTS:

One hundred thirty-nine medical oncologists received > $100,000 USD in general payments. The median payment was $154,613 USD, and the total payment was $24.2 million USD. These high-payment physicians represent 1% of all US medical oncologists (N = 10,620) yet account for 37% of all industry payments in 2018. Sixty percent (84 of 139) and 21% (29 of 139) of these high-payment physicians hold hospital and specialty association leadership roles, respectively. One quarter (24%, 33 of 139) serve on journal editorial boards, and 10% (14 of 139) have authored clinical practice guidelines; 72% (100 of 139) hold faculty appointments.

CONCLUSION:

A small number of medical oncologists receive very high payments from the pharmaceutical industry. These physicians hold major leadership roles within oncology. Further work is needed to understand the extent to which these conflicts of interest may shape clinical practice and policy.

Representation of Women in Ophthalmology Receiving Private Industry Funding 2015-2018

PURPOSE

To report the representation of female ophthalmologists receiving private industry funding from 2015 through 2018, and to compare to previously observed trends.

DESIGN

Retrospective, comparative trend study METHODS: The study population consisted of US ophthalmologists listed in CMS Open Payments Database. Data were reviewed for payments for research, consulting, honoraria, industry grants, faculty and speakers, royalties, and services other than consulting. The primary outcome measure was percentage of female representation compared to male in each sub-category of payment.

RESULTS

The percentage of female, board-certified ophthalmologists who practiced in the United States ranged from 21.3% to 24.1%. The total number of reported ophthalmologists with industry ties ranged from 1629 to 1873, of whom between 17.2% and 19.4% were women. Women received significantly less industry compensation by than men in 2015 (median average $3273 vs $4825, P = .003), 2016 ($3600 vs $4750, P = .023), 2017 ($2493 vs $3500, P = .013), and 2018 ($2000 vs $3000, P = .011). Women remained underrepresented in receiving payments for research (ranging from 5.4% of total paid for research to 8.0%), consulting (11%-17.4%), honoraria (6%-14.9%), industry grants (4%-41.2%), royalties and licenses (0.1%-10.2%), faculty and speakers (11.6%-16.4%), and services other than consulting (8.4%-28.9%). Compared to 2013-2014, an increasing proportion of women received industry payments for consulting (P = .012), honoraria (P = .007), royalties and licenses (P = .019), faculty and speakers (P = .007), and services other than consulting (P = .007).

CONCLUSIONS

Female ophthalmologists remain underrepresented in terms of the percentage of women who receive private industry funding and dollar value of the funding.

Rules of engagement: Promoting academic-industry partnership in the era of digital pathology and artificial intelligence

Academic industry partnership (AIP) represents an important alliance between academic researchers and industry that helps translate technology and complete the innovation cycle within academic health systems. Despite diverging missions and skillsets the culture for academia and industry is changing in response to the current digital era which is spawning greater collaboration between physicians and businesses in this marketplace. In the field of pathology, this is further driven by the fact that traditional funding sources cannot keep pace with the innovation needed in digital pathology and artificial intelligence. This concept article from the Digital Pathology Association (DPA) describes the rules of engagement for pathology innovators in academia and for their corporate partners to help establish best practices in this critical area. Stakeholders include pathologists, basic and translational researchers, university technology transfer and sponsored research offices, as well as industry relations officers. The article discusses the benefits and pitfalls of an AIP, reviews different partnership models, examines the role of pathologists in the innovation cycle, explains various agreements that may need to be signed, covers conflict of interest and intellectual property issues, and offers recommendations for ensuring successful partnerships.

Industry payments made to academic endodontists: Sex differences and other insights into financial relationships

BACKGROUND

Industry payments made to health care providers can create competing interests. The purpose of this study was to define the overall financial relationships between industry and academic endodontics faculty members, detail any variation in such payment data as related to individual faculty member characteristics and leadership position by institution type, and comment on the potential impacts from conflicts of interest (COIs) created by such relationships.

METHODS

The author identified and characterized academic endodontists from information on their institutional websites. The author obtained reported industry payments from 2013 through 2019 from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database. The author also noted the distributions of academic endodontists and industry payments by institution, academic rank, sex, and residency program director position. The author subjected the data to descriptive and nonparametric analyses.

RESULTS

Of the 302 academic endodontists included, 240 (80%) accepted reported industry payments totaling $4,260,316.97. Overall, the median of total industry payments for all 302 faculty members was $217.89 (interquartile range [IQR], $34.06-$3,070.00). Among those accepting payments, the median amount was $382.80 (IQR, $110.40-$6,234.00). The top decile of paid academic endodontists received $3,669,291.47 in industry payments (86% of the total), with a median payment of $24,013 (IQR, $17,043-$91,190). Significant sex-associated industry payment differences were seen among the overall faculty and among those with the residency program director position.

CONCLUSIONS

Most academic endodontists accept industry payments. Significant sex differences exist in overall faculty member academic rank distribution, leadership role, and accepted median industry payment amounts. COI issues have the potential to arise among academic endodontists when such industry payments are accepted.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Existing sex disparities in academic endodontics within the United States ideally should be acknowledged. COI issues can arise when academic faculty members accept industry payments. Public knowledge of these conflicts could negatively affect individual faculty members, their institutions, and related areas such as academic publishing. Appropriate faculty member COI disclosure, attestation, annual updates, and transparency are important mitigation measures.

Pediatric interventional radiology workforce in North America: a descriptive analysis of demographics, educational backgrounds and scholarly activities

BACKGROUND

Pediatric interventional radiology has grown as an advanced subspecialty with increased demand, number and complexity of cases, and number of pediatric institutions offering a pediatric interventional radiology service. Despite the overall increase in the number of pediatric interventionalists over the past two decades, there is a heterogeneity in their academic backgrounds and a lack of uniform training pathways.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the demographics, academic backgrounds and scholarly activities of pediatric interventionalists across the United States (U.S.) and Canada.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A list of all members of the Society for Pediatric Interventional Radiology was obtained and pediatric interventionalists at academic and private practice institutions in the U.S. and Canada were included. Publicly available online sources were used to gather demographic and educational information about each pediatric interventionalist, which included the online curriculum vitae, the HealthGrades.com and Doximity.com websites, and Elsevier's Scopus database. Demographic and educational data including age, gender, educational background, additional degrees, academic rank, previous leadership positions, and metrics of scholarly activities were recorded. Fellowships in diagnostic pediatric radiology, adult interventional radiology and/or pediatric interventional radiology were recorded. Mann-Whitney U tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare differences between groups.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-five pediatric interventionalists were included, of whom 24 (19.2%) were female. The mean age was 48.6 years (standard deviation [SD]: 10.6, median: 45 years, range: 36-82 years). There was no statistical difference between median age for male versus female pediatric interventionalists (44.5 years vs. 45 years, P=0.89). A majority of pediatric interventionalists were American medical school graduates (96, 76.8%), while 29 (23.2%) were international medical graduates. Eighty-three percent (104) of the pediatric interventionalists completed diagnostic radiology residency training in the U.S., most commonly at the University of Cincinnati in Ohio (6.4%) and Washington University in St. Louis, MO (5.6%). Among fellowship training, pediatric interventionalists completed a pediatric radiology fellowship (61.6%), adult interventional radiology fellowship (40%) and/or a dedicated pediatric interventional radiology fellowship (57.6%). The mean±SD (median) publications, citations and Hirsch index (h-index) for pediatric interventionalists were 32±45 (12), 68±1,317 (120) and 9±10 (5), respectively. There was a statistically higher number of publications, citations and h-index with increasing academic rank at the assistant, associate and professor levels (P<0.001 for all groups). International medical graduate pediatric interventionalists had a higher, but not statistically significant, median publication count (26 vs. 11, P=0.0.25), citation count (236 vs. 93, P=0.36) and h-index (9.0 vs. 5, P=0.24) compared to pediatric interventional radiologists from American medical schools.

CONCLUSION

Pediatric interventionalists in North America are predominantly male, with about a quarter having graduated from international medical schools. Pediatric radiology fellowship, followed by pediatric interventional radiology fellowship, was the most frequently pursued training pathway.

Is Empowerment of Female Radiologists Still Needed? Findings of a Systematic Review

Considering that radiology is still a male-dominated specialty in which men make up more than two thirds of the workforce, this systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the current role of women in radiological imaging, focusing on the main aspects such as career progression, leadership, academic practice, and perceived discrimination. Three electronic databases were searched up to 21 October 2020. To identify additional records, weekly automatic email alerts were set up on PubMed until December 2020 and reference lists of key studies and included papers were screened. Two reviewers independently performed the search, study selection, quality appraisal, data extraction, and formal narrative synthesis. In case of disagreement, a third reviewer was involved. Across the 61 included articles, women worked more often part-time and held fewer positions of power in hospitals, on editorial boards, and at the academic level (associate and full professors). Women were less often in relevant positions in scientific articles, had fewer publications, and had a lower H-index. Discrimination and sexual harassment were experienced by up to 40% and 47% of female radiologists, respectively. Our study highlights that women in radiology are still underrepresented and play a marginal role in the field, struggling to reach top and leading positions.