A New Culture of Transparency: Industry Payments to Orthopedic Surgeons

Disparities in Industry Payments to Orthopedic Surgeons: A Retrospective Observational Analysis of Institutional Prestige and Financial Distribution

Financial relationships between orthopedic surgeons and industry partners shape innovation and surgical advancements, yet these payments are highly concentrated among a small subset of surgeons. This retrospective observational analysis examines industry payment disparities using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments Database for 2021, comparing payments between orthopedic surgeons affiliated with U.S. News & World Report (USNWR) top 10 orthopedic centers and those at large academic medical centers in the 25 most populous U.S. states. A total of 1,612 surgeons were included. Industry payments exhibited a right-skewed distribution, with a Gini coefficient of 0.91 for USNWR institutions and 0.93 for state-based academic centers, indicating significant financial stratification. Royalty and licensing fees accounted for 93.25% of payments exceeding $500,000, disproportionately benefiting surgeons at USNWR-ranked institutions. Surgeons at these institutions had 3.01 times higher odds of receiving over $500,000 in payments compared to those at state medical centers (OR = 3.01, 95% CI: 1.50-6.04, p < 0.001). Geographic disparities were also significant, with payments concentrated in states housing top-tier orthopedic programs. These findings highlight the role of institutional prestige in industry compensation and raise ethical considerations regarding equity in financial relationships and access to industry collaborations.

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.

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.

Contemporary Analysis of Inconsistencies Between Physician-reported Disclosures at the AAOS Annual Meeting and Industry-reported Financial Disclosures in the Open Payments Database

Introduction:

Healthcare regulators and patients are increasingly interested in financial transparency between physicians and the industry because of concerns of bias.

Methods:

Disclosures for every first and last author with a medical degree from the United States associated with a poster or podium presentation at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) 2019 Annual Meeting were identified. Author characteristics were collected. AAOS disclosures were then compared with disclosures from the Open Payments Database to determine whether any inconsistencies existed.

Results:

In total, 2,503 AAOS presenters were identified, and 1,380 authors met the inclusion criteria. Using AAOS disclosures as the standard comparator, 482 authors (35%) had an inconsistency in any category between AAOS disclosures and the Open Payments Database. Inconsistency rates for each category were 8% for royalties, 10% for speaker's fee, 15% for paid consultant, 16% for research, 14% for stocks, and 1% for other financial support.

Discussion:

Although the inconsistency rate for each category has improved over the years, the overall inconsistency rate between physician-reported disclosures at a recent AAOS Annual Meeting and industry-reported relationships reported in the Open Payments Database was still 35%.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Although multiple studies have consistently demonstrated that orthopaedic surgeons receive greater transfers of value than other specialties, the industry payments of providers who are involved in the formation of practice guidelines have not been thoroughly explored. Therefore, the purpose of our analysis was to evaluate the industry payments of the authors of the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS).

METHODS

The publicly available AAOS web portal (OrthoGuidelines.org) was queried for all AUCs that had been released between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2019, regarding the management of musculoskeletal pathologies. A cross-sectional analysis of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments database was conducted to determine the number and total value of industry payments to AUC voting committee members during the year of voting for the AUC. Industry payments for each orthopaedic surgeon voting member were compared with payments received by orthopaedic surgeons nationwide who received any payment within the same year. The proportion of orthopaedic surgeon voting members who received any industry payment was compared with the proportion of orthopaedic surgeons nationwide who received payments.

RESULTS

Our analysis included a total of 18 different AUCs with 216 voting members, 157 of whom were orthopaedic surgeons. Of the orthopaedic surgeon voting members, 105 (67%) received industry payments, a rate roughly comparable with the national average among orthopaedic surgeons (74%). For 7 of 18 AUCs (39%), the median payment per orthopaedic surgeon voting member was above the median among orthopaedic surgeons receiving payments nationwide that year. Qualitatively, orthopaedic surgeon voting members were more likely to receive payments in the form of royalties, licenses, or speaking fees than orthopaedic surgeons nationwide.

CONCLUSIONS

AUC voting members receive payments at frequencies and magnitudes that are roughly comparable with orthopaedic surgeons nationwide. Whether voting panel members receiving payments at these rates is ideal or is in the best interest of patients is a policy decision for the AAOS and society at large. Our study confirms that payments are common and, thus, continued vigilance is justified.

Orthopaedic Trauma Surgeons' Financial Relationships With Industry: An Analysis of the Sunshine Act Reporting of Physician Open Payments From 2014 to 2019

INTRODUCTION

Orthopaedic trauma surgeons have an intricate relationship with the medical device industry. In the past decade, legislation has created transparency of monetary exchanges between physicians and industry. In 2013, the Physician Payments Sunshine Act was passed and ultimately led to the creation of the Open Payments Database. The purpose of this study was to evaluate trends in industry payments to orthopaedic trauma surgeons.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Open Payments Database was conducted for general industry payments to orthopaedic trauma surgeons from 2014 to 2019. Total payments and subtype payments were analyzed for yearly trends. All payments were converted to 2019 US dollars to adjust for inflation. Descriptive statistics included analysis of payments, number of surgeons, types of payments, top contributing companies, and regional comparisons. Trends were assessed through the Jonckheere-Terpstra test. Statistical significance was defined at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

From 2014 to 2019, 45,312 individual payments were given to orthopaedic trauma surgeons (N = 3208) accounting for a total of $41,376,397.85 (USD), with a mean of $919.54 per payment. Increased trends were noted for median annual payments, number of payments, and number of surgeons receiving payments. Compared with 2014 ($460.91), median payments were increased by 90.9% in 2016 ($879.85), 102.6% in 2018 ($933.81), and 178.6% in 2019 ($1284.06). Payment subtypes that demonstrated increasing median payments included consulting fees (P = 0.028); education (P < 0.001); entertainment, food, and beverage (P < 0.001); and travel (P = 0.019). Decreases in median payments were seen in royalties (P = 0.044) and grant funding (P < 0.001). Regional comparisons demonstrated increasing trends in median payments in the midwest (P = 0.011), south (P < 0.001), and west (P = 0.003), but not in the northeast (P = 0.081).

DISCUSSION

In our study, we found that industry payments to orthopaedic trauma surgeons were increasing markedly between 2014 and 2019, particularly among consulting fees, education, entertainment, food and beverage, and travel.

Perceptions of Financial Conflict of Interest and Knowledge of the Sunshine Act Among Orthopedic Surgery Patients

The orthopedic surgical specialty is strongly tied to partnerships with industry that have fostered innovation and greatly enhanced patient care. A substantial number of orthopedic surgeons currently receive some form of industry support. These relationships are highly scrutinized because they present the possibility of both personal and financial conflicts of interest (COI). The authors examined orthopedic patients' awareness of existing regulation and perceptions of financial COI by performing a prospective survey-based study of patients seen in an academic orthopedic department. Data were collected during 1 year, in a cross-section of hospital-based and community clinical settings. The authors collected 513 surveys during a 1-year period between 4 clinical locations. Of all respondents, 55% were unconcerned regarding gifts or direct compensation their physicians received from industry, and only 16% were very or extremely concerned regarding these benefits. Patients' opinions regarding possible influence of benefits were similarly ambivalent, with 54% of patients minimally or not at all concerned regarding the potential influence of industry gifts or compensation. Seventy-six percent of patients had never heard of the Sunshine Act, and only 3% indicated that they were aware of the legislation and its intention. The income of the respondents and their level of education were positively correlated with increased concern about handling of COI, as well as knowledge regarding the Sunshine Act. These data suggest that orthopedic surgery patients are widely unconcerned regarding physician COI, but specific subsets of patients may be more likely to have concerns regarding these relationships. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(5):e682-e686.].

Review of Industry Payments to General Orthopaedic Surgeons Reported by the Open Payments Database: 2014 to 2019

Introduction:

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act was placed into law in 2010 in an effort to create transparency between physicians and industry. Along with many other specialties, orthopaedic surgeons have long worked intimately with medical industry companies. This study aimed to evaluate trends in industry payments to general orthopaedic surgeons from 2014 to 2019.

Methods:

A retrospective review of the Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services' Open Payments Database was done to identify all industry payments to all general orthopaedic surgeons (ie, not subspecialty affiliated) from 2014 to 2019. The researchers analyzed total payments and subtype payments for yearly trends, and a regional analysis was done. The primary outcome was the overall trend in total median payments, which was assessed through the Jonckheere-Terpstra test. Descriptive statistics include medians with interquartile ranges. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

Between 2014 and 2019, a total of 1,330,543 payments totaling $1.79 billion dollars was paid to 108,041 general orthopaedic surgeons. During this time, the number of surgeons receiving payments increased with a significant uptrend in median payments per surgeon (P < 0.001; Table 1). The top 25% percentile of general orthopaedic surgeons received >95% of payments, whereas the bottom 25% received <0.1%. The general payment types all saw significant increases (P < 0.001) between 2014 and 2019, with the exception of “Ownership or Investment Interests” (P = 0.657) and “Royalty or License” (P = 0.517). Significant regional uptrends in median industry payments were also seen in the Midwest, Northeast, South, and West (P < 0.001). Four of the top five orthopaedic industry companies made payment increases between 2014 and 2019.

Conclusion:

Industry payments to general orthopaedic surgeons between 2014 and 2019 have increased with a considerable disparity in payments among the top-paid orthopaedic surgeons.

Relationship between industry royalty and licensing payments and patent authorship among orthopedic spine surgeons

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires manufacturers of drugs, medical devices, medical supplies, and biologics to record all financial relationships with physicians in the Open Payments database with the goal of increasing transparency for patients and the general public. The majority of total money going to orthopedic surgeons has been found to go to a small number of surgeons in the form of royalties and licensing payments. This category of payment is intended to compensate physicians for use of their intellectual property. However, little research has been done to investigate the degree to which these physicians own intellectual property.

PURPOSE

To the authors' knowledge, the association between patents and industry payments to orthopedic surgeons has not been explored. We quantify the association between the patents and academic productivity of orthopedic spine surgeons and the amount of royalty and licensing fees they receive. We then compared this with the associations observed for other categories of payments.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study METHODS: Top royalty and licensing earners, defined as those who collectively earned 50% of all royalty and licensing payments over the period August 2013-December 2018, were identified. The h-index, publication count, and patent count of this group were compared with top earners of other payment categories using the Mann-Whitney U test. The association between (1) earnings and patent counts, (2) earnings and manuscript counts, and (3) earnings and h-index among the top royalty and licensing earners was assessed using Spearman correlation.

RESULTS

Top royalty and licensing earners had significantly more patents than every comparison group except the top earners of money derived from ownership in a biomedical company. For this one exception, there was a trend toward the top eight royalty and licensing earners having more patents (p=.054). The top royalty and licensing earners had significantly more manuscripts than three of the five comparison groups and significantly higher h-indices than four of the five comparison groups. Among the top royalty and licensing earners, receiving more royalty and licensing payments was associated with holding more patents, but not with publishing more papers or having higher h-indices.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a strong association between the number of patents authored by individual orthopedic spine surgeons and the amount of royalty and licensing fees they receive from industry. This supports the hypothesis that these payments serve as compensation to inventor-surgeons for their intellectual property.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Our findings provide new, important context for the largest category of industry payments to orthopedic spine surgeons and suggests that physicians' patents should be considered when evaluating financial transactions between industry and physicians.

Center Reputation and Experience Relate to Industry Payments to Congenital Heart Disease Providers

BACKGROUND

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act was enacted to understand financial relationships with industry that might influence provider decisions. We investigated how industry payments within the congenital heart community relate to experience and reputation.

METHODS

Congenital cardiothoracic surgeons and pediatric cardiologists were identified from the Open Payments Database. All payments from 2013 through 2017 were matched to affiliated hospitals' U.S. News & World Report (USNWR) rankings, The Society of Thoracic Surgeons-Congenital Heart Surgery Public Reporting Star Ratings, and Optum Center of Excellence (COE) designation. Surgeon payments were linked to years since terminal training. Univariable analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The median payment amount per surgeon ($71; interquartile range [IQR], $41-$99) was nearly double the median payment amount per cardiologist ($41; IQR, $18-$84; P < .05). For surgeons, median individual payment was 56% higher to payees at USNWR top 10 children's hospitals ($100; IQR, $28-$203) vs all others ($64; IQR, $23-$140; P < .001). For cardiologists, median individual payment was 26% higher to payees at USNWR top 10 children's hospitals ($73; IQR, $28-$197) vs all others ($58; IQR, $19-$140; P < .001). Findings were similar across The Society of Thoracic Surgeons-Congenital Heart Surgery star rankings and Optum Center of Excellence groups. By surgeon experience, surgeons 0 to 6 years posttraining (first quartile) received the highest number of median payments per surgeon (17 payments; IQR, 6.5-28 payments; P < .001). Surgeons 21 to 44 years posttraining (fourth quartile) received the lowest median individual payment ($51; IQR, $20-132; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Industry payments vary by hospital reputation and provider experience. Such biases must be understood for self-governance and the delineation of conflict of interest policies that balance industry relationships with clinical innovation.

Undisclosed Conflict of Interest Is Prevalent in Spine Literature

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the rate of accurate conflict of interest (COI) disclosure within three prominent subspecialty Spine journals during a 4-year period.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Industry-physician relationships are crucial for technological advancement in spine surgery but serve as a source of bias in biomedical research. The Open Payments Database (OPD) was established after 2010 to increase financial transparency.

METHODS

All research articles published from 2014 to 2017 in Spine, The Spine Journal (TSJ), and the Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine (JNS) were reviewed in this study. In these articles, all author's COI statements were recorded. The OPD was queried for all author entries within the disclose period of the journal. Discrepancies between the author's self-reported COIs and the documented COIs from OPD were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 6816 articles meeting inclusion criteria between 2014 and 2017 in Spine, TSJ, and JNS with 39,869 contributing authors. Overall, 15.8% of all authors were found to have an OPD financial relationship. Of 2633 authors in Spine with financial disclosures, 77.1% had accurate financial disclosures; 42.5% and 41.0% of authors with financial relationships in the OPD had accurate financial disclosures in TSJ and JNS, respectively. The total value of undisclosed conflicts of interest between 2014 and 2017 was $421 million with $1.48 billion in accurate disclosures. Of undisclosed payments, 68.7% were <$1000 and only 7.2% were >$10,000. Undisclosed payments included $180 million in research funding and $188 million in royalties.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that undisclosed COI is highly prevalent for authors in major Spine journals. This study indicates that there remains a need to standardize definitions and financial thresholds for significant COI as well as to shift the reporting burden for COI to journals who actively review potential COIs instead of relying on self-reporting.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Ten Years of Sports Health: Authorship Characteristics and Levels of Evidence

CONTEXT

Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach, now 10 years into production, has been ranked a top-25 journal in sport sciences and has tripled its impact throughout its existence.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate authorship trends and levels of evidence (LOE) of articles published in Sports Health from 2009 to 2018. The secondary aim was to analyze funding sources and internationalization throughout the journal's tenure.

DATA SOURCES

All clinical studies published in Sports Health between the years 2009 and 2018 were examined.

STUDY SELECTION

All publications from the provided years were electronically reviewed by 2 reviewers and evaluated for inclusion criteria. Editorials, society news, memorials, letters to the editor, and corrigenda were excluded.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 5.

DATA EXTRACTION

Articles were examined for number of authors, presence of female authorship, funding, country of origin, international collaboration, academic degree or certification of first and senior authors, and LOE. Clinical articles were assigned LOE based on guidelines from the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.

RESULTS

A total of 654 articles were examined. The percentage of high-LOE studies increased throughout the study period. The percentage of publications with female authors also increased throughout the study period. The mean number of authors per article increased from 3.2 to 4.6 over the 10-year period (P < 0.05). The percentage of publications with international collaboration stayed consistent, while the number of countries per year increased during the study period. Overall, institutions from 23 countries have published in Sports Health since its inception to the time of this study.

CONCLUSION

Female authorship in Sports Health surpasses industry standards, and the percentage of high-LOE studies remains remarkably high. Sports Health has stayed true to its multidisciplinary scope, as evidenced by the authors' varying degrees and numerous countries that publish in the journal.

The Role of Gender, Academic Affiliation, and Subspecialty in Relation to Industry Payments to Orthopaedic Surgeons

BACKGROUND

The Physician-Payments-Sunshine-Act (PPSA) was introduced in 2010 to provide transparency regarding physician-industry payments by making these payments publicly available. Given potential ethical implications, it is important to understand how these payments are being distributed, particularly as the women orthopaedic workforce increases. The purpose of this study was thus to determine the role of gender and academic affiliation in relation to industry payments within the orthopaedic subspecialties.

METHODS

The PPSA website was used to abstract industry payments to Orthopaedic surgeons. The internet was then queried to identify each surgeon's professional listing and gender. Mann-Whitney U, Chi-square tests, and multivariable regression were used to explore the relationships. Significance was set at a value of P < 0.05.

RESULTS

In total, 22,352 orthopaedic surgeons were included in the study. Payments were compared between 21,053 men and 1299 women, 2756 academic and 19,596 community surgeons, and across orthopaedic subspecialties. Women surgeons received smaller research and non-research payments than men (both, P < 0.001). There was a larger percentage of women in academics than men (15.9% vs 12.1%, P < 0.001). Subspecialties with a higher percentage of women (Foot & Ankle, Hand, and Pediatrics) were also the subspecialties with the lowest mean industry payments (all P < 0.001). Academic surgeons on average, received larger research and non-research industry payments, than community surgeons (both, P < 0.001). Multivariable linear regression demonstrated that male gender (P = 0.006, P = 0.029), adult reconstruction (both, P < 0.001) and spine (P = 0.008, P < 0.001) subspecialties, and academic rank (both, P < 0.001) were independent predictors of larger industry research and non-research payments.

CONCLUSIONS

A large proportion of the US orthopaedic surgeon workforce received industry payments in 2014. Academic surgeons received larger payments than community surgeons. Despite having a larger percentage of surgeons in academia, women surgeons received lower payments than their male counterparts. Women also had a larger representation in the subspecialties with the lowest payments.

Disclosures Undisclosed

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments public database, resulting from the Physician Payments Sunshine Act of 2010, was designed to increase transparency of physicians' financial relationships with pharmaceutical manufacturers. We compared physician-reported conflict-of-interest (COI) disclosures in journal articles with this database to determine any discrepancies in physician-reported disclosures.

METHODS

COIs reported by authors from 2014 through 2016 were analyzed in 3 journals: Foot & Ankle International (FAI), The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (JBJS), and The Journal of Arthroplasty (JOA). Payment information in the CMS Open Payments database was cross-referenced with each author's disclosure statement to determine if a disclosure discrepancy was present.

RESULTS

We reviewed 3,465 authorship positions (1,932 unique authors) in 1,770 articles. Within this sample, 7.1% of authorships had a recorded undisclosed COI (disclosure discrepancy), and 13.2% of articles had first and/or last authors with a disclosure discrepancy. Additionally, we saw a great variation in the percentage of authorships with disclosure discrepancies among the journals (JBJS, 2.3%; JOA, 3.6%; and FAI, 23.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Discrepancies exist between payment disclosures made by authors and those published in the CMS Open Payments database. Although the percentage of articles with these discrepancies varies widely among the journals that were analyzed in this study, no trend was found when analyzing the number of discrepancies over the 3-year period.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

COI disclosures are important for the interpretation of study results and need to be accurately reported. However, COI disclosure criteria vary among orthopaedic journals, causing uncertainty regarding which conflicts should be disclosed.

Mining Open Payments Data: Analysis of Industry Payments to Thoracic Surgeons From 2014-2016

Background

The financial relationship between physicians and industries has become a hotly debated issue globally. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act of the US Affordable Care Act (2010) promoted transparency of the transactions between industries and physicians by making remuneration data publicly accessible in the Open Payments Program database. Meanwhile, according to the World Health Organization, the majority of all noncommunicable disease deaths were caused by cardiovascular disease.

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the distribution of non-research and non-ownership payments made to thoracic surgeons, to explore the regularity of financial relationships between industries and thoracic surgeons.

Methods

Annual statistical data were obtained from the Open Payments Program general payment dataset from 2014-2016. We characterized the distribution of annual payments with single payment transactions greater than US $10,000, quantified the major expense categories (eg, Compensation, Consulting Fees, Travel and Lodging), and identified the 30 highest-paying industries. Moreover, we drew out the financial relations between industries to thoracic surgeons using chord diagram visualization.

Results

The three highest categories with single payments greater than US $10,000 were Royalty or License, Compensation, and Consulting Fees. Payments related to Royalty or License transferred from only 5.38% of industries to 0.75% of surgeons with the highest median (US $13,753, $11,992, and $10,614 respectively) in 3-year period. In contrast, payments related to Food and Beverage transferred from 93.50% of industries to 98.48% of surgeons with the lowest median (US $28, $27, and $27). The top 30 highest-paying industries made up approximately 90% of the total payments (US $21,036,972, $23,304,996, and $28,116,336). Furthermore, just under 9% of surgeons received approximately 80% of the total payments in each of the 3 years. Specifically, the 100 highest cumulative payments, accounting for 52.69% of the total, transferred from 27 (6.05%) pharmaceutical industries to 86 (1.89%) thoracic surgeons from 2014-2016; 7 surgeons received payments greater than US $1,000,000; 12 surgeons received payments greater than US $400,000. The majority (90%) of these surgeons received tremendous value from only one industry.

Conclusions

There exists a great discrepancy in the distribution of payments by categories. Royalty or License Fees, Compensation, and Consulting Fees are the primary transferring channels of single large payments. The massive transfer from industries to surgeons has a strong “apical dominance” and excludability. Further research should focus on discovering the fundamental driving factors for the strong concentration of certain medical devices and how these payments will affect the industry itself.

The Middle East and Africa Code of Promotional Practices in the Pharmaceutical Industry

The pharmaceutical industry is known for investing heavily in promotions targeted at healthcare professionals (HCPs). Governments around the world try to regulate unwanted promotional practices in different ways. Where binding laws are in place in the U.S.A., European governments favor self-regulation. The purpose of this research is the evaluation of the Middle East and Africa Code of Promotional Practices (MEACPP) as a preliminary draft and its implications. Our paper fills a research gap by looking into the perceptions of the parties involved, analyzing their interests, and predicting possible outcomes. We used a mixed-method approach. Interviews were conducted with pharmaceutical companies and associations; while a questionnaire was administered to HCPs. Our findings suggest that all parties are in favor of more transparency. However, when it comes to disclosing the received financial support, the HCPs are hesitant. An estimated 20% would be willing to fully disclose their received benefits, which is in line with their European colleagues. Multinational pharmaceutical companies follow their own in-house standards and fear being at a competitive disadvantage when local companies can promote their drugs without any strings attached. MEA pharmaceutical companies do not see the potential benefits of analyzing the publicly available data to identify key opinion leaders (KOLs). The limitation of our research is the fact that the MEACPP has not been implemented yet and survey results are therefore based on expectations rather than real events.

Academic Influence and Its Relationship to Industry Payments in Orthopaedic Surgery

BACKGROUND

The Hirsch index (h-index) quantifies research publication productivity for an individual, and has widely been considered a valuable measure of academic influence. In 2010, the Physician Payments Sunshine Act (PPSA) was introduced as a way to increase transparency regarding U.S. physician-industry relationships. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between industry payments and academic influence as measured by the h-index and number of publications among orthopaedic surgeons. We also examined the relationship of the h-index to National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding.

METHODS

The h-indices of faculty members at academic orthopaedic surgery residency programs were obtained using the Scopus database. The PPSA web site was used to abstract their 2014 industry payments. NIH funding data were obtained from the NIH web site. Mann-Whitney U testing and Spearman correlations were used to explore the relationships.

RESULTS

Of 3,501 surgeons, 78.3% received nonresearch payments, 9.2% received research payments, and 0.9% received NIH support. Nonresearch payments ranged from $6 to $4,538,501, whereas research payments ranged from $16 to $517,007. Surgeons receiving NIH or industry research funding had a significantly higher mean h-index and number of publications than those not receiving such funding. Surgeons receiving nonresearch industry payments had a slightly higher mean h-index and number of publications than those not receiving these kinds of payments. Both the h-index and the number of publications had weak positive correlations with industry nonresearch payment amount, industry research payment amount, and total number of industry payments.

CONCLUSIONS

There are large differences in industry payment size and distribution among academic surgeons. The small percentage of academic surgeons who receive industry research support or NIH funding tend to have higher h-indices. For the overall population of orthopaedic surgery faculty, the h-index correlates poorly with the dollar amount and the total number of industry research payments. Regarding nonresearch industry payments, the h-index also appears to correlate poorly with the number and the dollar amount of payments. These results are encouraging because they suggest that industry bias may play a smaller role in the orthopaedic literature than previously thought.

Increasing Industry Support Is Associated with Higher Research Productivity in Orthopaedic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Orthopaedic surgeons receive a disproportionately small share of funding from the National Institutes of Health, but they receive the largest amount of funding from industry sources. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between payments from industry partners and research productivity among orthopaedic research authors, as well as to identify predictors of high research productivity.

METHODS

United States-based physicians who published an article in 2016 in The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery or The American Journal of Sports Medicine were included in this study. These authors were queried in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database (OPD) to determine the amount of industry payments received, and on Scopus, a bibliometric web site, to assess the quantity (total publication count) and quality (Hirsch index [h-index]) of each author's research. Nonparametric testing was used to compare the h-index and the total publication count of authors by payments received and academic position. Multivariate regression was used to identify independent predictors of high research productivity.

RESULTS

Of the 766 included authors, 494 (64.5%) received <$10,000 per year, 162 (21.1%) received between $10,000 and $100,000, and 110 (14.4%) received >$100,000 in total payments. The h-index increased significantly from a mean (and standard deviation) of 13.1 ± 12.9 to 20.9 ± 14.4, and to 32.3 ± 16.7, from the lowest to highest payment cohorts, as did total publication count. When authors were stratified by academic position (assistant professor, associate professor, full professor, and nonacademic), those who received more industry payments (>$100,000) had a higher h-index and total publication count at all academic levels relative to lower-earning (<$10,000) authors. Independent predictors of a high h-index included industry payments of between $10,000 and $100,000 (odds ratio [OR], 1.63; p = 0.048), payments of >$100,000 (OR, 5.87), associate professorship (OR, 6.53), full professorship (OR, 33.38), and last authorship (OR, 2.22) (p < 0.001 for all comparisons unless otherwise noted).

CONCLUSIONS

Although this study does not establish a causal relationship, we identified increasing industry payments as an independent predictor of research productivity among authors at all academic levels who had published peer-reviewed orthopaedic research.

Accuracy Between AJSM Author-Reported Disclosures and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database

BACKGROUND

Inaccurate disclosures of physician and industry relationships in scientific reporting may create an asymmetry of information by hiding potential biases. The accuracy of conflict of interest disclosure in sports medicine research is unknown.

PURPOSE

To compare author financial disclosures in published articles in 2016 in the American Journal of Sports Medicine ( AJSM) with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Open Payments Database (OPD) to determine the percentage of payments values and percentage of eligible authors with discrepancies.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study; no level of evidence (nonclinical).

METHODS

All articles published in 2016 in AJSM were screened to identify eligible authors. On the basis of OPD reporting, physician authors affiliated with a US institution were included. Stated disclosures in AJSM publications for these authors were identified and compared with industry-reported payments on OPD.

RESULTS

A total of 434 authors were included in this study. Mean and median total payments per author per year were $76,941 and $1692, respectively. The most commonly received payment was for food and beverage (81.3% of authors), followed by travel and lodging (45.4%) and consulting (31.8%). Authors with higher total payments were less likely to be discrepant in their reporting-notably, authors earning >$500,000 had 16.1% of payment values with discrepancy, as opposed to 85.3% for those earning <$10,000 ( P < .001). First authors had a lower percentage of payment values with discrepancy (13.8%) versus middle authors (31.9%, P = .001). Finally, men had a lower percentage of payment values with discrepancy (418 authors, 22.3% of payment values with discrepancy) as compared with women (16 authors, 95.3%; P < .001). Regarding industry payments specifically requested on the AJSM disclosure form for authors (royalties, consulting, research payments, and ownership and investments), only 25.3% of authors had a discrepancy in these payment categories in aggregate.

CONCLUSION

Discrepancies exist between disclosures reported by authors publishing in AJSM and what is reported in the OPD. Authors receiving lower total payments, middle authors, and women are more likely to have disclosure discrepancies. Additionally, industry research funding support and ownership interest are most likely to go unreported. However, this study did not assess whether authors with industry payments preferentially published studies pertaining to products from companies from which they received funding. As national registries such as the OPD are increasingly utilized, physicians may benefit from referencing such databases before submitting conflict of interest disclosures.

Assessment of Nonresearch Industry Payments to Otolaryngologists in 2014 and 2015

Objective

To characterize, describe, and compare nonresearch industry payments made to otolaryngologists in 2014 and 2015. Additionally, to describe industry payment variation within otolaryngology and among other surgical specialties.

Study Design

Retrospective cross-sectional database analysis.

Setting

Open Payments Database.

Subjects and Methods

Nonresearch payments made to US otolaryngologists were characterized and compared by payment amount, nature of payment, sponsor, and census region between 2014 and 2015. Payments in otolaryngology were compared with those in other surgical specialties.

Results

From 2014 to 2015, there was an increase in the number of compensated otolaryngologists (7903 vs 7946) and in the mean payment per compensated otolaryngologist ($1096 vs $1242), as well as a decrease in the median payment per compensated otolaryngologist ($169 vs $165, P = .274). Approximately 90% of total payments made in both years were attributed to food and beverage. Northeast census region otolaryngologists received the highest median payment in 2014 and 2015. Compared with other surgical specialists, otolaryngologists received the lowest mean payment in 2014 and 2015 and the second-lowest and lowest median payment in 2014 and 2015, respectively.

Conclusion

The increase in the mean payment and number of compensated otolaryngologists can be explained by normal annual variation, stronger industry-otolaryngologist relationships, or improved reporting; additional years of data and improved public awareness of the Sunshine Act will facilitate determining long-term trends. The large change in disparity between the mean and median from 2014 to 2015 suggests greater payment variation. Otolaryngologists continue to demonstrate limited industry ties when compared with other surgical specialists.

Physician preference items: what factors matter to surgeons? Does the vendor matter?

Background

The USA devotes roughly $200 billion (6%) of annual national health expenditures to medical devices. A substantial proportion of this spending occurs during orthopedic (eg, hip and knee) arthroplasties – two high-volume hospital procedures. The implants used in these procedures are commonly known as physician preference items (PPIs), reflecting the physician’s choice of implant and vendor used. The foundations for this preference are not entirely clear. This study examines what implant and vendor characteristics, as evaluated by orthopedic surgeons, are associated with their preference. It also examines other factors (eg, financial relationships and vendor tenure) that may contribute to implant preference.

Methods

We surveyed all practicing orthopedic surgeons performing 12 or more implant procedures annually in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The survey identified each surgeon’s preferred hip/knee vendor as well as the factors that surgeons state they use in selecting that primary vendor. We compared the surgeons’ evaluation of multiple characteristics of implants and vendors using analysis of variance techniques, controlling for surgeon characteristics, hospital characteristics, and surgeon–vendor ties that might influence these evaluations.

Results

Physician’s preference is heavily influenced by technology/implant factors and sales/service factors. Other considerations such as vendor reputation, financial relationships with the vendor, and implant cost seem less important. These findings hold regardless of implant type (hip vs knee) and specific vendor.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that there is a great deal of consistency in the factors that surgeons state they use to evaluate PPIs such as hip and knee implants. The findings offer an empirically derived definition of PPIs that is consistent with the product and nonproduct strategies pursued by medical device companies. PPIs are products that surgeons rate favorably on the twin dimensions of technology and sales/service.