» Articles » PMID: 28464140

Types and Distribution of Payments From Industry to Physicians in 2015

Overview
Journal JAMA
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2017 May 3
PMID 28464140
Citations 76
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Importance: Given scrutiny over financial conflicts of interest in health care, it is important to understand the types and distribution of industry-related payments to physicians.

Objective: To determine the types and distribution of industry-related payments to physicians in 2015 and the association of physician specialty and sex with receipt of payments from industry.

Design, Setting, And Participants: Observational, retrospective, population-based study of licensed US physicians (per National Plan & Provider Enumeration System) linked to 2015 Open Payments reports of industry payments. A total of 933 295 allopathic and osteopathic physicians. Outcomes were compared across specialties (surgery, primary care, specialists, interventionalists) and between 620 166 male (66.4%) and 313 129 female (33.6%) physicians using regression models adjusting for geographic Medicare-spending region and sole proprietorship.

Exposures: Physician specialty and sex.

Main Outcomes And Measures: Reported physician payment from industry (including nature, number, and value), categorized as general payments (including consulting fees and food and beverage), ownership interests (including stock options, partnership shares), royalty or license payments, and research payments. Associations between physician characteristics and reported receipt of payment.

Results: In 2015, 449 864 of 933 295 physicians (133 842 [29.8%] women), representing approximately 48% of all US physicians were reported to have received $2.4 billion in industry payments, including approximately $1.8 billion for general payments, $544 million for ownership interests, and $75 million for research payments. Compared with 47.7% of primary care physicians (205 830 of 431 819), 61.0% of surgeons (110 604 of 181 372) were reported as receiving general payments (absolute difference, 13.3%; 95% CI, 13.1-13.6; odds ratio [OR], 1.72; P < .001). Surgeons had a mean per-physician reported payment value of $6879 (95% CI, $5895-$7862) vs $2227 (95% CI, $2141-$2314) among primary care physicians (absolute difference, $4651; 95% CI, $4014-$5288). After adjusting for geographic spending region and sole proprietorship, men within each specialty had a higher odds of receiving general payments than did women: surgery, 62.5% vs 56.5% (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.26-1.31); primary care, 50.9% vs 43.0% (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.36-1.39); specialists, 36.3% vs 33.4% (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.13-1.17); and interventionalists, 58.1% vs 40.7% (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.97-2.10; P < .001 for all tests). Similarly, men reportedly received more royalty or license payments than did women: surgery, 1.2% vs 0.03% (OR, 43.20; 95% CI, 25.02-74.57); primary care, 0.02% vs 0.002% (OR, 9.34; 95% CI, 4.11-21.23); specialists, 0.08% vs 0.01% (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.71-7.89); and for interventionalists, 0.13% vs 0.04% (OR, 7.98; 95% CI, 2.87-22.19; P < .001 for all tests).

Conclusions And Relevance: According to data from 2015 Open Payments reports, 48% of physicians were reported to have received a total of $2.4 billion in industry-related payments, primarily general payments, with a higher likelihood and higher value of payments to physicians in surgical vs primary care specialties and to male vs female physicians.

Citing Articles

Industry Payments and Sentiments Toward Robotic Surgery Among US Physicians.

Loh W, Ibrahim A, Sheskey S, Stone C, Sheetz K JAMA Netw Open. 2025; 8(2):e2458552.

PMID: 39918820 PMC: 11806388. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.58552.


The physician payments Sunshine Act and medical oncology: a seven-year financial analysis.

Zhao X, Yang V, Ullah M, Schuweiler M, Zou J, Chen A Med Oncol. 2024; 42(1):20.

PMID: 39614949 DOI: 10.1007/s12032-024-02563-7.


Pharmaceutical industry payments to healthcare professional organisations in the United Kingdom: a seven-year cross-sectional analysis of the Disclosure UK database from 2015 to 2021.

Murayama A, Fabbri A, Scholfield H, Ozieranski P J R Soc Med. 2024; 118(1):16-25.

PMID: 39556206 PMC: 11574929. DOI: 10.1177/01410768241297441.


Non-research payments to board-certified cardiologists from pharmaceutical industry in Japan from 2016 to 2019: a retrospective analysis.

Murayama A, Higuchi K, Senoo Y BMJ Open. 2024; 14(7):e083445.

PMID: 39089711 PMC: 11293398. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083445.


Trends in Industry-Sponsored Research Payments to Physician Principal Investigators.

Su Z, Hammadeh Z, Cheaib J, Jing Y, Trock B, Han M JAMA Netw Open. 2024; 7(5):e2412432.

PMID: 38753332 PMC: 11099677. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.12432.


References
1.
Chren M, Landefeld C . Physicians' behavior and their interactions with drug companies. A controlled study of physicians who requested additions to a hospital drug formulary. JAMA. 1994; 271(9):684-9. View

2.
Rosenthal M, Mello M . Sunlight as disinfectant--new rules on disclosure of industry payments to physicians. N Engl J Med. 2013; 368(22):2052-4. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1305090. View

3.
Strope S, Daignault S, Hollingsworth J, Ye Z, Wei J, Hollenbeck B . Physician ownership of ambulatory surgery centers and practice patterns for urological surgery: evidence from the state of Florida. Med Care. 2009; 47(4):403-10. PMC: 2743534. DOI: 10.1097/mlr.0b013e31818af92e. View

4.
Bekelman J, Li Y, Gross C . Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003; 289(4):454-65. DOI: 10.1001/jama.289.4.454. View

5.
Bodenheimer T . Uneasy alliance--clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. N Engl J Med. 2000; 342(20):1539-44. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM200005183422024. View