Introduction: In August 2013, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments Program (OPP) made eligible payment information publicly available. Data about industry payments to neuromuscular neurologists are lacking. Method: Financial relationships were investigated between industry and US neuromuscular neurologists from January 2014 through December 2018 using the CMS OPP database. Results: The total annual payments increased more than 6-fold during the study period. The top 10% of physician-beneficiaries collected 80% to 90% of total industry payments except in 2014. In 2018, the most common drugs associated with payments to neuromuscular neurologists were nusinersen, vortioxetine, eteplirsen, alglucosidase alpha, edaravone, and intravenous immunoglobulin. Discussion: A substantial increase in the annual payments to neuromuscular physicians during the study period is likely due to the development of new treatments, including gene therapy. K E Y W O R D S clinical, health economics, neuromuscular, neuromuscular disorder, open payment 1 | INTRODUCTION Collaborations between physicians and the healthcare industry are ubiquitous. Approximately 94% of US physicians report some type of relationship with the industry, ranging from receiving food to receiving payments for various services. 1 Although such collaborations support the clinical and laboratory research needed to develop more effective therapies, they also carry potential conflicts of interest that may influence research outcomes and clinical decision making. For example, compared with nonindustry-sponsored studies, industry-sponsored research tends to show more favorable results and less evidence of harm. 2 Receipt of industry-sponsored meals is associated with increased brand-name drug prescription. 3 Not managing these conflicts of interest may undermine the integrity of medical research, place patient welfare at risk, and erode patient trust, thus undermining the physician responsibilities outlined in the Charter on Medical Professionalism. 4 Given the concern for industry-physician financial relationships, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite the neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS) epidemic in the United States, evidence is limited for pharmacologic management when first-line opioid medications fail to control symptoms. The objective with this study was to evaluate outcomes of infants receiving secondary therapy with phenobarbital compared with clonidine, in combination with morphine, for the treatment of NOWS. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of infants with NOWS from 30 hospitals. The primary outcome measures were the length of hospital stay, duration of opioid treatment, and peak morphine dose. Outcomes were compared by group by using analysis of variance and multivariable linear regression controlling for relevant confounders. RESULTS: Of 563 infants with NOWS treated with morphine, 32% (n = 180) also received a secondary medication. Seventy-two received phenobarbital and 108 received clonidine. After adjustment for covariates, length of hospital stay was 10 days shorter, and, in some models, duration of morphine treatment was 7.5 days shorter in infants receiving phenobarbital compared with those receiving clonidine, with no difference in peak morphine dose. Infants were more likely to be discharged from the hospital on phenobarbital than clonidine (78% vs 29%, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Among infants with NOWS receiving morphine and secondary therapy, those treated with phenobarbital had shorter length of hospital stay and shorter morphine treatment duration than clonidine-treated infants but were discharged from the hospital more often on secondary medication. Further investigation is warranted to determine if the benefits of shorter hospital stay and shorter duration of morphine therapy justify the possible neurodevelopmental consequences of phenobarbital use in infants with NOWS.

Background Industry payments to physicians raise concerns about conflicts of interest that have the potential to impact patient care. In this study, we explored nonresearch and nonownership payments from industry to nephrologists to identify trends in compensation. Methodology Using data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), we explored financial relationships between industry and US nephrologists from 2014 to 2018. We analyzed payment characteristics including payment categories, payment distribution among physicians, regional trends, and biomedical manufacturers. Results In this retrospective study, a total of $75,174,999 was paid to nephrologists in the United States during the study period (i.e., 2014-2018). The number of board-certified nephrologists receiving payment from the industry increased from 11,642 in 2014 to 13,297 in 2018. Among board-certified nephrologists, 56% to 63% received industry payments during the study period. The total payments to nephrologists increased from $13,113,512 in 2014 to $16,467,945 in 2017, with consulting fees (24%) and compensation for services other than consulting (35%) being the highest-paid categories. The top 10% of physician beneficiaries collected 90% of the total industry payments. Conclusions A small proportion of US nephrologists consistently received the majority of industry payments, the value of which grew over the study period.

BackgroundThe lack of an adequate number of neurologists is a worldwide problem. As populations age, the prevalence of neurological disorders will likely increase, thereby increasing the demand for neurologists. In addition to the growing demand, inadequate diversity in the neurology healthcare workforce still exists. The purpose of this study is to examine the demographic characteristics of neurology residents and fellows. MethodologyThis cross-sectional study used data from the following publicly available databases: Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, Association of American Medical Colleges, and the United States Census Bureau. Trends (from 2007 to 2018) in demographic characteristics were assessed using the slope and the associated p-value of a simple linear regression model, with the year as the independent variable. All pvalues of <0.05 were considered significant. ResultsFrom 2007 through 2018, the percentage of US medical school graduates in neurology residency decreased from 58% to 55% (slope = -0.25; p = 0.0004), while the percentage of international medical graduates (IMGs) decreased from 36% to 32% (slope = -0.29; p = 0.0141) and doctor of osteopathy (DO) graduates increased from 6% to 13% (slope = 0.58; p < 0.0001). Although the percentage of female neurology residents increased from 39.5% in 2007 to 43.1% in 2018 (slope = 0.03; p = 0.8659), female physicians were underrepresented in vascular neurology fellowship (34% in 2018). Collectively, the percentage of underrepresented minorities in neurology residencies was low and increased only slightly over time (from 8% in 2011 to 9% in 2018; slope = 0.17; p = 0.0788). In 2018, the proportion of underrepresented minorities was smaller in neurology fellowships (5.5% neurophysiology, 12.5% epilepsy, 10.4% neuromuscular, and 12.4% vascular) compared to the population as a whole (31.3%). ConclusionsIMGs still play an important role in filling a significant portion of the neurology residencies and fellowships. DO graduates have slowly increased in neurology residencies and fellowships. Members of several racial/ethnic minority groups and women are underrepresented in neurology house staff and efforts need to be taken to increase diversity.

We analysed Open Payments programme data (https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov) on industry‐to‐physician payments to hospitalists for the years 2014 to 2018. Payments to hospitalists increased by 106.5% from 2014 to 2018 with food and beverage (38.5%) and compensation for services other than consulting (24.3%) being the highest‐paid categories. Industry payment to hospitalists was highly skewed with top 10 hospitalists receiving more than 30% of the total payments during the study period. The most common drugs associated with payments were anticoagulant medications (apixaban and rivaroxaban). Industry seems to be spending a significant amount of money to increase awareness of medications among hospitalists. Identification of these trends and potential motives of industry spending is critical to address any potential physician bias.