Gender Differences in Physicians’ Financial Ties to Industry: A Study of National Disclosure Data

Abstract

BackgroundAcademic literature extensively documents gender disparities in the medical profession with regard to salary, promotion, and government funded research. However, gender differences in the value of financial ties to industry have not been adequately studied despite industry’s increasing contribution to income and research funding to physicians in the U.S.Methods & FindingsWe analyzed publicly reported financial relationships among 747,603 physicians and 432 pharmaceutical, device and biomaterials companies. Demographic and payment information were analyzed using hierarchical regression models to determine if statistically significant gender differences exist in physician-industry interactions regarding financial ties, controlling for key covariates. In 2011, 432 biomedical companies made an excess of $17,991,000 in payments to 220,908 physicians. Of these physicians, 75.1% were male. Female physicians, on average, received fewer total dollars (-$3,598.63, p<0.001) per person than men. Additionally, female physicians received significantly lower amounts for meals (-$41.80, p<0.001), education (-$1,893.14, p<0.001), speaker fees (-$2,898.44, p<0.001), and sponsored research (-$15,049.62, p=0.05). For total dollars, an interaction between gender and institutional reputation was statistically significant, implying that the differences between women and men differed based on industry’s preference for an institution, with larger differences at higher reputation institutions.ConclusionsFemale physicians receive significantly lower compensation for similarly described activities than their male counterparts after controlling for key covariates. As regulations lead to increased transparency regarding these relationships, efforts to standardize compensation should be considered to promote equitable opportunities for all physicians.

Distribution and Patterns of Industry-Related Payments to Oncologists in 2014

“…Male sex was associated with a greater likelihood and value of industry payments. This is consistent with third-party data (non-OP) showing that female physicians received lower industry payments for education, speaker fees, and research than their male counterparts (45). Additionally, the large effect of sex on receipt of royalty/license payments is not surprising given that women are underrepresented in product design and development and this likely extends to physician involvement in the pharmaceutical and device industries (46)(47)(48).…”

Representation of Women With Industry Ties in Ophthalmology

“…In 2014, researchers at the Cleveland Clinic Department of Bioethics analyzed 2011 data on physicians with industry ties. 11 This analysis differed from our study in several ways: (1) data were obtained through a third party (not publicly reported by CMS), (2) all American physicians were included (as opposed to ophthalmologists alone), and (3) the period of analysis was limited to 2011. More than 75% of physicians who received money from biomedical companies were men, and women received fewer total dollars on average (by $3598.63; P < .001) than men.…”

“…More than 75% of physicians who received money from biomedical companies were men, and women received fewer total dollars on average (by $3598.63; P < .001) than men. 11 One study reviewed industry payments to ophthalmologists 20 over a 6-month reporting period in 2013 but excluded research payments, which have higher values than general payments. Unlike our study, this study did not evaluate payments by gender.…”

Longitudinal Analysis of Gender Differences in Academic Productivity Among Medical Faculty Across 24 Medical Schools in the United States

“…This issue of gender bias in publication records is seen across disciplines of sciences and across geographic settings, globally. 24 It may be a combination of inadequate mentoring, support and engagement of women in publication development in conjunction with larger institutional biases in medicine and by journals that maintain this concern. If so, a multi-pronged solution will be necessary, including potentially publication audits by labs, academic departments, and the journals themselves to see if they are moving in the right direction to end these biases.…”