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

Braithwaite, Johann; Frane, Nicholas; Partan, Matthew J.; White, Peter B.; Iturriaga, Cesar; Gruber, Joshua J.; Bitterman, Adam

doi:10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-21-00060

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings align with previous comparative analyses of payments to teaching hospitals 31 and healthcare professionals in the USA, which show significant payment differences between regions. 20 48 49 86 Our findings also mirror those from a comparative study of industry payments to patient organisations in Denmark and Sweden, where larger payments were more frequent in the smallest country, 16 suggesting a consistent industry strategy of targeting smaller locations with larger payments.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Emerging US research has found significant differences in the distribution of payments between states, 20 48–50 including by state size 51 and political composition, 52 indicating that demographics and the organisation and regulation of healthcare matter. The first regional analysis in Europe revealed differences in the total value and type of payments prioritised in eight countries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparing pharmaceutical company payments in the four UK countries: a cross-sectional and social network analysis

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo examine the characteristics of pharmaceutical payments to healthcare and patient organisations in the four UK countries. Compare companies spending the most; types of organisations receiving payments and types of payments in the four countries. Measure the extent to which companies target payments at the same recipients in each country and whether it differs depending on the type of recipient.DesignCross-sectional comparative and social network analysis.SettingEngland, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland.Participants100 donors (pharmaceutical companies) reporting payments to 4229 recipients (healthcare organisations and patient organisations) in 2015.Main outcome measuresFor each country: payment totals and distribution; average number of common recipients between companies; share of payments to organisations fulfilling different roles in the health ecosystem and payments for different activities.ResultsCompanies prioritised different types of recipient and different types of activity in each country. There were significant differences in the distribution of payments across the four countries, even for similar types of recipients. Recipients in England and Wales received smaller individual payments than in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Overall, targeting shared recipients occurred most frequently in England, but was also common in certain pockets of each country’s health ecosystem. We found evidence of reporting errors in Disclosure UK.ConclusionsOur findings suggest a strategic approach to payments tailored to countries’ policy and decision-making context, indicating there may be specific vulnerabilities to financial conflicts of interest at subnational level. Payment differences between countries may be occurring in other countries, particularly those with decentralised health systems and/or high levels of independence across its decision-making authorities. We call for a single database containing all recipient types, full location details and published with associated descriptive and network statistics.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing pharmaceutical company payments in the four UK countries: a cross-sectional and social network analysis

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…17 Furthermore, specifically in the field of orthopaedic surgery, recent studies have demonstrated that both the number of surgeons receiving industry payment and the amount of individual payments received have markedly increased from 2014 to 2019. 18,19 Thus, although Hannon et al examined the differences in disclosures using data from the 2014 Open Payments Database, the present study offers a more accurate, contemporary analysis of disclosure inconsistencies. In addition, this study was also able to provide previously unreported data on the two aforementioned categories, research support and stock or stock options.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 93%

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

Bovonratwet

Islam²,

Honig³

et al. 2022

JAAOS Glob Res Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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%.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, our findings may suggest that in addition to the rate of payment receipt, conversations surrounding appropriate industry payment limits should include considerations regarding how payment magnitude among orthopaedic surgeons on these boards has changed over recent years. 8,24,25…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Industry Payments Among Editorial Board Members of Orthopaedic Journals: An Open Payments Analysis From 2014 to 2019

Samuel

Yaffe

Acuña

et al. 2022

J Am Acad Orthop Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

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

Cited by 14 publications

References 27 publications

Comparing pharmaceutical company payments in the four UK countries: a cross-sectional and social network analysis

Comparing pharmaceutical company payments in the four UK countries: a cross-sectional and social network analysis

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

Industry Payments Among Editorial Board Members of Orthopaedic Journals: An Open Payments Analysis From 2014 to 2019

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About