IMPORTANCE: An increased awareness of the interactions between the medical industry and health care professionals may lead to lower health care costs and more effective health care practices. OBJECTIVE: To assess the characteristics of industry payments made to ophthalmologists between 2013 and 2017. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This analysis included data reported in the June 29, 2018, update of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database (OPD). The OPD contains public records of industry payments made to physicians and teaching hospitals from August 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017, as reported by the medical industry. All general or research payments distributed to US ophthalmologists and contained in the OPD were included in this study. Data are summarized by practitioner, manufacturer, payment category, and geographic location. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Main outcomes were the distribution, quantity, and value of payments made to ophthalmologists practicing in the United States or US territories. The financial characteristics of payment category, manufacturer, product, and location were also assessed. RESULTS: This analysis revealed that the OPD showed industry reporting a total of 20 943 ophthalmologists receiving 736 517 payments worth $543 679 603.53 (1.67% of all industry-reported funds in the OPD). The median payment value was $22.44. Most payments were for food and beverages (581 588 [78.96%]), whereas most funds were allocated toward research ($310 142 151.88 [57.05%]) and consulting fees ($73 565 327.71 [13.51%]). The median payout to each ophthalmologist was $637.75 (interquartile range, $167.33-$2065.54). California was the highest-grossing state, receiving $101 135 980.34 (18.60%) of all payments. Fifteen companies were responsible for 87.68% of all funds distributed ($476 719 470.11) and were mostly involved in the production of pharmaceutical agents (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents, glaucoma eyedrops, and ocular lubricants) and surgical devices (cataract and glaucoma). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although there is no way to know the veracity of these reports, the findings suggest the financial ophthalmologist-industry relationship is substantial. These relationships may be adding to health care costs and affecting the quality of care, although those associations were not evaluated in this study.
IMPORTANCE: An increased awareness of the interactions between the medical industry and health care professionals may lead to lower health care costs and more effective health care practices. OBJECTIVE: To assess the characteristics of industry payments made to ophthalmologists between 2013 and 2017. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This analysis included data reported in the June 29, 2018, update of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database (OPD). The OPD contains public records of industry payments made to physicians and teaching hospitals from August 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017, as reported by the medical industry. All general or research payments distributed to US ophthalmologists and contained in the OPD were included in this study. Data are summarized by practitioner, manufacturer, payment category, and geographic location. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Main outcomes were the distribution, quantity, and value of payments made to ophthalmologists practicing in the United States or US territories. The financial characteristics of payment category, manufacturer, product, and location were also assessed. RESULTS: This analysis revealed that the OPD showed industry reporting a total of 20 943 ophthalmologists receiving 736 517 payments worth $543 679 603.53 (1.67% of all industry-reported funds in the OPD). The median payment value was $22.44. Most payments were for food and beverages (581 588 [78.96%]), whereas most funds were allocated toward research ($310 142 151.88 [57.05%]) and consulting fees ($73 565 327.71 [13.51%]). The median payout to each ophthalmologist was $637.75 (interquartile range, $167.33-$2065.54). California was the highest-grossing state, receiving $101 135 980.34 (18.60%) of all payments. Fifteen companies were responsible for 87.68% of all funds distributed ($476 719 470.11) and were mostly involved in the production of pharmaceutical agents (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents, glaucoma eyedrops, and ocular lubricants) and surgical devices (cataract and glaucoma). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although there is no way to know the veracity of these reports, the findings suggest the financial ophthalmologist-industry relationship is substantial. These relationships may be adding to health care costs and affecting the quality of care, although those associations were not evaluated in this study.
Authors: Ashvini K Reddy; Gregory W Bounds; Sophie J Bakri; Lynn K Gordon; Justine R Smith; Julia A Haller; Jennifer E Thorne Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: William Fleischman; Joseph S Ross; Edward R Melnick; David H Newman; Arjun K Venkatesh Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Rizwan Ahmed; Joseph Lopez; Sunjae Bae; Allan B Massie; Eric K Chow; Karan Chopra; Babak J Orandi; Bonnie E Lonze; James W May; Justin M Sacks; Dorry L Segev Journal: Ann Plast Surg Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 1.539
Authors: Eric G Campbell; Russell L Gruen; James Mountford; Lawrence G Miller; Paul D Cleary; David Blumenthal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-04-26 Impact factor: 91.245