Amarnath R Annapureddy1,2, Shady Henien3, Yongfei Wang1,2, Karl E Minges1,2, Joseph S Ross1,4,5, Erica S Spatz1,2, Nihar R Desai1,2, Pamela N Peterson6,7, Frederick A Masoudi7, Jeptha P Curtis1,2. 1. Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut. 2. Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 3. Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. 4. Section of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 5. Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. 6. Department of Medicine, Denver Health Medical Center, Denver, Colorado. 7. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.
Abstract
Importance: Little is known about the association between industry payments and medical device selection. Objective: To examine the association between payments from device manufacturers to physicians and device selection for patients undergoing first-time implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D). Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, patients who received a first-time ICD or CRT-D device from any of the 4 major manufacturers (January 1, 2016-December 31, 2018) were identified. The data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry was linked with the Open Payments Program's payment data. Patients were categorized into 4 groups (A, B, C, and D) corresponding to the manufacturer from which the physician who performed the implantation received the largest payment. For each patient group, the proportion of patients who received a device from the manufacturer that provided the largest payment to the physician who performed implantation was determined. Within each group, the absolute difference in proportional use of devices between the manufacturer that made the highest payment and the proportion of devices from the same manufacturer in the entire study cohort (expected prevalence) was calculated. Exposures: Manufacturers' payments to physicians who performed an ICD or CRT-D implantation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of the study was the manufacturer of the device used for the implantation. Results: Over a 3-year period, 145 900 patients (median age, 65 years; 29.6% women) received ICD or CRT-D devices from the 4 manufacturers implanted by 4435 physicians at 1763 facilities. Among these physicians, 4152 (94%) received payments from device manufacturers ranging from $2 to $323 559 with a median payment of $1211 (interquartile range, $390-$3702). Between 38.5% and 54.7% of patients received devices from the manufacturers that had provided physicians with the largest payments. Patients were substantially more likely to receive devices made by the manufacturer that provided the largest payment to the physician who performed implantation than they were from each other individual manufacturer. The absolute differences in proportional use from the expected prevalence were 22.4% (95% CI, 21.9%-22.9%) for manufacturer A; 14.5% (95% CI, 14.0%-15.0%) for manufacturer B; 18.8% (95% CI, 18.2%-19.4%) for manufacturer C; and 30.6% (95% CI, 30.0%-31.2%) for manufacturer D. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, a large proportion of ICD or CRT-D implantations were performed by physicians who received payments from device manufacturers. Patients were more likely to receive ICD or CRT-D devices from the manufacturer that provided the highest total payment to the physician who performed an ICD or CRT-D implantation than each other manufacturer individually.
Importance: Little is known about the association between industry payments and medical device selection. Objective: To examine the association between payments from device manufacturers to physicians and device selection for patients undergoing first-time implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D). Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, patients who received a first-time ICD or CRT-D device from any of the 4 major manufacturers (January 1, 2016-December 31, 2018) were identified. The data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry was linked with the Open Payments Program's payment data. Patients were categorized into 4 groups (A, B, C, and D) corresponding to the manufacturer from which the physician who performed the implantation received the largest payment. For each patient group, the proportion of patients who received a device from the manufacturer that provided the largest payment to the physician who performed implantation was determined. Within each group, the absolute difference in proportional use of devices between the manufacturer that made the highest payment and the proportion of devices from the same manufacturer in the entire study cohort (expected prevalence) was calculated. Exposures: Manufacturers' payments to physicians who performed an ICD or CRT-D implantation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of the study was the manufacturer of the device used for the implantation. Results: Over a 3-year period, 145 900 patients (median age, 65 years; 29.6% women) received ICD or CRT-D devices from the 4 manufacturers implanted by 4435 physicians at 1763 facilities. Among these physicians, 4152 (94%) received payments from device manufacturers ranging from $2 to $323 559 with a median payment of $1211 (interquartile range, $390-$3702). Between 38.5% and 54.7% of patients received devices from the manufacturers that had provided physicians with the largest payments. Patients were substantially more likely to receive devices made by the manufacturer that provided the largest payment to the physician who performed implantation than they were from each other individual manufacturer. The absolute differences in proportional use from the expected prevalence were 22.4% (95% CI, 21.9%-22.9%) for manufacturer A; 14.5% (95% CI, 14.0%-15.0%) for manufacturer B; 18.8% (95% CI, 18.2%-19.4%) for manufacturer C; and 30.6% (95% CI, 30.0%-31.2%) for manufacturer D. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, a large proportion of ICD or CRT-D implantations were performed by physicians who received payments from device manufacturers. Patients were more likely to receive ICD or CRT-D devices from the manufacturer that provided the highest total payment to the physician who performed an ICD or CRT-D implantation than each other manufacturer individually.
Authors: Joseph S Ross; Jonathan Bates; Craig S Parzynski; Joseph G Akar; Jeptha P Curtis; Nihar R Desai; James V Freeman; Ginger M Gamble; Richard Kuntz; Shu-Xia Li; Danica Marinac-Dabic; Frederick A Masoudi; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Isuru Ranasinghe; Richard E Shaw; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: Med Devices (Auckl) Date: 2017-08-16
Authors: Adrian F Hernandez; Gregg C Fonarow; Li Liang; Sana M Al-Khatib; Lesley H Curtis; Kenneth A LaBresh; Clyde W Yancy; Nancy M Albert; Eric D Peterson Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-10-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Maurizio Landolina; Antonio Curnis; Giovanni Morani; Antonello Vado; Ernesto Ammendola; Antonio D'onofrio; Giuseppe Stabile; Martino Crosato; Barbara Petracci; Carlo Ceriotti; Luca Bontempi; Martina Morosato; Gian Paolo Ballari; Maurizio Gasparini Journal: Europace Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Simon von Gunten; Beat A Schaer; Sing-Chien Yap; Tamas Szili-Torok; Michael Kühne; Christian Sticherling; Stefan Osswald; Dominic A M J Theuns Journal: Europace Date: 2015-11-25 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Mao Yanagisawa; Daniel M Blumenthal; Hirotaka Kato; Kosuke Inoue; Yusuke Tsugawa Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-08-10 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Lucy Bolt; Maria M Wertli; Alan G Haynes; Nicolas Rodondi; Arnaud Chiolero; Radoslaw Panczak; Drahomir Aujesky Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-02-16 Impact factor: 3.240