Research and Nonresearch Industry Payments to Nephrologists in the United States between 2014 and 2021

Visual Abstract Significance Statement Concerns about the financial relationships between nephrologists and the health care industry have been reported in the United States over the past decade. However, since the 2014 launch of the federal transparency database, Open Payments, few documents have explored the whole picture of research and nonresearch payments to US nephrologists from industry sources. In this study, the authors found that 87% of nephrologists have received nonresearch payments, and the aggregate amount of these payments has been increasing since 2014. Only 12% of nephrologists received research payments; these recipients were disproportionately male. In addition, the top 5% of nephrologists receiving nonresearch funds received 81% of all such payments. Nonresearch payments were larger among male nephrologists than among female nephrologists and increased by 8% annually among male nephrologists between 2014 and 2019. Background Financial relationships between nephrologists and the health care industry have been a concern in the United States over the past decade. Methods To evaluate industry payments to nephrologists, we conducted a cross-sectional study examining nonresearch and research payments to all US nephrologists registered in the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System between 2014 and 2021, using the Open Payments database. Payment data were descriptively analyzed on the basis of monetary value, and payment trends were evaluated by using a generalized estimating equations model. Results From 2014 through 2021, 10,463 of 12,059 nephrologists (87%) received at least one payment from the US health care industry, totaling $778 million. The proportion of nephrologists who did not receive nonresearch payments varied each year, ranging from 38% to 51%. Nonresearch payments comprised 22% ($168 million) of overall industry payments in monetary value but 87% in the number of payments. Among those receiving payments, the median per-physician 8-year aggregated payment values were $999 in nonresearch payments and $102,329 in associated research payments. Male nephrologists were more likely than female nephrologists to receive research payments, but the per-physician amount did not differ. However, nonresearch payments were three times larger for male nephrologists and increased by 8% annually between 2014 and 2019 among male nephrologists but remained stable among female nephrologists. The top 5% of nephrologists receiving nonresearch payments received 81% of all such payments. Conclusions Between 2014 and 2021, 87% of US nephrologists received at least one payment from the health care industry. Notably, nonresearch payments to nephrologists have been increasing since the Open Payments database's 2014 launch. Male nephrologists were more likely than female nephrologists to receive research payments.

[1]  Akihiko Ozaki,et al.  Trend in industry payments to infectious disease physicians in the United States: a seven-year analysis of nonresearch payments from the Open Payments Database between 2014 and 2020 , 2022, Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.

[2]  Akihiko Ozaki,et al.  Industry payments to allergists and clinical immunologists in the United States during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic , 2022, Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology.

[3]  Garrett S. Booth,et al.  Assessment of the Use of Sex and Gender Terminology in US Federal, State, and Local Databases. , 2022, JAMA internal medicine.

[4]  R. Rosenblatt,et al.  Trends in Industry Payments to Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists in the United States from 2014 to 2020. , 2022, Gastroenterology.

[5]  Akihiko Ozaki,et al.  Evaluation of Conflicts of Interest among Participants of the Japanese Nephrology Clinical Practice Guideline , 2022, Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN.

[6]  Akihiko Ozaki,et al.  Pharmaceutical Payments to Japanese Board-Certified Infectious Disease Specialists: A Four-Year Retrospective Analysis of Payments from 92 Pharmaceutical Companies between 2016 and 2019 , 2022, medRxiv.

[7]  Akihiko Ozaki,et al.  Pharmaceutical payments to Japanese certified hematologists: a retrospective analysis of personal payments from pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019 , 2022, Blood Cancer Journal.

[8]  Arif Subhan Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services , 2021, Journal of Clinical Engineering.

[9]  Saritha Ranabothu,et al.  Industry Payments to Nephrologists in the United States , 2021, Cureus.

[10]  C. Crowson,et al.  Industry Payments to Practicing US Rheumatologists, 2014–2019 , 2021, Arthritis & rheumatology.

[11]  J. Schold,et al.  “What do you think about nephrology?” A national survey of internal medicine residents , 2021, BMC Nephrology.

[12]  S. Herrmann,et al.  Self-reported Financial Conflict of Interest in Nephrology Clinical Practice Guidelines , 2020, Kidney international reports.

[13]  Akihiko Ozaki,et al.  Financial payments made by pharmaceutical companies to the authors of Japanese hematology clinical practice guidelines between 2016 and 2017. , 2020, Health policy.

[14]  W. Kitzmiller,et al.  Gender Disparity in 2013-2018 Industry Payments to Plastic Surgeons. , 2020, Aesthetic surgery journal.

[15]  G. Schett,et al.  Key opinion leaders — a critical perspective , 2020, Nature Reviews Rheumatology.

[16]  Aaron P. Mitchell,et al.  Are Financial Payments From the Pharmaceutical Industry Associated With Physician Prescribing? , 2020, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[17]  Akihiko Ozaki,et al.  Pharmaceutical company payments to dermatology Clinical Practice Guideline authors in Japan , 2020, PloS one.

[18]  D. Velez,et al.  Gender disparities in industry payments to urologists. , 2020, Urology.

[19]  A. Dunn,et al.  Financial ties between leaders of influential US professional medical associations and industry: cross sectional study , 2020, BMJ.

[20]  F. Mallamaci,et al.  Paving the way towards gender equality: how are we faring in nephrology? , 2020, Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association.

[21]  S. Mehra,et al.  Industry Payments for Otolaryngology Research: A Four‐Year Analysis of the Open Payments Database , 2020, The Laryngoscope.

[22]  B. Jacobs,et al.  Gender Gap in Industry Relationships and Scholarly Impact Among Academic Urologists in the United States. , 2020, Urology.

[23]  M. Vaduganathan,et al.  Gender differences in industry payments among cardiologists. , 2019, American heart journal.

[24]  Joseph S. Puthumana,et al.  Investigating the gender pay gap in industry contributions to academic neurosurgeons. , 2019, World neurosurgery.

[25]  J. Bernat,et al.  Scope and nature of financial conflicts of interest between neurologists and industry , 2019, Neurology.

[26]  A. Webster,et al.  Barriers to the Professional Advancement of Women in Nephrology. , 2019, Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN.

[27]  P. Lichter,et al.  Characteristics of Industry Payments to Ophthalmologists in the Open Payments Database. , 2019, JAMA ophthalmology.

[28]  Brian Uzzi,et al.  Comparison of National Institutes of Health Grant Amounts to First-Time Male and Female Principal Investigators , 2019, JAMA.

[29]  K. Bielefeldt,et al.  Assessment of Pharmaceutical Company and Device Manufacturer Payments to Gastroenterologists and Their Participation in Clinical Practice Guideline Panels , 2018, JAMA network open.

[30]  L. Wilkins Financial relationships between neurologists and industry: The 2015 Open Payments database , 2018, Neurology.

[31]  E. Lederer Women in Nephrology Today. , 2018, Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN.

[32]  P. Narayanaswami,et al.  Financial relationships between neurologists and industry , 2018, Neurology.

[33]  Daniel M. Hartung,et al.  Industry Payments to Physician Specialists Who Prescribe Repository Corticotropin , 2018, JAMA network open.

[34]  J. Hattangadi-Gluth,et al.  Types and Distributions of Biomedical Industry Payments to Men and Women Physicians by Specialty, 2015 , 2017, JAMA internal medicine.

[35]  Daniel M. Hartung,et al.  Trends and Characteristics of US Medicare Spending on Repository Corticotropin , 2017, JAMA internal medicine.

[36]  Freek Fickweiler,et al.  Interactions between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry generally and sales representatives specifically and their association with physicians’ attitudes and prescribing habits: a systematic review , 2017, BMJ Open.

[37]  J. Eloy,et al.  Association of Gender With Financial Relationships Between Industry and Academic Otolaryngologists , 2017, JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery.

[38]  G. Wan,et al.  Clinical and Economic Evaluation of Repository Corticotropin Injection: A Narrative Literature Review of Treatment Efficacy and Healthcare Resource Utilization for Seven Key Indications , 2017, Advances in Therapy.

[39]  James D. Murphy,et al.  Types and Distribution of Payments From Industry to Physicians in 2015 , 2017, JAMA.

[40]  W. J. Boscardin,et al.  Financial ties of principal investigators and randomized controlled trial outcomes: cross sectional study , 2017, British Medical Journal.

[41]  T. Mackey,et al.  Distribution and Patterns of Industry-Related Payments to Oncologists in 2014. , 2016, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[42]  M. Leger,et al.  Exploring the Industry-Dermatologist Financial Relationship: Insight From the Open Payment Data. , 2016, JAMA dermatology.

[43]  William Fleischman,et al.  Industry Relationships With Pediatricians: Findings From the Open Payments Sunshine Act , 2016, Pediatrics.

[44]  Daniel T Oberlin,et al.  Industry Ties in Medicine: Insight from the Open Payments Program. , 2016, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[45]  M. Metersky Is There Any Reliable Clinical Evidence to Suggest That Acthar Is More Effective Than Other Forms of Corticosteroids in Treating Sarcoidosis and Other Diseases It Is Being Marketed to Treat? , 2016, Chest.

[46]  R. Sege,et al.  Sex Differences in Institutional Support for Junior Biomedical Researchers. , 2015, JAMA.

[47]  Evangelos Kontopantelis,et al.  Regression based quasi-experimental approach when randomisation is not an option: interrupted time series analysis , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[48]  John P A Ioannidis,et al.  Ensuring the integrity of clinical practice guidelines: a tool for protecting patients , 2013, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[49]  R. Jagsi,et al.  Similarities and Differences in the Career Trajectories of Male and Female Career Development Award Recipients , 2011, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[50]  Ray Moynihan,et al.  Key opinion leaders: independent experts or drug representatives in disguise? , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[51]  D. Coyne Influence of industry on renal guideline development. , 2006, Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN.

[52]  G. Eknoyan,et al.  National Kidney Foundation: Dialysis Outcome Quality Initiative--development of methodology for clinical practice guidelines. , 1997, Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association.

[53]  A. Haines,et al.  Guidance on guidelines. , 1992, BMJ.

[54]  J. Hattangadi-Gluth,et al.  Disclosure of Industry Payments to Physicians: An Epidemiologic Analysis of Early Data From the Open Payments Program. , 2016, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[55]  J. Wootton Clinical practice guidelines. , 1999, Journal of women's health & gender-based medicine.

[56]  Reviewing the draft NKF-DOQI guidelines. 1. National Kidney Foundation-Dialysis Outcome Quality Initiative. , 1997, Nephrology news & issues.