Observational studyJAMA2017
Types and Distribution of Payments From Industry to Physicians in 2015.
Observational study in JAMA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
84 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Are Financial Payments From the Pharmaceutical Industry Associated With Physician Prescribing? : A Systematic Review.Annals of internal medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Teaching Conflicts of Interest and Shared Decision-Making to Improve Risk Communication: a Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Trial
- From class consciousness to class suicide: considering community integration as a primary care ethic.Family medicine and community health · 2026Article
- Associations between pharmaceutical industry interactions with physicians and chronic nonmalignant pain management prescribing practices: a systematic review.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Review
- Distribution of industry-sponsored research payments to US physician principal investigators.PloS one · 2026Observational
- Relationship between industry payments to physicians and prescription patterns for PCSK9is, ARNis and DOACs: A report from the NCDR PINNACLE registry.American heart journal · 2026Article
- Trends in Industry-Sponsored Research Funding to Orthopaedic Surgeons in the U.S. from 2017-2024.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Understanding "interests": historical insights for managing conflicts of interest in healthcare and biomedical science.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2025Review
- Unsolicited Patient Complaints and Industry Payments for US Physicians.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Spine surgeon conflict of interest disclosure discrepancies between a national conference and the open payments database.North American Spine Society journal · 2025Article
- Industry Payments and Sentiments Toward Robotic Surgery Among US Physicians.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- The physician payments Sunshine Act and medical oncology: a seven-year financial analysis.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2024Article
- Differences in Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Participants in a National Spine Conference.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- Article
- Industry payments to American Society of Hematology Clinical Practice Guideline authors.Blood advances · 2024Article
- Trends in Industry-Sponsored Research Payments to Physician Principal Investigators.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Conflicts of Interest Among Cardiology Clinical Practice Guideline Authors in Japan.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Cross-sectional analysis of financial relationships between board certified allergists and the pharmaceutical industry in Japan.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Associations between pharmaceutical industry payments to physicians and prescription of PARP inhibitors in the United States.Gynecologic oncology · 2024Article
- Article
24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importanceGiven scrutiny over financial conflicts of interest in health care, it is important to understand the types and distribution of industry-related payments to physicians.
objectiveTo determine the types and distribution of industry-related payments to physicians in 2015 and the association of physician specialty and sex with receipt of payments from industry. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsObservational, retrospective, population-based study of licensed US physicians (per National Plan & Provider Enumeration System) linked to 2015 Open Payments reports of industry payments. A total of 933 295 allopathic and osteopathic physicians. Outcomes were compared across specialties (surgery, primary care, specialists, interventionalists) and between 620 166 male (66.4%) and 313 129 female (33.6%) physicians using regression models adjusting for geographic Medicare-spending region and sole proprietorship. EXPOSURES: Physician specialty and sex. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Reported physician payment from industry (including nature, number, and value), categorized as general payments (including consulting fees and food and beverage), ownership interests (including stock options, partnership shares), royalty or license payments, and research payments. Associations between physician characteristics and reported receipt of payment.
resultsIn 2015, 449 864 of 933 295 physicians (133 842 [29.8%] women), representing approximately 48% of all US physicians were reported to have received $2.4 billion in industry payments, including approximately $1.8 billion for general payments, $544 million for ownership interests, and $75 million for research payments. Compared with 47.7% of primary care physicians (205 830 of 431 819), 61.0% of surgeons (110 604 of 181 372) were reported as receiving general payments (absolute difference, 13.3%; 95% CI, 13.1-13.6; odds ratio [OR], 1.72; P < .001). Surgeons had a mean per-physician reported payment value of $6879 (95% CI, $5895-$7862) vs $2227 (95% CI, $2141-$2314) among primary care physicians (absolute difference, $4651; 95% CI, $4014-$5288). After adjusting for geographic spending region and sole proprietorship, men within each specialty had a higher odds of receiving general payments than did women: surgery, 62.5% vs 56.5% (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.26-1.31); primary care, 50.9% vs 43.0% (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.36-1.39); specialists, 36.3% vs 33.4% (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.13-1.17); and interventionalists, 58.1% vs 40.7% (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.97-2.10; P < .001 for all tests). Similarly, men reportedly received more royalty or license payments than did women: surgery, 1.2% vs 0.03% (OR, 43.20; 95% CI, 25.02-74.57); primary care, 0.02% vs 0.002% (OR, 9.34; 95% CI, 4.11-21.23); specialists, 0.08% vs 0.01% (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.71-7.89); and for interventionalists, 0.13% vs 0.04% (OR, 7.98; 95% CI, 2.87-22.19; P < .001 for all tests). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: According to data from 2015 Open Payments reports, 48% of physicians were reported to have received a total of $2.4 billion in industry-related payments, primarily general payments, with a higher likelihood and higher value of payments to physicians in surgical vs primary care specialties and to male vs female physicians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.