Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39614949›Full record

ArticleMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)2024

The physician payments Sunshine Act and medical oncology: a seven-year financial analysis.

Xiyu Zhao, Victor Yang, Mohammed Ullah, Mark Schuweiler, Jonathan Zou, Austin Chen, Shuhan Jia, Padmini Ranasinghe

RetractedAbstract readRetracted Publication
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Xiyu ZhaoJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Victor YangJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Mohammed UllahJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Mark SchuweilerJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Jonathan ZouUniversity of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, NY, 14620, USA.
Austin ChenZanvyl Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Shuhan JiaZanvyl Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Padmini RanasingheJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. pranasi1@jhmi.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The integration of pharmaceutical and medical device companies with clinical practice is under scrutiny due to financial incentives that may influence oncology care. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act mandates transparency in these financial relationships. This study examines the trends in non-research payments to oncology specialists between 2017 and 2023, analyzing amounts, reasons, and variations by subspecialty and region. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database, focusing on U.S.-based hematology, medical oncology, and hematology-oncology specialists. Payments were categorized by amount, purpose, and payment type, with temporal and geographic comparisons. Data analysis was conducted in Rstudio (version 2022.07.0) with Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, and Chi-square tests to assess statistical significance across specialties, regions, and payment periods. Between 2017 and 2023, 2,158,140 payments totaling $601,567,196.10 were made to 19,585 U.S.-based hematology, medical oncology, and hematology-oncology specialists. Hematology-oncology received the highest total payment amount ($393,169,915.10) and transaction count (1,700,202), while hematology had the highest median payment ($23.05) compared to hematology-oncology ($18.12) and medical oncology ($19.5). Payment patterns demonstrated seasonal peaks, particularly in Q1 and Q4, and increased markedly during major oncology conferences (ASCO, ASH). Analysis by geographic region revealed that the South consistently received the highest total payments, peaking at $36.8 million in 2023, while the Northeast had the highest median payment values, reaching $22.87 in 2023. The COVID-19 pandemic corresponded with lasting shifts in payment patterns, with median payment values rising significantly during the pandemic period and remaining elevated post-COVID across all specialties. Additionally, the distribution of payments by type revealed that direct cash payments and consulting fees were the most prominent, with hematology-oncology showing the greatest reliance on high-value cash transactions, while stock payments featured prominently in hematology. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these patterns as robust, with minimal variance observed when excluding extreme values, further validating consistent trends across specialties, regions, and periods. This study reveals specialty- and region-specific variations in oncology-related payments, with significant increases during key conferences and the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings underscore the importance of continued transparency and scrutiny in industry-oncology financial interactions to mitigate potential conflicts of interest in oncology care.

Indexed as

Medical OncologyCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.Conflict of InterestCOVID-19DisclosureHumansPhysiciansRetrospective StudiesUnited StatesDrug marketingHealthcare economicsOncologyPayment disparitiesPharmaceutical relationshipsSunshine ActTransparency

Identifiers

PMID39614949

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.