4.1 Article

Industry Payments to Nephrologists in the United States

Journal

CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
Volume 13, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.17057

Keywords

health economics; industry payment; open payment program; physician beneficiaries; sunshine act; nephrology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Industry payments to US nephrologists have been steadily increasing from 2014 to 2018, with a small proportion of physicians receiving the majority of payments.
Background Industry payments to physicians raise concerns about conflicts of interest that have the potential to impact patient care. In this study, we explored nonresearch and nonownership payments from industry to nephrologists to identify trends in compensation. Methodology Using data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), we explored financial relationships between industry and US nephrologists from 2014 to 2018. We analyzed payment characteristics including payment categories, payment distribution among physicians, regional trends, and biomedical manufacturers. Results In this retrospective study, a total of $75,174,999 was paid to nephrologists in the United States during the study period (i.e., 2014-2018). The number of board-certified nephrologists receiving payment from the industry increased from 11,642 in 2014 to 13,297 in 2018. Among board-certified nephrologists, 56% to 63% received industry payments during the study period. The total payments to nephrologists increased from $13,113,512 in 2014 to $16,467,945 in 2017, with consulting fees (24%) and compensation for services other than consulting (35%) being the highest-paid categories. The top 10% of physician beneficiaries collected 90% of the total industry payments. Conclusions A small proportion of US nephrologists consistently received the majority of industry payments, the value of which grew over the study period.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available