Assessment of Medical Industry Compensation to US Physicians by Gender.

Importance: It has been well established that female physicians earn less than their male counterparts in all specialties and ranks despite controlling for confounding variables. Objective: To investigate payments made from highest-grossing medical industry companies to female and male physicians and to assess compensation and engagement disparities based on gender. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, population-based cross-sectional study used data from the Open Payments database for the 5 female and 5 male physicians who received the most financial compensation from each of the 15 highest-grossing medical supply companies in the US from January 2013 to January 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was total general payments received by female and male physicians from medical industry over time and across industries. The secondary outcome was trends in industry payment to female and male physicians from 2013 to 2019. Results: Among the 1050 payments sampled, 1017 (96.9%) of the 5 highest earners were men and 33 (3.1%) were women. Female physicians were paid a mean (SD) of $41 320 ($88 695), and male physicians were paid a mean (SD) of $1 226 377 ($3 377 957) (P < .001). On multivariate analysis, male gender was significantly associated with higher payment after adjusting for rank, h-index, and specialty (mean [SD], $1 025 413 [$162 578]; P < .001). From 2013 to 2019, the payment gap between female and male physicians increased from $54 343 to $166 778 (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that male physicians received significantly higher payments from the highest-grossing medical industry companies compared with female physicians. This disparity persisted across all medical specialties and academic ranks. The health care industry gender payment gap continued to increase from 2013 to 2019, with a wider compensation gap in 2019.

Equal pay for equal work: Disparities in compensation in vascular surgery.

Physician compensation varies by specialty, gender, race, years in practice, type of practice, location, and individual productivity. We reviewed the disparities in compensation regarding the variation between medical and surgical specialties, between academic and private practice, between gender, race, and rank, and by practice location. The physician personal debt perspective was also considered to quantify the effect of disparities in compensation. Strategies toward eliminating the pay gap include salary transparency, pay equity audit, paid parental leave, mentoring, sponsorship, leadership, and promotion pathways. Pay parity is important because paying women less than men contributes to the gender pay gap, lowers pension contributions, and results in higher relative poverty in retirement. Pay parity will also affect motivation and relationships at work, ultimately contributing to a diverse workforce and business success. Rewarding all employees fairly is the right thing to do. As surgeons and leaders in medicine, establishing pay equity is a matter of ethical principle and integrity to further elevate our profession.

The Changing Face of Academic Surgery: Overrepresentation of Women among Surgeon-Scientists with R01 Funding.

BACKGROUND: There has been a recent focus on sex-based disparities within the field of academic surgery. However, the proportion of female surgeons conducting NIH-funded research is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: The NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results) was queried for R01 grants from surgery departments for which the principal investigator (PI) had a primary medical degree, as of October 2018. Characteristics of the PI and their respective grants were collected. Institutional faculty profiles were reviewed for PI and departmental characteristics. PIs were stratified by sex and compared using standard univariate statistics. RESULTS: There were a total of 212 R01 grants in surgery departments held by 159 PIs. Of these, 26.4% (n = 42) of R01-funded surgeons were female compared with the reported 19% of academic surgery female faculty (as reported by the Association of American Medical Colleges; p = 0.02). Women with R01 grants were more likely to be first-time grant recipients with no concurrent or previous NIH funding (21.4% vs 8.6%; p = 0.03) and less likely to have a previous R01 or equivalent grant (54.8% vs 73.5%; p = 0.03). Women were more likely to be from departments with a female surgery chair (31.0% vs 13.7%; p = 0.01) or a department with > 30% female surgeons (35.0% vs 18.2%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Although female surgeons remain a minority in academic surgery, they hold a greater than anticipated proportion of NIH funding, with a high number of first-time grants, forming a crucial component of the next generation of surgeon-scientists.

Gender disparities in academic vascular surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have identified significant gender discrepancies in grant funding, leadership positions, and publication impact in surgical subspecialties. We investigated whether these discrepancies were also present in academic vascular surgery. METHODS: Academic websites from institutions with vascular surgery training programs were queried to identify academic faculty, and leadership positions were noted. H-index, number of citations, and total number of publications were obtained from Scopus and PubMed. Grant funding amounts and awards data were obtained from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Society for Vascular Surgery websites. Industry funding amount was obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. Nonsurgical physicians and support staff were excluded from this analysis. RESULTS: We identified 177 female faculty (18.6%) and 774 male faculty (81.4%). A total of 41 (23.2%) female surgeons held leadership positions within their institutions compared with 254 (32.9%) male surgeons (P = .009). Female surgeons held the rank of assistant professor 50.3% of the time in contrast to 33.9% of men (P < .001). The rank of associate professor was held at similar rates, 25.4% vs 20.7% (P = .187), respectively. Fewer women than men held the full professor rank, 10.7% compared with 26.2% (P < .001). Similarly, women held leadership positions less often than men, including division chief (6.8% vs 13.7%; P < .012) and vice chair of surgery (0% vs 2.2%; P < .047), but held more positions as vice dean of surgery (0.6% vs 0%; P < .037) and chief executive officer (0.6% vs 0%; P < .037). Scientific contributions based on the number of each surgeon's publications were found to be statistically different between men and women. Women had an average of 42.3 publications compared with 64.8 for men (P < .001). Female vascular surgeons were cited an average of 655.2 times, less than half the average citations of their male counterparts with 1387 citations (P < .001). The average H-index was 9.5 for female vascular surgeons compared with 13.7 for male vascular surgeons (P < .001). Correcting for years since initial board certification, women had a higher H-index per year in practice (1.32 vs 1.02; P = .005). Female vascular surgeons were more likely to have received NIH grants than their male colleagues (9.6% vs 4.0%; P = .017). Although substantial, the average value of NIH grants awarded was not statistically significant between men and women, with men on average receiving $915,590.74 ($199,119.00-$2,910,600.00) and women receiving $707,205.35 ($61,612.00-$4,857,220.00; P = .416). There was no difference in the distribution of Society for Vascular Surgery seed grants to women and men since 2007. Industry payments made publicly available according to the Sunshine Act for the year 2018 were also compared, and female vascular surgeons received an average of $2155.28 compared with their male counterparts, who received almost four times as much at $8452.43 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although there is certainly improved representation of women in vascular surgery compared with several decades ago, a discrepancy still persists. Women tend to have more grants than men and receive less in industry payments, but they hold fewer leadership positions, do not publish as frequently, and are cited less than their male counterparts. Further investigation should be aimed at identifying the causes of gender disparity and systemic barriers to gender equity in academic vascular surgery.

Gender and compensation among surgical specialties in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: A gender pay gap has been reported across many professions, including medicine. METHODS: Surgeons employed at complex Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMC) nationwide in 2016 were identified. Data on salary, gender, years since medical school graduation, professorship status, h-index, and geographic location were collected. RESULTS: Of 1993 surgeons nationwide, 23% were female. On average, female surgeons had significantly lower salaries compared to male surgeons ($268,429 ± 41,339 versus $287,717 ± 45,379, respectively; p < 0.001). Among each surgical specialty, there were no significant differences in salary on univariate analysis. Women were underrepresented in higher paying specialties and more heavily represented in lower paying specialties. On multivariate analysis, gender (p < 0.001), time since medical school graduation (p < 0.001), surgical specialty (p = 0.031), h-index (p < 0.001), and geographic location (p < 0.001) were significant predictors of salary. CONCLUSION: Female gender significantly predicted lower salary among VAMC surgeons, however within each surgical specialty, there was no significant gender pay gap. SENTENCE SUMMARY: Independent predictors of salary included gender, surgical specialty, experience, h-index, and geographic location. Although female surgeons had lower overall salaries compared to male surgeons in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), there were no significant gender differences in salary among each surgical specialty. Pay transparency, unique to the VHA, along with the use of rational and objective criteria to establish and adjust salaries, may play a role in reducing the gender pay gap among VHA surgeons.

Gender Disparity in Trauma Surgery: Compensation, Practice Patterns, Personal Life, and Wellness.

BACKGROUND: We sought to understand differences in surgical practice, compensation, personal life, and health and wellness between male and female trauma surgeons. METHODS: An electronic survey study of members of The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma was carried out. Using univariate and bivariate analyses, we compared the differences in surgical practice, compensation, family life, and health status among female and male trauma surgeons and used chi-squared tests for categorical variables. Analyses were performed using SPSS (Version 25, IBM). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 37.4%. Women reported working more than 80 h a week more commonly (30% versus 23%; P < 0.001), yet reported lower incomes, with 57% of female surgeons reporting before-tax incomes of $300,000 or higher, compared with 83% of male surgeons (P < 0.001). These differences persisted when adjusting for academic versus nonacademic practices. Gender-based salary disparity remained significant when adjusting for the age of the respondent. Divorce rates and never married status were significantly higher for women (9% versus 4%; P < 0.001 and 19% versus 4%; P < 0.001, respectively). Women surgeons also report higher rates of not having children compared with male surgeons (48% versus 13%; P < 0.001). There were no major age-adjusted health status differences reported between male and female surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights contemporary disparities in salaries, practice, and family life between male and female trauma surgeons. Overall, trauma surgeons do not report gender-based differences in health and wellness metrics but have ongoing disparity in compensation and family life.

Men Receive Three Times More Industry Payments than Women Academic Orthopaedic Surgeons, Even After Controlling for Confounding Variables.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, orthopaedic surgeons received nearly USD 300 million from industry, with the top 10% of recipients making more than 95% of the total amount. The degree to which gender may be associated with industry compensation has not been well explored; however, this may be confounded by a number of variables, including academic productivity, experience, and other factors. We wished to explore the variability in payment distribution by gender after controlling for these factors. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Do men or women academic orthopaedic surgeons receive more payments from industry? (2) To what degree do any observed differences between the genders persist, even after accounting for identifiable factors, including academic rank, scholarly productivity, regional location of university, subspecialty selection as identified by fellowships completed, and years since completion of residency? METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional retrospective analysis of surgeons practicing in orthopaedic surgery academic departments in the United States. Academic orthopaedic surgery departments were identified using the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database. Publicly available data on gender, academic rank, scholarly productivity, regional location of university, fellowships completed, and years since residency graduation were collected from institutional websites. Industry funding data for 2016 were obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database, and scholarly productivity data through 2017 were collected from Scopus. A total of 2939 academic orthopaedic surgeons, 2620 (89%) men and 319 (11%) women from 126 programs were identified. Men and women surgeons were different in most of the variables collected, and all except region of university were associated with differences in industry payments. RESULTS: The median payment for men surgeons was greater than that for women (USD 1027 [interquartile range USD 125-USD 9616] versus USD 177 [IQR USD 47-USD 1486]; difference of medians, USD 850; p < 0.001]. After accounting for potentially confounding variables like faculty rank, years since residency, H-index and subspecialty choice, women faculty members still received only 29% of payments received by otherwise comparable men orthopaedists (beta coefficient for gender = 0.29 [95% CI 0.20 to 0.44; p < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: Women academic orthopaedic surgeons received only 29% of the industry payments received by men, even after controlling for faculty rank, years since residency, H-index, and subspecialty selection. This gender-related disparity may hinder the career advancement of women orthopaedic surgeons. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Increased transparency by companies can help guide orthopaedic surgeons who wish to receive industry funding.

Sex Disparity in Academic Rank and Industry Payments to Plastic Surgeons.

INTRODUCTION: Despite increasing representation in surgery, women continue to lag behind men in important metrics. Little is known on how industry funding may also contribute to this ongoing disparity. This article seeks to quantify industry payments to academic plastic surgeons (APSs) by sex and examine the relationship between funding and academic achievement. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of industry payments disbursed to APSs in 2017. Faculty were identified using departmental listings of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education plastic surgery residency programs. Payments were identified via the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services open payment database. Academic achievement was assessed using rank (eg, assistant professor), leadership designation (eg, division head), and Scopus H-index and then controlled for time in practice. RESULTS: Of the 805 APSs, the majority were male (82% male vs 18% female, P < 0.0001). Significant sex differences emerged in average yearly industry contributions (men, US $3202, vs women, US $707; P < 0.0001). Across all academic ranks, men received significantly higher payments than women (P < 0.0500). Men constituted 93% of full professors and were almost twice as likely to hold additional leadership positions compared with women (odds ratio, 1.82; P = 0.0143). After adjustment for time in practice, there was no difference in H-indices between male and female APSs, although payment disparity persisted (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial sex-based disparities exist among APSs' academic rank and leadership attainment, which is not attributed to differences in academic qualifications or experience. To better elucidate the sources of this disparity, future studies should assess sexed differences in payment types. Furthermore, we urge for increased transparency in the selection process for industry payments.

Sex-Based Disparities in the Hourly Earnings of Surgeons in the Fee-for-Service System in Ontario, Canada.

Importance: Sex-based income disparities are well documented in medicine and most pronounced in surgery. These disparities are commonly attributed to differences in hours worked. One proposed solution to close the earnings gap is a fee-for-service payment system, which is theoretically free of bias. However, it is unclear whether a sex-based earnings gap persists in a fee-for-service system when earnings are measured on the basis of hours worked. Objective: To determine whether male and female surgeons have similar earnings for each hour spent operating in a fee-for-service system. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, population-based study used administrative databases from a fee-for-service, single-payer health system in Ontario, Canada. Surgeons who submitted claims for surgical procedures performed between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2016, were included. Data analysis took place from February 2018 to December 2018. Exposures: Surgeon sex. Main Outcomes and Measures: This study compared earnings per hour spent operating between male and female surgeons and earnings stratified by surgical specialty in a matched analysis. We explored factors potentially associated with earnings disparities, including differences in procedure duration and type between male and female surgeons and hourly earnings for procedures performed primarily on male vs female patients. Results: We identified 1 508 471 surgical procedures claimed by 3275 surgeons. Female surgeons had practiced fewer years than male surgeons (median [interquartile range], 8.4 [2.9-16.6] vs 14.7 [5.9-25.7] years; P < .001), and the largest proportion of female surgeons practiced gynecology (400 of 819 female surgeons [48.8%]). Hourly earnings for female surgeons were 24% lower than for male surgeons (relative rate, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.74-0.79]; P < .001). This disparity persisted after adjusting for specialty and in matched analysis stratified by specialty, with the largest mean differences in cardiothoracic surgery (in US dollars: $59.64/hour) and orthopedic surgery ($55.45/hour). There were no differences in time taken by male and female surgeons to perform common procedures; however, female surgeons more commonly performed procedures with the lowest hourly earnings. Conclusions and Relevance: Even within a fee-for-service system, male and female surgeons do not have equal earnings for equal hours spent working, suggesting that the opportunity to perform the most lucrative surgical procedures is greater for men than women. These findings call for a comprehensive analysis of drivers of sex-based earning disparities, including referral patterns, and highlight the need for systems-level solutions.

The Effect of Sex on Orthopaedic Surgeon Income.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have identified discrepancies in salary between male and female surgeons. Our aim was to investigate the impact of sex on an orthopaedic surgeon's yearly earnings by evaluating stratified income and specialty data from a large sample survey of orthopaedic surgeons. METHODS: Self-reported data were obtained from the 2014 and 2008 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) biennial censuses. Responses were received from 6,805 (24.26%) of those who were surveyed. The census form is a 19-question survey that includes information regarding work status (full time versus part time), sex, years in practice, practice type (private versus academic), specialty, hours worked, case volume, and income. The main outcome evaluated was self-reported income, and a multivariate regression model was used to control for confounding variables. RESULTS: Male surgeons reported higher incomes than female colleagues working equivalent hours ($802,474 versus $560,618; p = 0.016); however, male surgeons reported a greater case volume for the same number of hours. Among surgeons who performed ≥26 procedures per month, male and female surgeons reported comparable incomes ($949,508 versus $872,903; p = 0.649). Incomes of those in practice for >20 years also were comparable. Regression analysis controlling for subspecialty choice, hours worked, work status, case volume, years in practice, and practice setting revealed that income was $62,032.51 less for women than men (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Income disparity between male and female orthopaedic surgeons remains significant, and the gap increased from 2008 to 2014. Although subspecialty choice, practice setting, years in practice, and amount and distribution of procedures performed can partially explain salary differences, our regression analysis suggests persistence of an income gap based on sex in orthopaedic surgery.

Gender variation in Medicare utilization and payments in gynecologic oncology.

OBJECTIVES: The Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File (POSPUF) and Medicare Physician and Other Supplier National Provider Identifier (POS NPI) Aggregate Report are publicly available files from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services that include payments to providers who care for fee-for-service Medicare recipients. The aim of this study was to analyze variability in gynecologic oncologists' Medicare reimbursements, with attention to differences in provider gender and time in practice. METHODS: The 2015 POSPUF and POS NPI were analyzed with respect to gynecologic oncologists. We searched external publicly available data sources to confirm subspecialty and to determine each provider's number of years in practice. Evaluation and management (E&M) and procedure/surgery codes were analyzed; drug delivery codes were excluded due to variability in billing by facility/hospital. RESULTS: The POS NPI file included 733 gynecologic oncologist providers receiving $55,626,739 in total payments. Female providers comprised 39% of gynecologic oncologists and received 31% of reimbursements (30% of E&M reimbursements and 24% of surgical reimbursements). During the first ten years in practice, female providers comprised 58% of providers and accounted for 52% of reimbursed services, compared to 38% of providers/26% of reimbursed services (11-20 years), and 18% of providers/19% of reimbursed services (>20 years). CONCLUSION: Male gynecologic oncologists perform more Medicare services than their female counterparts. There is a comparable number of services performed between genders among both the most senior and the most junior providers, with a gender gap in services and reimbursements among mid-career providers.

Evaluation of Sex Distribution of Industry Payments Among Radiation Oncologists.

Importance: Industry relationships are an important measure of professional advancement; however, the association between physician sex and industry payments in radiation oncology has not been described. Objective: To update the trends in the sex distribution of industry payments in radiation oncology. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted between July 1, 2018, and August 31, 2018. It used the publicly available Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments program and CMS Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File databases to obtain 2016 industry payment data for US radiation oncologists who reported receiving industry funding in that year (n = 3052). Total monetary value, number of payments, and median payment amounts were determined for each sex in the following categories: research, consulting, honoraria, industry grants, royalty or license, and services other than consulting. Main Outcomes and Measures: Industry payment amounts among 3052 radiation oncologists who reported receiving payments in 2016; association of median payment with the types of payment by sex. Results: Of the total 4483 radiation oncologists who practiced in 2016, 1164 (25.9%) were female and 3319 (74.0%) were male. Industry payments were distributed among 3052 radiation oncologists (68.1%), of whom 715 (23.4%) were female and 2337 (76.6%) were male. The proportion of female radiation oncologists who received at least 1 industry payment was 61.4% (715 of 1164), whereas the proportion of their male counterparts was 70.4% (2337 of 3319). Across all payment types, female radiation oncologists received a smaller percentage of total industry funding than the percentage of female physicians represented in each category. The median payment value was smaller for female radiation oncologists in consulting (-$1000; 95% CI, -$1966.67 to $100.63; P = .005) and honoraria (-$500; 95% CI, -$1071.43 to $0; P = .007). This trend was also observed in research payments, but was not statistically significant (-$135.02; 95% CI, -$476.93 to $6.88; P = .08). Of the $1 347 509 royalty or license payments made to 72 physicians, none was for female radiation oncologists. Conclusions and Relevance: Distribution of industry payments appears to show sex disparity in industry relationships among radiation oncologists; this observation warrants further investigation to determine the underlying reasons and provide avenues for increased parity.

Analysis of Gender-based Differences in Surgery Faculty Compensation, Promotion, and Retention: Establishing Equity.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to evaluate gender-based differences in faculty salaries before and after implementation of a university-wide objective compensation plan, Faculty First (FF), in alignment with Association of American Medical Colleges regional median salary (AAMC-WRMS). Gender-based differences in promotion and retention were also assessed. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies demonstrate that female faculty within surgery are compensated less than male counterparts are and have decreased representation in higher academic ranks and leadership positions. METHODS: At a single institution, surgery faculty salaries and work relative value units (wRVUs) were reviewed from 2009 to 2017, and time to promotion and retention were reviewed from 1998 to 2007. In 2015, FF supplanted specialty-specific compensation plans. Salaries and wRVUs relative to AAMC-WRMS, time to promotion, and retention were compared between genders. RESULTS: Female faculty (N = 24) were compensated significantly less than males were (N = 62) before FF (P = 0.004). Female faculty compensation significantly increased after FF (P < 0.001). After FF, female and male faculty compensation was similar (P = 0.32). Average time to promotion for female (N = 29) and male faculty (N = 82) was similar for promotion to associate professor (P = 0.49) and to full professor (P = 0.37). Promotion was associated with significantly higher retention for both genders (P < 0.001). The median time of departure was similar between female and male faculty (P = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: A university-wide objective compensation plan increased faculty salaries to the AAMC western region median, allowing correction of gender-based salary inequity. Time to promotion and retention was similar between female and male faculty.

Assessing the domino effect: Female physician industry payments fall short, parallel gender inequalities in medicine.

BACKGROUND: Physician-industry relationships have been complex in modern medicine. Since large proportions of research, education and consulting are industry-backed, this is an important area to consider when examining gender inequality in medicine. METHODS: The Open Payments Program (OPP) database from August 2013 to December 2016 was analyzed. In order to identify physicians' genders, the OPP was matched with the National Provider Index dataset. Descriptive statistics of payments to female compared to male surgeons were obtained and stratified by payment type, subspecialty, geographic location and year. RESULTS: 3,925,707 transactions to 136,845 physicians were analyzed. Of them, 31,297 physicians were surgeons with an average payment per provider of $131,252 to male surgeons compared to $62,101 to female surgeons. Significantly fewer women received consultant, royalty/licensure, ownership and speaker payments. However, women received a higher average amount per surgeon compared to their male counterparts within research payments. Overall payments to women trended upwards over time. CONCLUSION: Gender inequality still exists in medicine, and in industry-physician payments. Industry should increasingly consider engaging women in consultancies, speaking engagements, and research.

A Structured Compensation Plan Improves But Does Not Erase the Sex Pay Gap in Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between the sex pay gap in a large academic department of surgery and a recently instituted structured compensation plan. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A recent large study found that after controlling for measures of academic and clinical productivity, male physicians earned nearly $20,000 more annually than female physicians. Increased salary transparency has been proposed as a method to reduce this disparity. METHODS: A new structured compensation plan was developed to improve transparency of compensation and financial viability of each division. The total compensations of each faculty member before and after the new compensation plan were calculated. Salaries were compared with the Association of Academic Medical Colleges (AAMC) median value based on specialty, region, academic rank, stratified by sex and compared. Work relative value units (wRVUs) were calculated for each faculty member during the entire study period, stratified by sex and compared. RESULTS: Among 44 eligible surgeons (33 men and 11 women), a sex pay gap existed with male surgeon salaries significantly higher than female surgeon salaries [56% (8 to 213) vs 26% (1 to 64); P < 0.00001] despite similar RVU production (men 8725 ±â€Š831 vs women 7818 ±â€Š911, P = 0.454). The new compensation plan did not significantly change male surgeon salaries [56% (8 to 213) vs 58% (26 to 159); P = 0.552] but did significantly increase the salaries of female surgeons [26% (1 to 64) vs 42% (10 to 80); P = 0.026]. CONCLUSION: A structured compensation plan can improve the sex pay gap in a short period of time. More transparency in surgical compensation plans is essential to understand the most equitable way to compensate all surgeons.

Analysis of gender-based differences among surgeons in Japan: results of a survey conducted by the Japan Surgical Society. Part 1: Working style.

PURPOSE: To assess the working styles of men and women working as surgeons in Japan. METHODS: In July, 2014, the Japan Surgical Society invited all their members (n = 29,861), through an internet campaign, to participate in a nationwide survey of surgeons. The items investigated in this descriptive study included demographic information and working styles, based on a questionnaire. RESULTS: In total, 6211 surgeons participated (response rate 20.8%, 5586 men and 625 women). The largest age stratum was 40-49 years for men and 30-39 years for women. Overall, respondents identified their labor contract, including salary and work hours, as the highest priority for improvement. Women with children were more likely to be part-time employees, work fewer hours, and take fewer house calls/on-calls than their male counterparts. Moreover, women of all ages earned a lower annual income than men, irrespective of whether they had children. Perception scores for discrimination related to work and promotion were significantly higher among women than men (p < 0.01 and p = 0.011, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A significant difference in working style was observed between men and women working as surgeons in Japan.

Types and Distribution of Payments From Industry to Physicians in 2015.

IMPORTANCE: Given scrutiny over financial conflicts of interest in health care, it is important to understand the types and distribution of industry-related payments to physicians. OBJECTIVE: To 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 PARTICIPANTS: Observational, 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. RESULTS: In 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.