Industry Payments to Urologists and Urologic Advanced Practice Providers in 2021.

OBJECTIVE: To compare industry payments from drug and medical device companies to urologists and urologic advanced practice providers (APPs) in 2021. METHODS: We used the 2020 Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty file to identify single-specialty urology practices, defined as those where the majority of physicians were urologists. We then used the Open Payments Program Year 2021 data to summarize the value and number of industry payments to urologists and APPs, including nurse practitioners and physician assistants, in these practices. We calculated the total value and number of payments and median total value and number of payments per provider for urologists and urologic APPs. RESULTS: We identified 4418 urologists and 1099 APPs working in single-specialty urology practices in 2021 (Table 1). Of these, 3646 (87%) urologists received at least one industry payment, totaling $14,755,003 from 116,039 payments, and 954 urologic APPs (87%) received at least one industry payment, including 463 nurse practitioners (85%), totaling $401,283 from 13,035 payments, and 491 physician assistants (89%), totaling $543,429 from 14,626 payments. We observed significantly greater median total value and number of payments per provider for urologists ($620 and 24 payments) compared to urologic APPs ($473 and 21 payments; P < .001 and P = .017, respectively). CONCLUSION: A similar percentage of urologists and urologic APPs received industry payments in 2021. While urologists received a higher total number and total value of payments in 2021, urologic APPs were a common target of industry marketing payments.

Evaluation of Industry Payments to US Advanced Practice Clinicians in 2021.

Importance: Advanced practice clinicians (APCs) are a growing part of the US health care system, and their financial relationships with pharmaceutical and medical device companies have not been well studied. Objectives: To examine the value, frequency, and types of payments made to APCs and the association of state scope-of-practice laws with these payments. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used 2021 Open Payments Program data to analyze payments from pharmaceutical or medical device companies to physicians or APCs between January 1 and December 31, 2021. Doctors of medicine and osteopathy were categorized as physicians, and nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, certified nurse midwives, and anesthesiologist assistants as APCs. Main Outcomes and Measures: The total value and total number of payments were calculated in aggregate and per clinician for each type of APC, all APCs, and physicians. These calculations were repeated by submitting manufacturer, form of payment, nature of payment, and state scope-of-practice law for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians. Results: A total of 412 000 physicians and 232 000 APCs collectively received $1.99 billion in payments from industry in 2021, of which APCs received $121 million (6.1%). The median total value of payments per clinician for physicians was $167 (IQR, $45-$712) and for APCs was $117 (IQR, $33-$357). The median total number of payments per clinician was equal for physicians and APCs (n = 4). The most common payments to APCs included food and beverage ($69 million [57.6%]), compensation for services other than consulting ($32 million [26.4%]), and consulting fees ($8 million [6.6%]). Advanced practice clinicians in states with the most restrictive scope-of-practice laws received 15.9% lower total value of payments than those in the least restrictive states (P = .002). Physician assistants received 7.6% (P = .005) higher value and 18.1% (P < .001) greater number of payments than nurse practitioners. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, 232 000 APCs collectively received $121 million in industry payments in 2021. The frequency of industry interactions with APCs was similar to that for physicians, but the average value was lower. The greater value of payments to APCs who practice in states with the least restrictive scope-of-practice laws suggests that industry payments may be related to clinician autonomy.

Association between Industry Payments and Published Position on Use of Devices for the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of industry payments to authors of opinion articles on the Urolift and Rezum devices. We also examined the extent to which authors omitted acknowledgements of financial conflicts-of-interest. METHODS: We searched Google Scholar for all articles that cite either of the respective pivotal trials for these devices. 2 blinded urologists coded the articles as favorable or neutral. A separate blinded researcher recorded industry payments from the manufacturers using the Open Payments Program database. RESULTS: We identified 29 articles written by 27 unique authors from an initial screening list of 235 articles. Of these articles, 15 (52%) were coded as positive and 14 (48%) were coded as neutral. 20 (74%) authors have accepted payments from the manufacturer of the device. Since 2014, these authors have collectively received $270,000 from NeoTract and $314,000 from Boston Scientific. Of the 20 authors with payments, 9 (45%) received more than $10,000 from either manufacturer. Of authors with payments, 65% (13/20) contributed to only positive articles. Authors who received payments had more than 4 times the number of article contributions than did authors without payments (42 vs 10). Authors of at least one favorable article were more likely to have received payments from the device manufacturers than authors of neutral articles (P = .014, Chi-squared test). Most (80%, 16/20) authors with payments did not report a relevant conflict-of-interest within any of their articles. CONCLUSION: These data suggest a relationship between payments from a manufacturer and positive published position on that company's device. There may be a critical lack of published editorial pieces by authors without financial conflicts of interest.