Factors Associated With Financial Relationships Between Spine Surgeons and Industry: An Analysis of the Open Payments Database.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Database. OBJECTIVE: Utilizing Open Payments data, we aimed to determine the prevalence of industry payments to orthopedic and neurospine surgeons, report the magnitude of those relationships, and help outline the surgeon demographic factors associated with industry relationships. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous Open Payments data revealed that orthopedic surgeons receive the highest value of industry payments. No study has investigated the financial relationship between spine surgeons and industry using the most recent release of Open Payments data. METHODS: A database of 5898 spine surgeons in the United States was derived from the Open Payments website. Demographic data were collected, including the type of residency training, years of experience, practice setting, type of medical degree, place of training, gender, and region of practice. Multivariate generalized linear mixed models were utilized to determine the relationship between demographics and industry payments. RESULTS: A total of 5898 spine surgeons met inclusion criteria. About 91.6% of surgeons reported at least one financial relationship with industry. The median total value of payments was $994.07. Surgeons receiving over $1,000,000 from industry during the reporting period represented 6.6% of the database and accounted for 83.5% of the total value exchanged. Orthopedic training (P < 0.001), academic practice setting (P < 0.0001), male gender (P < 0.0001), and West or South region of practice (P < 0.0001) were associated with industry payments. Linear regression analysis revealed a strong inverse relationship between years of experience and number of payments from industry (r = -0.967, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Financial relationships between spine surgeons and industry are highly prevalent. Surgeon demographics have a significant association with industry-surgeon financial relationships. Our reported value of payments did not include ownership or research payments and thus likely underestimates the magnitude of these financial relationships. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Effects of Conflicts of Interest on Practice Patterns and Complication Rates in Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether financial relationships with industry had any impact on operative and/or complication rates of spine surgeons performing fusion surgeries. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Recent actions from Congress and the Institute of Medicine have highlighted the importance of conflicts of interest among physicians. Orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons have been identified as receiving the highest amount of industry payments among all specialties. No study has yet investigated the potential effects of disclosed industry payments with quality and choices of patient care. METHODS: A comprehensive database of spine surgeons in the United States with compiled data of industry payments, operative fusion rates, and complication rates was created. Practice pattern data were derived from a publicly available Medicare-based database generated from selected CPT codes from 2011 to 2012. Complication rate data from 2009 to 2013 were extracted from the ProPublica-Surgeon-Scorecard database, which utilizes postoperative inhospital mortality and 30-day-readmission for designated conditions as complications of surgery. Data regarding industry payments from 2013 to 2014 were derived from the Open Payments website. Surgeons performing <10 fusions, those without complication data, and those whose identity could not be verified through public records were excluded. Pearson correlation coefficients and multivariate regression analyses were used to determine the relationship between industry payments, operative fusion rate, and/or complication rate. RESULTS: A total of 2110 surgeons met the inclusion criteria for our database. The average operative fusion rate was 8.8% (SD 4.8%), whereas the average complication rate for lumbar and cervical fusion was 4.1% and 1.9%, respectively. Pearson correlation analysis revealed a statistically significant but negligible relationship between disclosed payments/transactions and both operative fusion and complication rates. CONCLUSION: Our findings do not support a strong correlation between the payments a surgeon receives from industry and their decisions to perform spine fusion or associated complication rates. Large variability in the rate of fusions performed suggests a poor consensus for indications for spine fusion surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.