Gender Differences in Medicare Payments Among Cardiologists.

Importance: Women cardiologists receive lower salaries than men; however, it is unknown whether US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) reimbursement also differs by gender and contributes to the lower salaries. Objective: To determine whether gender differences exist in the reimbursements, charges, and reimbursement per charge from CMS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis used the CMS database to obtain 2016 reimbursement data for US cardiologists. These included reimbursements to cardiologists, charges submitted, and unique billing codes. Gender differences in reimbursement for evaluation and management and procedural charges from both inpatient and outpatient settings were also assessed. Analysis took place between April 2019 and December 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included median CMS payments received and median charges submitted in the inpatient and outpatient settings in 2016. Results: In 2016, 17 524 cardiologists (2312 women [13%] and 15 212 men [87%]) received CMS payments in the inpatient setting, and 16 929 cardiologists (2151 women [13%] and 14 778 men [87%]) received CMS payments in the outpatient setting. Men received higher median payments in the inpatient (median [interquartile range], $62 897 [$30 904-$104 267] vs $45 288 [$21 371-$73 191]; P < .001) and outpatient (median [interquartile range], $91 053 [$34 820-$196 165] vs $51 975 [$15 622-$120 175]; P < .001) practice settings. Men submitted more median charges in the inpatient (median [interquartile range], 1190 [569-2093] charges vs 959 [569-2093] charges; P < .001) and outpatient settings (median [interquartile range], 1685 [644-3328] charges vs 870 [273-1988] charges; P < .001). In a multivariable-adjusted linear regression analysis, women received less CMS payments compared with men (log-scale ß = -0.06; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.02) after adjustment for number of charges, number of unique billing codes, complexity of patient panel, years since graduation of physicians, and physician subspecialty. Payment by billing codes, both inpatient and outpatient, did not differ by gender. Conclusions and Relevance: There may be potential differences in CMS payments between men and women cardiologists, which appear to stem from gender differences in the number and types of charges submitted. The mechanisms behind these differences merit further research, both to understand why such gender differences exist and also to facilitate reductions in pay disparities.

Gender differences in industry payments among cardiologists.

BACKGROUND: There is a wage gap among men and women practicing cardiology. Differences in industry funding can be both a consequence of and a contributor to gender differences in salaries. We sought to determine whether gender differences exist in the distribution, types, and amounts of industry payments among men and women in cardiology. METHODS: In this cross-sectional analysis, we used the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payment program database to obtain 2016 industry payment data for US cardiologists. We also used UK Disclosure data to obtain 2016 industry payments to UK cardiologists. Outcomes included the proportions of male and female cardiologists receiving industry funding and the mean industry payment amounts received by male and female cardiologists. Where possible, we also assessed 2014 and 2015 data in both locations. RESULTS: Of the 22,848 practicing Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services US cardiologists in 2016, 20,037 (88%) were men and 2,811 (12%) were women. Proportionally more men than women received industry payments in 2016 (78.0% vs 68.5%, respectively; P < .001). Men received higher overall mean industry payments than women ($6,193.25 vs. $2,501.55, P < .001). Results were similar in 2014 and 2015. Among UK cardiologists, more men (24.4%) than women (13.5%) received industry payments in 2016 (P < .001). However, although the difference in overall industry payments was numerically larger among men compared to women, this did not achieve statistical significance (£2,348.31 vs £1,501.37, respectively, P = .35). CONCLUSIONS: Industry payments to cardiologists are common, and there are gender differences in these payments on both sides of the Atlantic.

Safety of ultrasound contrast agents in stress echocardiography.

Definity and Optison are perflutren-based ultrasound contrast agents used in echocardiography. United States Food and Drug Administration warnings regarding serious cardiopulmonary reactions and death after Definity administration highlighted the limited safety data in patients who undergo contrast stress echocardiography. From 1998 and 2007, 2,022 patients underwent dobutamine stress echocardiography and 2,764 underwent exercise stress echocardiography with contrast at the Cleveland Clinic. The echocardiographic database, patient records, and the Social Security Death Index were reviewed for the timing and cause of death, severe adverse events, arrhythmias, and symptoms. Complication rates for contrast dobutamine stress echocardiography and exercise stress echocardiography were compared with those in a control group of 5,012 patients matched for test year and type who did not receive contrast. Ninety-five percent of studies were performed in outpatients. There were no differences in the rates of severe adverse events (0.19% vs 0.17%, p = 0.7), death within 24 hours (0% vs 0.04%, p = 0.1), cardiac arrest (0.04% vs 0.04%, p = 0.96), and sustained ventricular tachycardia (0.2% vs 0.1%, p = 0.32) between patients receiving and not receiving intravenous contrast, respectively. In conclusion, severe adverse reactions to intravenous contrast agents during stress echocardiography are uncommon. Contrast use does not add to the baseline risk for severe adverse events in patients who undergo stress echocardiography.