Differences in Clinical Activity and Medicare Payments for Female vs Male Ophthalmologists.

IMPORTANCE: The number of women in ophthalmology is rising. Little is known about their clinical activity and collections. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether charges, as reflected in reimbursements from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to ophthalmologists, differ by sex and how disparity relates to differences in clinical activity. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective review of the CMS database for payments to ophthalmologists from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2013. The dates of the analysis were February 1 through May 30, 2016. After exclusion of J and Q codes, the total payments to and the number of charges by individual ophthalmologists were analyzed. The mean values were compared using a single t test, and the medians were compared by the nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcome measures were the mean and median CMS payments to male and female ophthalmologists in outpatient, non-facility-based settings. Secondary outcome measures included the number of charges submitted by men and women and the types of charges most commonly submitted by men and women. RESULTS: This study included 16 111 ophthalmologists (3078 women [19.1%] and 13 033 men [80.9%]) in 2012 and 16 179 ophthalmologists (3206 women [19.8%] and 12 973 men [80.2%]) in 2013. In 2012, the average female ophthalmologist collected $0.58 (95% CI, $0.54-$0.62; P < .001) for every dollar collected by a male ophthalmologist; comparing the medians, women collected $0.56 (95% CI, $0.50-$0.61; P < .001) for every dollar earned by men. Mean and median collections were similar when comparing female vs male ophthalmologists in 2013 (P < .001). The mean payment per charge was the same for men and women, $66 in 2012 and $64 in 2013. There was a strong association between collections and work product, with female ophthalmologists submitting fewer charges to Medicare in 2012 (median, 1120 charges; difference -935; 95% CI, -1024 to -846; P < .001) and in 2013 (median, 1141 charges; difference -937; 95% CI, -1026 to -848; P < .001) than male ophthalmologists. When corrected by comparing men and women with similar clinical activity, renumeration was still lower for women. In both years, women were underrepresented among ophthalmologists with the highest collections. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Remuneration from the CMS was disparate between male and female ophthalmologists in 2012 and 2013 because of the submission of fewer charges by women. Further studies are necessary to explore root causes for this difference, with equity in opportunity and parity in clinical activity standing to benefit the specialty.

Representation of Women With Industry Ties in Ophthalmology.

IMPORTANCE: Women in ophthalmology are growing in number and have made strides in traditional metrics of professional achievement. Professional ties to industry represent another potential means of career advancement, recognition, and income. OBJECTIVE: To report the representation of women among ophthalmologists receiving industry remuneration for research, consulting, honoraria, grants, royalties, and faculty/speaker roles. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this observational, retrospective study, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database for payments to ophthalmologists by biomedical companies was reviewed for representation, median payments, and mean payments by women and men for industry relationships in 2013 and 2014. The analysis was performed from July 2015 to November 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome measures were percentage representation of women vs men overall and in industry research, consulting, speaking roles, royalties and licenses, grants, services other than consulting, and honoraria. Secondary outcome measures included mean and median payments from industry to female vs male ophthalmologists. RESULTS: In 2013, 4164 of 21 380 (19.5%) ophthalmologists were women, and of 1204 ophthalmologists analyzed for industry payments, 176 (4.2%) women had industry ties compared with 1028 (6%) men (P < .001). Mean payments to women were $11 419 compared with $20 957 for men (P = .001), and median payments to women were $3000 compared with $4787 for men (P = .007). In 2013, women were underrepresented among ophthalmologists receiving industry payments for research (49 of 462 [10.6%]), consulting (96 of 610 [15.7%]), honoraria (3 of 47 [6.4%]), industry grants (1 of 7 [14.3%]), royalties and licenses (1 of 13 [7.7%]), and faculty/speaker roles (2 of 48 [4.2%]). In 2014, 4352 of 21 531 (20.2%) of ophthalmologists were women. Of 1518 ophthalmologists analyzed for industry payments, 255 (6%) women had industry ties compared with 1263 (7.4%) men (P < .001). Mean payments to women were $14 848 compared with $30 513 for men (P = .004), and median payments to women were $3750 compared with $5000 for men (P = .005). Women remained underrepresented among ophthalmologists receiving industry payments for research (25 of 241 [10.4%]), consulting (145 of 921 [15.7%]), honoraria (14 of 11 [12.6%]), industry grants (3 of 25 [12.0%]), royalties and licenses (1 of 22 [4.6%]), and faculty/speaker roles (21 of 189 [11.1%]) in 2014. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Women make up a minority of ophthalmologists with professional industry relationships, and the average woman partnering with industry earns less than her male colleagues. The reasons for differences are multifactorial and could not be determined by this study.