Exploring Industry Payments to Urology Residents: A Longitudinal Analysis Under the Sunshine Act.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the financial interactions between urology residents and the healthcare industry over a 5-year training period, assessing the implications of these interactions on medical education and practice considering the Physician Payments Sunshine Act. DESIGN: Longitudinal analysis of Open Payments data for a single class of urology residents from 2018 to 2023. SETTING: Data were extracted from the CMS Open Payments Database and cross-referenced with residency program information from the American Urological Association (AUA) and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of 314 urology residents were identified to have matched in 2018, with 173 residents having reported financial interactions through the Open Payments Program (OPP), representing 55% of the cohort. RESULTS: Analysis revealed that $129,632 was disbursed to the 173 residents throughout their surgical training, with a significant majority (approximately three-quarters or around $100,000) allocated for food and beverage. A statistically significant difference in payment amounts was observed between genders, with male residents receiving an average of $869 compared to $454 for female residents. Payments increased progressively with each postgraduate year (PGY) level, peaking in the fifth year. Despite notable disparities in compensation across AUA sections, no statistically significant variation was found (p = 0.21). The study also highlighted the underestimation of industry influence due to discretionary and heterogeneous reporting practices. CONCLUSIONS: The study underscores a significant, yet potentially underreported, financial interaction between urology residents and the healthcare industry, suggesting a deepening relationship as residents progress through their training. The findings call for a more uniform reporting system to enhance transparency and provide a clearer understanding of the industry's role in medical education and practice. Additionally, many residents may not be aware that their financial interactions are being documented and made public, a factor that could influence their professional behavior and expectations.

Evaluating industry payments to editorial board members of otolaryngology journals.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent of payments from medical device and pharmaceutical companies to editorial board members of leading otolaryngology journals. METHODS: Editorial board members of the top 10 otolaryngology journals from Google Scholar rankings were identified in this cross-sectional study. Payments between 2017 and 2022 were identified via the Open Payments Database from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. All payment data was adjusted for inflation in 2022 US dollars. Descriptive analyses were performed and journal websites were evaluated for individual editor disclosures. RESULTS: Out of 581 board members, 306 (53 %) received industry payments between 2017 and 2022, median journal percentage 55 % (interquartile range: 26.5 %-73.5 %). A sum of $45.8 million was paid out between 2017 and 2022, comprising $32.0 million in associated research funding, $1.2 million in research payments, $1.4 million in ownership and investment interests, and $11.2 million in general payments. The largest general payments were made out for "services other than consulting and speaking" ($3.9 million), "consulting" ($3.8 million), "travel and lodging" ($0.99 million), "education" ($0.87 million), "royalty or license" ($0.56 million), and "food and beverage" ($0.55 million). Individual editor disclosures were only available for International Forum of Allergy and Rhinology (9 % of all included editors). CONCLUSIONS: Industry payments to editors of otolaryngology journals are not uncommon. We highlight the need for improved reporting of individual editor disclosures for transparency to journal readers and for minimizing biased editorial decisions.

A retrospective comparison of the impact of industry payments on assisted reproductive technology practice and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether industry payments to physicians are associated with a difference in assisted reproductive technology practices and outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Assisted reproductive technology centers. PATIENT(S): Patients undergoing asissted reproduction. INTERVENTION(S): Industry payments reported to the Open Payments 2020 database. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The live birth rate, frozen embryo transfer (FET) rate, intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) rate, preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) rate, and percentage of patients aged >40 years were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2020 database. Linear regression analysis was performed comparing the percentage of physicians per center receiving industry payments to clinic-level outcomes. RESULT(S): A total of 873 reproductive endocrinology and infertility physicians received payments in the 2020 database. At least one physician received a payment in 80.5% (437/543) of in vitro fertilization centers. Of 1,724 reproductive endocrinology and infertility physicians, 873 (50.6%) received at least one payment in 2020. The live birth, ICSI, FET, and PGT rates and percentage of patients aged >40 years did not significantly differ between centers by percentage of physicians receiving industry payments. However, in the subanalysis of 99 large centers (defined as ≥5 physicians), each increase in the percentage of physicians receiving industry payments was associated with increases of 0.20% (95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.39) and 0.14% (95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.24) in the PGT and FET rates, respectively. The live birth, ICSI rates and percentage of patients aged >40 years were not associated with increased industry payment rates to physicians. CONCLUSION(S): Industry payments were not associated with differences in in vitro fertilization center outcomes overall. However, large centers with more physicians receiving industry payments may be more likely to use additional procedures such as PGT and FET, without improvement in the final outcomes such as the live birth rate. Further research is needed to determine whether these differences reflect the industry payment influence vs. individual center/provider practice habits in larger practices.

Evaluation of non-research and research industry payments to pediatric hematologist/oncologists in the United States between 2013 and 2021.

Financial interactions between healthcare industry and pediatric hematologist/oncologists (PHOs) could be conflicts of interest. Nevertheless, little is known about financial relationships between healthcare industry and PHOs. This cross-sectional analysis of the Open Payments Database examined general and research payments to PHOs from healthcare industry in the United States between 2013 and 2021. Payments to the PHOs were analyzed descriptively. Trends in payments were assessed using generalized estimating equation models. Of 2784 PHOs, 2142 (76.9%) PHOs received payments totaling $187.3 million from the healthcare industry between 2013 and 2021. Approximately, $46.3 million (24.8%) were general payments and $137.7 million (73.5%) were funding for research where PHOs served as principal investigators (associated research funding). Both general payments and associated research funding considerably increased between 2014 and 2019. The number of PHOs receiving general payments and associated research funding annually increased by 2.2% (95% CI: 1.2-3.3%, p < .001) and 5.0% (95% CI: 3.3-6.8%, p < .001) between 2014 and 2019, respectively.

Cross-sectional analysis of financial relationships between board certified allergists and the pharmaceutical industry in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Financial interactions between pharmaceutical companies and physicians lead to conflicts of interest. This study examines the extent and trends of non-research payments made by pharmaceutical companies to board-certified allergists in Japan between 2016 and 2020. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of disclosed payment data from pharmaceutical companies affiliated with the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association was conducted. The study focused on non-research payments for lecturing, consulting, and manuscript drafting made to board-certified allergists from 2016 to 2020. We performed descriptive analyses on payment data. Trends were analyzed using generalized estimating equation models. RESULTS: Of the 3,943 board-certified allergists, 2,398 (60.8%) received non-research payments totaling $43.4 million over five years. Lecturing fees comprised 85.7% ($37.2 million) of the total payment amounts. For allergists who received at least one payment, the median amount per allergist was $3,106 (interquartile range: $966 - $12,124), in contrast to a mean of $18,092 (standard deviation: $49,233) over the five-year span. The top 1% and 10% of these allergists accounted for 20.8% and 68.8% of all non-research payments, respectively. The annual payment amounts significantly increased by 7.2% annual increase (95% CI: 4.4 - 10.0%, p < 0.001) each year until 2019, but saw a significant decrease in 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: The majority of allergists received non-research payments, with a notable concentration among a small group. Payments increased annually until the pandemic's onset, which coincided with a substantial decrease. Further research is needed to explore the implications of these financial interactions on clinical practice and patient care in Japan.

A Nine-Year Investigation of Industry Research and Nonresearch Payments to Emergency Physicians in the United States Between 2014 and 2022.

BACKGROUND: Financial relationships between physicians and the health care industry are common in the United States. Yet, there are limited data on payments to emergency physicians since the 2014 launch of the Open Payments Database. OBJECTIVES: To analyze the trends and characteristics of industry payments to U.S. emergency physicians from 2014 to 2022. METHODS: This retrospective study used the Open Payments Database to examine all general and research payments to all active emergency physicians. Descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equations were employed. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2022, 50.1% (33,021) of emergency physicians received $640.1 million in payments. Of these, 50.1% received general payments, and 1.2% received research payments. General payments constituted 18.7% ($119.7 million) of the overall industry payments. Median general and research payments were $149 ($49-$401) and $72,083 ($13,903-$370,142), respectively. Compared with other specialties, fewer emergency physicians received general payments, and the amounts were lower. The top 1% of emergency physicians received 80.5% of the general payments. No significant trends in payment amounts were observed from 2014 to 2019, but there was a significant decrease in both types of payments in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of emergency physicians received payments from the health care industry, although these payments were typically minimal compared with other specialties. Payment trends remained consistent from 2014 to 2019, with a notable decrease in 2020 due to the pandemic.

Associations between pharmaceutical industry payments to physicians and prescription of PARP inhibitors in the United States.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between industry payments to physicians related to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) and physicians' prescribing behaviors for PARPis. METHODS: This panel-data analysis used the publicly accessible Open Payments Database and Medicare Part D database between 2017 and 2021. All physicians who reported >10 claims for either olaparib, rucaparib, or niraparib were included in this study. Non-research payments for the PARPis to the physicians from the PARPi manufacturers were extracted from the Open Payments Database. Associations between the physicians' receipt of payments and likelihood of prescribing PARPis were assessed with logistic generalized estimating equations (GEEs). Dose-response associations between the number of payments and prescription volumes and Medicare expenditures were evaluated with linear GEEs. RESULTS: Of the 1686 eligible physician prescribers, 68.7% received one or more non-research payments related to any of the three PARPis from the manufacturers between 2017 and 2021. Median annual payments per physician were $57 for olaparib, $39 for rucaparib, and $62 for niraparib. Receipt of payments for each PARPi was associated with higher odds of prescribing olaparib (odds ratio [OR]: 1.30 [95% CI: 1.14-1.48], p < 0.001), rucaparib (OR: 2.07 [95% CI: 1.58-2.72], p < 0.001), and niraparib (OR: 1.49 [95% CI: 1.22-1.81], p < 0.001). Dose-response effects were observed between the number of annual payments and the number of prescriptions and/or Medicare expenditures for olaparib and rucaparib. CONCLUSION: Non-research payments to physician prescribers of PARP inhibitors from the manufacturers were significantly associated with increased prescriptions and Medicare expenditures for olaparib and rucaparib in the United States.

Trends in Industry Payments to Surgeons During COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The Physician Payment Sunshine Act created the Open Payments Program (OPP), which is used to disclose transactions between physicians and industry. The impact of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic on this relationship is yet to be determined. Our aim was to compare payments before and after the onset of COVID-19 through the OPP. METHODS: The OPP database was queried between 2014 and 2021 for all general surgery specialties. Payments were classified as general payments and research payments. Payments during 2014-2019 were classified as pre-COVID and compared to payments from 2020 to 2021 which were classified as post-COVID-Outbreak. RESULTS: From 2014 to 2021, 60,245 surgeons received general payments totaling $1.16 billion dollars. Comparing 2019 to 2020, general payments declined from $204.6 million to $108.5 million (-47%) and research payments from $157.3 million to $115.7 million (-26.5%). When comparing trends from 2014-2019 to 2020-2021, the mean number of payments was significantly higher at 394,782 versus 240,778 (P = 0.03) for general payments and 13,671 versus 10,382 (P = 0.03) for research payments. When comparing general payments among various surgical subspecialties, all fields saw a notable decline in general payments. Travel/lodging was the category of payment that saw the most significant change. CONCLUSIONS: Industry payments declined as we entered the COVID-19 pandemic for both general and research payments. This decrease was seen across all surgical subspecialties. These trends in payments seen during the COVID-19 pandemic and the long-term economic impact of COVID-19 on the physician-industry relationship are still developing. Ongoing changes in future years to industry payments are worthy of continued monitoring.

Industry Payments to Pediatricians in the United States Between 2013 and 2021.

Financial relationships between physicians and the health care industry sometimes lead to conflicts of interest and need to be properly managed. Using the Open Payments Database between 2013 and 2021, this cross-sectional analysis examined the industry payments made to physicians whose primary specialty was pediatrics. Descriptive analyses were performed for the payment data overall and other pediatrician demographics. Of 99 764 eligible pediatricians, 59 984 (60.1%) received a total of $297 million (12.8%) in general and $2 billion in research payments over the 9 years. Median 9-year per-physician payments were $288 (interquartile range [IQR]: $88-$958) in general and $65 343 (IQR: $16 763-$255 208) in research payments. Male pediatricians were 1.06 (95% CI: 1.05-1.09, P < .001) and 1.56 (95% CI: 1.49-1.65, P < .001) times more likely to receive general and associated research payments than female pediatricians, respectively. The number of pediatricians receiving general payments annually decreased by 1.5% (95% CI: -1.7% to -1.4%, P < .001).

The distribution of industry payments among pediatric dermatologists from 2015 to 2021.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To understand the landscape of industry payments to pediatric dermatologists to foster transparency and identify potential disparities in funding. METHODS: Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments database, a national cross-sectional study was performed examining payments to pediatric dermatologists from 2015 to 2021. RESULTS: Of the 147 pediatric dermatologists who received industry funding, 35 were male and 112 were female. $9 million in payments was amassed, with 10% of pediatric dermatologists accounting for 94% of total industry payments. Consulting was the most common service, with Pfizer Inc., Amgen Inc., and Regeneron Healthcare Solutions Inc. representing the top three companies. Mean payment was $143,836 for males and $35,943 for females (p < .001). Eight female and seven male pediatric dermatologists received payments in the top 10th percentile, with different average payment in this subgroup (females $447,588 vs. males $698,746, p = .03). 11 states did not have a pediatric dermatologist receiving industry payments, while California (19) and Texas (12) had the most. CONCLUSIONS: There are approximately 400 board-certified pediatric dermatologists in the United States and fewer than 40% are receiving monetary compensation from private industry. A fraction of physicians accounted for a majority of total industry payments and industry payments to male pediatric dermatologists were higher despite nearly triple the number of female pediatric dermatologists. With the rise of valuable partnerships between healthcare and industry in modern medicine, the implications of geographic, gender, and financial disparity of industry payments in pediatric dermatology are worthy of further study.

Facial plating industry payments: An analysis of the open payments database.

Objective: To compare industry payments from facial plating companies to plastic surgery, oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS), and otolaryngology (OHNS). Methods: The Open Payments Database was queried from 2016 to 2021 to identify all industry disbursements related to facial plating products from Stryker, Zimmer Biomet, Depuy Synthes Products, Acumed, and KLS Martin. Total dollars, number of payments, and specialists paid were compared between plastic surgery, OMFS, and OHNS. Funding was correlated to estimated case volume and number of licensed surgeons determined by literature review. Results: From 2016 through 2021, OMFS received an average of $786,497 annually, followed by plastic surgery ($765,482), and OHNS ($184,484). On average, facial plating companies distributed 2256, 963, and 917 yearly payments to 699 oral and maxillofacial surgeons, 378 plastic surgeons, and 354 otolaryngologists, respectively. Total dollars, number of payments, and specialists paid were significantly different between specialties (p < .05). Facial trauma coverage is 39.6% by plastic surgery, 36.6% by OMFS, and 23.3% by OHNS. There are 7560 licensed oral and maxillofacial surgeons, 4948 plastic surgeons, and 11,778 otolaryngologists in the United States. Decreased payment to OHNS was more than could be accounted for by case volume alone. Conclusions: The facial plating industry allocates more funding dollars to OMFS and plastic surgery compared to OHNS. OMFS receives the greatest number of payments to the most specialists compared to plastic surgery and OHNS. Engagement between OHNS and the facial plating industry is a potential area of growth in the future.Level of evidence: Level 4.

Assessment of Conflicts of Interest in the Transcarotid Artery Revascularization Literature.

INTRODUCTION: To systematically review the accuracy of self-reported conflicts of interest (COIs) among transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) studies and evaluate factors associated with increased discrepancies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search identified all TCAR-related studies with at least one American author published between January 2017 and December 2020. Industry payments from Silk Road Medical, Inc. were collected using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Open Payments database. COI discrepancies were identified by comparing author declaration statements with payments found for the year of publication and year prior (24-mo period). Risk factors for COI discrepancy were evaluated at both the study and author level. RESULTS: A total of 79 studies (472 authors) were identified. Sixty four studies (81%) had at least one author who received payments from Silk Road Medical, Inc. Fifty eight (73%) studies had at least one author who received an undeclared payment. Consulting fees represented the majority of general payment subtype (60%). Authors who accurately disclosed payments received significantly higher median payments compared to authors who did not accurately disclose payments ($37,222 [interquartile range: $28,203-$132,589] versus $1748 [interquartile range $257-$35,041], P < 0.0001). Senior authors were significantly more likely to have a COI discrepancy compared to first authors (P = 0.0219). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of TCAR-related studies did not accurately declare COI. A multivariate analysis demonstrated no effect of sponsorship on study recommendations or impact factor. This study highlights the need for increased efforts in accountability to improve the transparency of industry sponsorship, especially when consulting authors are reporting their results on patient outcomes.

A 9-Year Investigation of Healthcare Industry Payments to Pulmonologists in the United States.

Rationale: The healthcare industry sometimes makes payments to physicians for nonresearch and research purposes in the United States. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the trends in nonresearch and research industry payments to pulmonologists since the inception of the Open Payments database in 2013. Methods: Using the Open Payments database between August 2013 and December 2021, this population-based observational cohort study examined nonresearch and research payments made by the healthcare industry to pulmonologists registered in the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System in the United States. We performed descriptive analyses on payment data and generalized estimating equations for payment trends. Results: Of 12,488 active pulmonologists, 11,074 (88.7%) accepted a total of 2,246,412 payments totaling $1,053,344,669. Total payments were $253,405,965 (24.1%) in nonresearch, $17,382,904 (1.7%) in direct research, and $782,555,800 (74.3%) in associated research payments between 2013 and 2021. Median per-physician payments (interquartile range) were $2,342 ($496 to $8,299) for nonresearch, $4,688 ($1,435 to $21,803) for direct research, and $95,927 ($20,300 to $344,995) for associated research payments. The top 1%, 5%, and 10% of pulmonologists accepted 37.3%, 71.9%, and 83.7% of the total nonresearch payments. The per-physician nonresearch payments increased by 2.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2 to 4.7; P = 0.001) annually between 2014 and 2019 and decreased by 50.2% (95% CI, -55.3 to -44.6; P < 0.001) in 2020, whereas there was no yearly change in research payments. Conclusions: Nearly 90% of pulmonologists received nonresearch and research payments from the healthcare industry in the United States. Nonresearch payments have been increasing since the inception of the Open Payments database.

Comparing Payments to Surgeons From Drug and Medical Device Corporations Reveals Inequalities Between Genders and Specialties.

INTRODUCTION: Maintaining trust in the patient-doctor relationship requires transparency in the details of the financial relationships between physicians and drug and medical device corporations. These details are publicly available through the Open Payments database, and patients are encouraged to ask surgeons to interpret their implications. The purpose of this study was to better equip surgeons in responding to these inquiries and to compare the distribution of these payments by gender and specialty. METHODS: The 2021 Open Payments dataset was searched for all payments to surgeons from the 14 different specialties recognized by the American College of Surgeons. The total payments per surgeon were compared by calculating the mean and median payments. The Gini index, a measure of income inequality, was also calculated for each specialty. RESULTS: There were 96 724 surgeons who received over $755 million in payments from drug and medical device companies. There were 72 245 (74.7%) men and 24 479 (25.3%) women. The total amount of payments to men was $712 million (94.2%) and for women it was $44 million (5.8%). The overall Gini index was .9508. The specialty with the highest Gini index was pediatric surgery (.9844) and the lowest was cardiothoracic surgery (.8656). DISCUSSION: Male surgeons received disproportionately higher payments from drug and device corporations than female surgeons. Surgeons should be aware of their own standing within the Open Payments database in order to respond appropriately to patient inquiries.

Analysis of Industry-Related Payments Among Physician Editors of Pathology Journals.

OBJECTIVES: Gender inequities in editorial board representation and physician compensation are well documented, but few studies have focused on how editors of journals are compensated. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we examined industry-related compensation (from 2014 to 2020) among physician editors of 35 pathology journals using publicly available data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database. RESULTS: Of the physician editors included, 135 (69.9%) were men and 58 (30.1%) were women. Similar percentages of men and women physicians who were eligible received payments (112/135 [83.0%] men and 51/58 [87.9%] women; P = .38, χ2 test). Of the total transfer of value ($211,192,532), 112 men received $192,727,555 (91.3%), and 51 women received $18,464,978 (8.7%). Mean total payment per person was $1,720,782 for men and $362,058 for women (P = .05). The payment range for men was $18-$47,568,400 and the range of payments for women was $31-$2,375,637. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight significant gender inequities in industry-related payments to physician editors of pathology journals. The financial relationships of journal editors and industry deserve further study, particularly as they relate to advancing science and closing both workforce and patient care inequities.

Characterizing industry payments to US teaching hospitals and affiliated physicians: a cross-sectional analysis of the Open Payments datasets from 2016 to 2022.

Industry payments to US teaching hospitals are common; however, little is known about whether these financial relationships influence affiliated physicians to engage in similar financial relationships with industry. Using national hospital, physician, and industry payment data we investigated trends in industry payments made to US teaching hospitals and affiliated physicians to characterize the magnitude and nature of payments. In addition, we assessed if physicians may be influenced to accept higher value industry payments depending on the value of promotional payments accepted by the teaching hospital they affiliate with. We found that physicians with a US teaching hospital affiliation are associated with accepting higher value industry payments as the total value of industry payments of the teaching hospital increases. Our findings varied by specialty, with surgeons accepting the highest value payments. These results highlight the need for greater public disclosure and awareness of payments to better manage and mitigate industry-biased clinical decision making.

Trend in industry payments to infectious disease physicians in the United States: a seven-year analysis of nonresearch payments from the Open Payments Database between 2014 and 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the trend in nonresearch payments made by the industries to the infectious disease physicians in the United States since the launch of the Open Payments Database and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Descriptive analysis was performed for the nonresearch payments made to all infectious disease physicians listed in the Open Payments Database between 2014 and 2020. Using the generalized estimating equation models with panel data of monthly and yearly payment per physician, the payment trend since the inception of the Open Payments Database and during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 7901 (81.5%) infectious disease physicians received $156 837 987 in nonresearch payments between 2014 and 2020. Median annual payments were $197 to $220. Monthly nonresearch per-physician payments and number of physicians with payments rapidly decreased by 58.6% (95% CI: 49.7%‒65.9%, p < 0.001) and by 54.4% (95% CI: 52.7%‒56.1%, p < 0.001) at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, respectively. However, the per-physician payments and number of physicians with payments slightly increased every month right after onset of the pandemic. Both per-physician payments and the number of physicians with payments decreased by 2.6% (95% CI: 0.45‒4.7, p 0.018) and 2.0% (95% CI: 1.6%‒2.4%, p < 0.001) since the inception of the Open Payments Database, respectively. DISCUSSION: The nonresearch payments and number of infectious disease physicians accepting payments had decreased since the inception of the Open Payments Database. Furthermore, the non-research payments to infectious disease physicians suddenly decreased by more than half due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Industry Payments to Physicians Are Kickbacks. How Should Stakeholders Respond?

Payments from the pharmaceutical industry to US physicians are common. In determining which payments rise to the level of an illegal kickback under the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General (OIG) has stated in nonbinding guidance that influencing or "swaying" physician prescribing is key. OIG has highlighted as a compliance standard the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Code on Interactions with Health Professions, which stipulates that permissible payments are those that do not interfere with prescribing. However, recent evidence has shown that most payments influence physician prescribing, driving higher prescription drug costs by increasing use of brand-name and low-value drugs. This evidence implies that many payments that are currently commonplace could be subject to prosecution under AKS. Given that these payments increase costs to patients and the health care system, there is a public interest in curtailing them. This article proposes a range of actions available to stakeholders-including industry, providers, regulators, and payers-to mitigate the cost-increasing effect of industry payments to physicians.