Trends in financial relationships between industry and individual medical oncologists in the United States from 2014 to 2017: A cohort study.

Abstract

6520 Background: Industry-physician financial relationships in medical oncology are common and introduce conflicts of interest. The Open Payments (OP) program collects and discloses data on industry payments to physicians, in part to discourage inappropriate relationships. However, the effect of OP on how oncologists engage with industry is unknown. Our aim was to evaluate trends in physician-level payments to test whether the implementation of OP has resulted in fewer physicians engaging with industry and has shifted the nature of interactions towards those considered more appropriate. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of US medical oncologists in 2014 from the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System. OP data for general (non-research) payments between 2014-2017 were matched to physician to evaluate receipt of payments over time. We calculated the percentage of physicians receiving payments, annual value and number of payments, and average annual trends over time, including by nature of payment. Results: From 2014-2017, medical oncologists received 1.4 million industry payments totaling $330.6 million. The absolute number of medical oncologists receiving payments decreased 4% on average annually ( P= .006), and proportionally from 67.2% to 59.6% overall. The value and number of payments have not significantly changed. The value and number of payments increased for accredited/certified CME (+821% and +209% annually) and decreased for non-accredited/certified CME (-18% and -25% annually). The value and number of food/beverage payments remained the same. The value and number of royalty/licensing payments increased. Conclusions: Fewer oncologists are receiving payments, but spending has not decreased suggesting that physicians are less likely to engage and industry is more selective. Increased payments for accredited CME suggest that less appropriate speaker’s fees are being avoided. Food/beverage payments are not decreasing, thus these interactions may not be recognized as problematic. Increasing royalty/licensing payments require ongoing scrutiny. Changes in physician payments since the inception of OP highlight the importance of transparency in policymaking.