Posters
Presenting Author Academic/Professional Position
Medical Student
Academic Level (Author 1)
Medical Student
Presentation Type
Poster
Discipline Track
Other
Healthcare Economics
Abstract Type
Research/Clinical
Abstract
Introduction: Industry payments to physicians may risk introducing bias into patient care. The Open Payments (OP) database, established by Physician Payments Sunshine Act, reports these payments to promote transparency. Orthopedic surgeons receive the highest industry payments especially in the category of royalties/licensing, prompting questions about conflicts of interest and whether the database accurately reflects the status across the specialty. We hypothesize that the OP database underrepresents the relationships that orthopedic surgeons have with industry. We seek to assess the validity of reported industry payments, particularly in the categories of royalties and licensing payments to determine how to improve transparency and the utility of the database.
Methods: A retrospective review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments (OP) database was conducted, focusing on industry payments to orthopedic surgeons from August 2013 to December 2023. We examined the number of orthopedic surgeons receiving payments in each category, focusing on royalty and licensing payments with a cutoff of $1 million. For each orthopedic surgeon receiving payments above this threshold, we investigated the presence of associated patents to determine the relationship between high payments and intellectual property.
Results: There is a significant skew in payments, with royalties and licensing comprising a large proportion of industry payments to orthopedic surgeons (64.5%). However, only 2,370 (2%) of all orthopedic surgeons received royalty payments. Among those receiving over $1 million in royalty payments over the past 10 years, 23% did not hold orthopedic-related patents under their name and 26% did not hold patents in conjunction with the industry entity providing royalty payments.
Conclusions: Our findings challenge existing assumptions about the correlation between high royalty/licensing payments and intellectual property, suggesting a reevaluation of how these payments are interpreted. Our investigation underscores the necessity for a deeper understanding and expanded transparency of the values reported under the OP database. Incorporating more detailed information and better definitions of payment types in the OP database can enhance its transparency and utility, aiding in the identification of potentially conflicted relationships.
Recommended Citation
Murambadoro, Anesu K.; Keko, Mario; Rodriguez, Edward; and Wixted, John J., "Evaluating Industry Relationships and Transparency: Insights from Orthopedic Surgeons in the CMS Open Payments Database" (2025). Research Symposium. 16.
https://scholarworks.utrgv.edu/somrs/2025/posters/16
Evaluating Industry Relationships and Transparency: Insights from Orthopedic Surgeons in the CMS Open Payments Database
Introduction: Industry payments to physicians may risk introducing bias into patient care. The Open Payments (OP) database, established by Physician Payments Sunshine Act, reports these payments to promote transparency. Orthopedic surgeons receive the highest industry payments especially in the category of royalties/licensing, prompting questions about conflicts of interest and whether the database accurately reflects the status across the specialty. We hypothesize that the OP database underrepresents the relationships that orthopedic surgeons have with industry. We seek to assess the validity of reported industry payments, particularly in the categories of royalties and licensing payments to determine how to improve transparency and the utility of the database.
Methods: A retrospective review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments (OP) database was conducted, focusing on industry payments to orthopedic surgeons from August 2013 to December 2023. We examined the number of orthopedic surgeons receiving payments in each category, focusing on royalty and licensing payments with a cutoff of $1 million. For each orthopedic surgeon receiving payments above this threshold, we investigated the presence of associated patents to determine the relationship between high payments and intellectual property.
Results: There is a significant skew in payments, with royalties and licensing comprising a large proportion of industry payments to orthopedic surgeons (64.5%). However, only 2,370 (2%) of all orthopedic surgeons received royalty payments. Among those receiving over $1 million in royalty payments over the past 10 years, 23% did not hold orthopedic-related patents under their name and 26% did not hold patents in conjunction with the industry entity providing royalty payments.
Conclusions: Our findings challenge existing assumptions about the correlation between high royalty/licensing payments and intellectual property, suggesting a reevaluation of how these payments are interpreted. Our investigation underscores the necessity for a deeper understanding and expanded transparency of the values reported under the OP database. Incorporating more detailed information and better definitions of payment types in the OP database can enhance its transparency and utility, aiding in the identification of potentially conflicted relationships.
