期刊界 All Journals 搜尽天下杂志传播学术成果专业期刊搜索期刊信息化学术搜索

共查询到2条相似文献，搜索用时 0 毫秒

Re: Evaluation of the Statewide Variability in the Current Role of Different Specialties in Lower Extremity Endovascular Revascularization for Medicare Beneficiaries

《Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR》2019,30(10):1716-1717

相似文献

IR and the Sunshine Act: Two-Year Analysis of the Open Payments Database and Comparison with Related Specialties

Amanjit S. Baadh Palvir K. Baadh Shahidul Islam Douglas S. Katz 《Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR》2017,28(2):200-205

Purpose

To characterize medical industry–based payments made to US-based interventional radiology (IR) physicians, identify trends in compensation, and compare their payment profile with those of other related specialties, including vascular surgery (VS) and interventional cardiology (IC). Payments made to orthopedic surgery (OS) physicians are reported as a historical control.

Materials and Methods

For each group, the total payment number, amount, and mean and median numbers and amounts were calculated. The data were then reanalyzed after correcting for statistical outliers. For IR, VS, and IC, leading industry sponsors, payment amount, and differences in payments from 2013 to 2014 were highlighted. Payments to IR were grouped by category and geographic location. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used for statistical analysis.

Results

A total of $26,857,622 went to 1,831 IR physicians, representing 70.9% of active IR physicians, and the corrected mean payment was $597 ± 832.2 (standard deviation). The respective values were $18,861,041, 3,383, 80.6%, and $851.59 for VS; $32,008,213, 7,939, 78.6%, and $417.16 for IC; and $357,528,020, 21,829, 77.8%, and $598.48 for OS. OS had the largest number of payments (295,465 vs 24,246 for IR, 84,635 for VS, and 160,443 for IC) and greatest total payment amount. VS had a significantly higher corrected median payment amount ($463; P < .0001) than IR ($214) and IC ($99). Covidien and Sirtex Medical were the leading industry sponsors to IR, and 64.6% of IR payments were compensation for services other than consulting. There was no significant difference in median payment received per geographic region (P = .32).

Conclusions

OS received the largest number and total payment amount, and VS received a significantly greater corrected median payment amount, versus IR and IC. As the Open Payments program continues to be implemented, it remains to be seen how this information will affect relationships among physicians, patients, and industry. 相似文献