Mp21-15 Industry Payment Landscape of Pediatric Urologists Compared to Other Urologists

You have accessJournal of UrologyPediatrics II (MP21) 1 May 2024MP21-15 INDUSTRY PAYMENT LANDSCAPE OF PEDIATRIC UROLOGISTS COMPARED TO OTHER UROLOGISTS Chung Yon Lin, Bernice Alcanzo, Daniel Salevitz, and Gwen Grimsby Chung Yon LinChung Yon Lin, Bernice AlcanzoBernice Alcanzo, Daniel SalevitzDaniel Salevitz, and Gwen GrimsbyGwen Grimsby View All Author Informationhttps: //doi. org/10. 1097/01. JU. 0001008844. 84871. 17. 15AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Payment data from drug and medical device companies has the potential to uncover essential but often underexplored practices within medicine. The goal of this study is to describe payment interactions between pharmaceutical and medical device companies and urologists, as well as to compare the payments received by pediatric urologists (PU) with general urologists and other urology subspecialists (OU). METHODS: The 2022 payment dataset was downloaded from https: //openpaymentsdata. cms. gov/. Data analysis was conducted on RStudio Version 2023. 03. 0+386. Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare median payments per individual and actual payment amount in US dollars (USD). Chi-square test was used to compare proportions of payment amount and number per category. Percentage of PU and OU receiving payment was calculated utilizing the 2022 AUA Census data. RESULTS: A total of 9, 712 urologists were included in the 2022 payment dataset, 216 PU and 9496 OU. Significantly more OU received industry payments in 2022 compared with PU (73% vs 11%, p<0. 0001). Despite PU having a higher median payment amount (25. 22 vs 19. 80, p<0. 0001), OU had a greater number of payments (10 vs 2, p<0. 0001). Most payments were allocated for food and beverages, although these made up only 27% and 31% of the total payment amount for PU and OU, respectively. Top payment categories for OU were food, travel, and consulting fees, while for PU top payment categories were consulting fees, grants, and food. The proportions of payments and payment sums per category differed significantly between the two groups. For PU, the majority of the total payment sum was comprised of consulting fees, food and beverage, and grants, while for OU, the total payment sum was primarily made up of food and beverage, travel and lodging, and consulting fees, Table 1. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers a nuanced understanding of the industry payment landscape for urologists. Given the high proportion of payments received by urologists, conflict of interest statements should be carefully reviewed to maintain the integrity of patient care in urology. Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e335 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Metrics Author Information Chung Yon Lin More articles by this author Bernice Alcanzo More articles by this author Daniel Salevitz More articles by this author Gwen Grimsby More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading. . .