Yuzhi Wang, Matthew James Davis, Alexandra Rogers, Jonathan Rexroth, Taylor Jane Malchow, Alex Stephens, Mohit Butaney, Samantha Wilder, Samantha Raffee, Firas Abdollah
{"title":"Assessment of the gender gap in urology industry payments: An Open Payments Program data analysis.","authors":"Yuzhi Wang, Matthew James Davis, Alexandra Rogers, Jonathan Rexroth, Taylor Jane Malchow, Alex Stephens, Mohit Butaney, Samantha Wilder, Samantha Raffee, Firas Abdollah","doi":"10.4111/icu.20240021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The Open Payments Program (OPP), established in 2013 under the Sunshine Act, mandated medical device and pharmaceutical manufacturers to submit records of financial incentives given to physicians for public availability. The study aims to characterize the gap in real general and real research payments between man and woman urologists.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The study sample included all urologists in the United States who received at least one general or research payment in the OPP database from 2015 to 2021. Recipients were identified using the National Provider Identifier and National Downloadable File datasets. Payments were analyzed by geography, year, payment type, and years since graduation. Multivariable analysis on odds of being in above the median in terms of money received was done with gender as a covariate. This analysis was also completed for all academic urologists.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a total of 15,980 urologists; 13.6% were woman, and 86.4% were man. Compared to man urologists, woman urologists were less likely to be in the top half of total payments received (odds ratio [OR] 0.62) when adjusted for other variables. When looking at academic urologists, 18.1% were woman and 81.9% were man. However, woman academic urologists were even less likely to be in the top 50% of payments received (OR 0.55).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study is the first to characterize the difference in industry payments between man and woman urologists. The results should be utilized to educate physicians and industry, in order to achieve equitable engagement and funding for woman urologists.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":"65 4","pages":"411-419"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11231660/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.20240021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: The Open Payments Program (OPP), established in 2013 under the Sunshine Act, mandated medical device and pharmaceutical manufacturers to submit records of financial incentives given to physicians for public availability. The study aims to characterize the gap in real general and real research payments between man and woman urologists.
Materials and methods: The study sample included all urologists in the United States who received at least one general or research payment in the OPP database from 2015 to 2021. Recipients were identified using the National Provider Identifier and National Downloadable File datasets. Payments were analyzed by geography, year, payment type, and years since graduation. Multivariable analysis on odds of being in above the median in terms of money received was done with gender as a covariate. This analysis was also completed for all academic urologists.
Results: There was a total of 15,980 urologists; 13.6% were woman, and 86.4% were man. Compared to man urologists, woman urologists were less likely to be in the top half of total payments received (odds ratio [OR] 0.62) when adjusted for other variables. When looking at academic urologists, 18.1% were woman and 81.9% were man. However, woman academic urologists were even less likely to be in the top 50% of payments received (OR 0.55).
Conclusions: This study is the first to characterize the difference in industry payments between man and woman urologists. The results should be utilized to educate physicians and industry, in order to achieve equitable engagement and funding for woman urologists.