Joe K. Tung, MD, MBA

Financial relationships between physicians and industry are prevalent and complex and may have implications for patient care. A 2007 study reported that 94% of 3167 physicians surveyed had established some form of paid relationship with companies in the pharmaceutical industry.¹ To facilitate increased transparency around these relationships, lawmakers passed the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010, which requires pharmaceutical companies and device manufacturers to report all payments made to physicians.² Mandatory disclosures include meals, honoraria, travel expenses, grants, and ownership or investment interests greater than $10. The information is displayed publicly in the Open Payments database (OPD)(https://openpayments-data.cms.gov/), a platform run by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The OPD allows for in-depth analyses of industry payments made to physicians. Many medical specialties—including orthopedics,^3-5 plastic surgery,^6,7 ophthalmology,⁸ and gastroenterology⁹—have published extensive literature characterizing the nature of these payments and disparities in the distribution of payments based on sex, geographic distribution, and other factors. After the first full year of OPD data collection for dermatology in 2014, Feng et al¹⁰ examined the number, amount, and nature of industry payments to dermatologists, as well as their geographic distribution for that year. As a follow-up to this initial research, Schlager et al¹¹ characterized payments made to dermatologists for the year 2016 and found an increase in the total payments, mean payments, and number of dermatologists receiving payments compared with the 2014 data.

Our study aimed to characterize the last 5 years of available OPD data—from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021—to further explore trends in industry payments made to dermatologists. In particular, we examined the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on payments as well as sex disparities and the distribution of industry payments.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of the OPD for the general payment datasets from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. The results were filtered to include only payments made to dermatologists, excluding physicians from other specialties, physician assistants, and other types of practitioners. Data for each physician were grouped by National Provider Identifier (NPI) for providers included in the set, allowing for analysis at the individual level. Data on sex were extracted from the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System’s monthly data dissemination for NPIs for July 2023 (when the study was conducted) and were joined to the OPD data using the NPI number reported for each physician. All data were extracted, transformed, and analyzed using R software (version 4.2.1). Figures and visualizations were produced using Microsoft Excel 2016.

Results

In 2017, a total of 358,884 payments were made by industry to dermatologists, accounting for nearly $58.0 million. The mean total value of payments received per dermatologist was $5231.74, and the mean payment amount was $161.49. In 2018, the total number of payments increased year-over-year by 5.5% (378,509 payments), the total value of payments received increased by 7.5% (approximately $62.3 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 5.3% ($5508.98). In 2019, the total number of payments increased by 3.0% (389,670 total payments), the total value of payments recieved increased by 13.2% (approximately $70.5 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 11.3% ($6133.45). All of these values decreased in 2020, likely due to COVID-19–related restrictions on travel and meetings (total number of payments, 208,470 [−46.5%]; total value of payments received, approximately $37.5 million [−46.9%], mean total value of payments received per dermatologist, $3757.27 [−38.7%]), but the mean payment amount remained stable at $179.47. In 2021, the total number of payments (295,808 [+41.9%]), total value of payments received (approximately $50.3 million [+34.4%]), and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist ($4707.88 [+25.3%]) all rebounded, but not to pre-2020 levels (Table 1). When looking at the geographic distribution of payments, the top 5 states receiving the highest total value of payments during the study period included California ($41.51 million), New York ($32.26 million), Florida ($21.38 million), Texas ($19.93 million), and Pennsylvania ($11.69 million).

For each year from 2017 to 2021, more than 80% of payments made to dermatologists were less than $50. The majority (60.7%–75.8%) were in the $10 to $50 range. Between 4% and 5% of payments were more than $1000 for each year. Fewer than 10% of dermatologists received more than $5000 in total payments per year. Most dermatologists (33.3%–36.9%) received $100 to $500 per year. The distribution of payments stratified by number of payments made by amount and payment amount per dermatologist is further delineated in Table 2.

Comment

Benefits of Physician Relationships With Industry—The Physician Payments Sunshine Act increased transparency of industry payments to physicians by creating the OPD through which these relationships can be reported.¹² The effects of these relationships on treatment practices have been the subject of many studies in recent years. Some have suggested that industry ties may impact prescription patterns of endorsed medications.¹³ It also has been reported that the chance of a research study identifying a positive outcome for a particular treatment is higher when the study is funded by a pharmaceutical company compared to other sponsors.¹⁴ On the other hand, some researchers have argued that, when established and maintained in an ethical manner, industry-physician relationships may help practitioners stay updated on the newest treatment paradigms and benefit patient care.¹⁵ Industry relationships may help drive innovation of new products with direct input from frontline physicians who take care of the patients these products aim to help.

Limitations of the OPD—Critics of the OPD have argued that the reported data lack sufficient context and are not easily interpretable by most patients.¹⁶ In addition, many patients might not know about the existence of the database. Indeed, one national survey-based study showed that only 12% of 3542 respondents knew that this information was publicly available, and only 5% knew whether their own physician had received industry payments.¹⁷

Increased Payments From Industry—Our analysis builds on previously reported data in dermatology from 2014 to 2016.^10,11 We found that the trends of increasing numbers and dollar amounts of payments made by industry to dermatologists continued from 2017 to 2019, which may reflect the intended effects of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, as more payments are being reported in a transparent manner. It also shows that relationships between industry and dermatologists have become more commonplace over time.

It is important to consider these trends in the context of overall Medicare expenditures and prescription volumes. Between 2008 and 2021, prescription volumes have been increasing at a rate of 1% to 4% per year, with 2020 being an exception as the volume decreased slightly from the year prior due to COVID-19 (−3%). Similarly, total Medicare and Medicaid expenditures have been growing at a rate of almost 5% per year.¹⁸ Based on our study results, it appears the total value of payments made between 2017 and 2021 increased at a rate that outpaced prescription volume and expenditures; however, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the relationship between payments made to dermatologists and spending without examining prescriptions specific to dermatologists in the OPD dataset. This relationship could be further explored in future studies.

COVID-19 Restrictions Impacted Payments in 2021—We hypothesize that COVID-19–related restrictions on traveling and in-person meetings led to a decrease in the number of payments, total payment amount, and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist. Notably, compensation for services other than consulting, including speaking fees, had the most precipitous decrease in total payment amount. On the other hand, honoraria and consulting fees were least impacted, as many dermatologists were still able to maintain relationships with industry on an advisory basis without traveling. From 2020 to 2021, the number of total payments and dollar amounts increased with easing of COVID-19 restrictions; however, they had not yet rebounded to 2019 levels during the study period. It will be interesting to continue monitoring these trends once data from future years become available.

Top-Compensated Dermatologists—Our study results also show that for all years from 2017 through 2021, the majority of industry payments were made to a small concentrated percentage of top-compensated dermatologists, which may reflect larger and more frequent payments to those identified by pharmaceutical companies as thought leaders and key opinion leaders in the field or those who are more willing to establish extensive ties with industry. Similarly skewed distributions in payments have been shown in other medical subspecialties including neurosurgery, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and orthopedics.^4,6,19,20 It also is apparent that the majority of compensated dermatologists in the OPD maintain relatively small ties with industry. For every year from 2017 to 2021, more than half of compensated dermatologists received total payments of less than $500 per year, most of which stemmed from the food and beverage category. Interestingly, a prior study showed that patient perceptions of industry-physician ties may be more strongly impacted by the payment category than the amount.²¹ For example, respondents viewed payments for meals and lodging more negatively, as they were seen more as personal gifts without direct benefit to patients. Conversely, respondents held more positive views of physicians who received free drug samples, which were perceived as benefiting patients, as well as those receiving consulting fees, which were perceived as a signal of physician expertise. Notably, in the same study, physicians who received no payments from industry were seen as honest but also were viewed by some respondents as being inexperienced or uninformed about new treatments.²¹

The contribution and public perception of dermatologists who conduct investigator-initiated research utilizing other types of funding (eg, government grants) also are important to consider but were not directly assessed within the scope of the current study.

Sex Disparities in Compensation—Multiple studies in the literature have demonstrated that sex inequities exist across medical specialties.^22,23 In dermatology, although women make up slightly more than 50% of board-certified dermatologists, they continue to be underrepresented compared with men in leadership positions, academic rank, research funding, and lectureships at national meetings.^24-27 In survey-based studies specifically examining gender-based physician compensation, male dermatologists were found to earn higher salaries than their female counterparts in both private practice and academic settings, even after adjusting for work hours, practice characteristics, and academic rank.^28,29

Our study contributes to the growing body of evidence suggesting that sex inequities also may exist with regard to financial payments from industry. Our results showed that, although the number of male and female dermatologists with industry relationships was similar each year, the number of payments made and total payment amount were both significantly (P<.001) higher for male dermatologists from 2017 through 2021. In 2021, the mean payment amount ($201.57 for male dermatologists; $117.73 for female dermatologists) and mean total amount of payments received ($6172.89 and $2957.79, respectively) also were significantly higher for male compared with female dermatologists (P<.001). The cause of this disparity likely is multifactorial and warrants additional studies in the future. One hypothesis in the existing literature is that male physicians may be more inclined to seek out relationships with industry; it also is possible that disparities in research funding, academic rank, and speaking opportunities at national conferences detailed previously may contribute to inequities in industry payments as companies seek out perceived leaders in the field.³⁰

Limitations and Future Directions—Several important limitations of our study warrant further consideration. As with any database study, the accuracy of the results presented and the conclusions drawn are highly dependent on the precision of the available data, which is reliant on transparent documentation by pharmaceutical companies and physicians. There are no independent methods of verifying the information reported. There have been reports in the literature questioning the utility of the OPD data and risk for misinterpretation.^16,31 Furthermore, the OPD only includes companies whose products are covered by government-sponsored programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and therefore does not encompass the totality of industry-dermatologist relationships. We also focused specifically on board-certified dermatologists and did not analyze the extent of industry relationships involving residents, nurses, physician assistants, and other critical members of health care teams that may impact patient care. Differences between academic and private practice payments also could not be examined using the OPD but could present an interesting area for future studies.

Despite these limitations, our study was extensive, using the publicly available OPD to analyze trends and disparities in financial relationships between dermatologists and industry partners from 2017 through 2021. Notably, these findings are not intended to provide judgment or seek to tease out financial relationships that are beneficial for patient care from those that are not; rather, they are intended only to lend additional transparency, provoke thought, and encourage future studies and discussion surrounding this important topic.

Conclusion

Financial relationships between dermatologists and industry are complex and are becoming more prevalent, as shown in our study. These relationships may be critical to facilitate novel patient-centered research and growth in the field of dermatology; however, they also have the potential to be seen as bias in patient care. Transparent reporting of these relationships is an important step in future research regarding the effects of different payment types and serves as the basis for further understanding industry-dermatologist relationships as well as any inequities that exist in the distribution of payments. We encourage all dermatologists to review their public profiles in the OPD. Physicians have the opportunity to review all payment data reported by companies and challenge the accuracy of the data if necessary.

Financial relationships between physicians and industry are prevalent and complex and may have implications for patient care. A 2007 study reported that 94% of 3167 physicians surveyed had established some form of paid relationship with companies in the pharmaceutical industry.¹ To facilitate increased transparency around these relationships, lawmakers passed the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010, which requires pharmaceutical companies and device manufacturers to report all payments made to physicians.² Mandatory disclosures include meals, honoraria, travel expenses, grants, and ownership or investment interests greater than $10. The information is displayed publicly in the Open Payments database (OPD)(https://openpayments-data.cms.gov/), a platform run by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The OPD allows for in-depth analyses of industry payments made to physicians. Many medical specialties—including orthopedics,^3-5 plastic surgery,^6,7 ophthalmology,⁸ and gastroenterology⁹—have published extensive literature characterizing the nature of these payments and disparities in the distribution of payments based on sex, geographic distribution, and other factors. After the first full year of OPD data collection for dermatology in 2014, Feng et al¹⁰ examined the number, amount, and nature of industry payments to dermatologists, as well as their geographic distribution for that year. As a follow-up to this initial research, Schlager et al¹¹ characterized payments made to dermatologists for the year 2016 and found an increase in the total payments, mean payments, and number of dermatologists receiving payments compared with the 2014 data.

Our study aimed to characterize the last 5 years of available OPD data—from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021—to further explore trends in industry payments made to dermatologists. In particular, we examined the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on payments as well as sex disparities and the distribution of industry payments.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of the OPD for the general payment datasets from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. The results were filtered to include only payments made to dermatologists, excluding physicians from other specialties, physician assistants, and other types of practitioners. Data for each physician were grouped by National Provider Identifier (NPI) for providers included in the set, allowing for analysis at the individual level. Data on sex were extracted from the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System’s monthly data dissemination for NPIs for July 2023 (when the study was conducted) and were joined to the OPD data using the NPI number reported for each physician. All data were extracted, transformed, and analyzed using R software (version 4.2.1). Figures and visualizations were produced using Microsoft Excel 2016.

Results

In 2017, a total of 358,884 payments were made by industry to dermatologists, accounting for nearly $58.0 million. The mean total value of payments received per dermatologist was $5231.74, and the mean payment amount was $161.49. In 2018, the total number of payments increased year-over-year by 5.5% (378,509 payments), the total value of payments received increased by 7.5% (approximately $62.3 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 5.3% ($5508.98). In 2019, the total number of payments increased by 3.0% (389,670 total payments), the total value of payments recieved increased by 13.2% (approximately $70.5 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 11.3% ($6133.45). All of these values decreased in 2020, likely due to COVID-19–related restrictions on travel and meetings (total number of payments, 208,470 [−46.5%]; total value of payments received, approximately $37.5 million [−46.9%], mean total value of payments received per dermatologist, $3757.27 [−38.7%]), but the mean payment amount remained stable at $179.47. In 2021, the total number of payments (295,808 [+41.9%]), total value of payments received (approximately $50.3 million [+34.4%]), and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist ($4707.88 [+25.3%]) all rebounded, but not to pre-2020 levels (Table 1). When looking at the geographic distribution of payments, the top 5 states receiving the highest total value of payments during the study period included California ($41.51 million), New York ($32.26 million), Florida ($21.38 million), Texas ($19.93 million), and Pennsylvania ($11.69 million).

For each year from 2017 to 2021, more than 80% of payments made to dermatologists were less than $50. The majority (60.7%–75.8%) were in the $10 to $50 range. Between 4% and 5% of payments were more than $1000 for each year. Fewer than 10% of dermatologists received more than $5000 in total payments per year. Most dermatologists (33.3%–36.9%) received $100 to $500 per year. The distribution of payments stratified by number of payments made by amount and payment amount per dermatologist is further delineated in Table 2.

Comment

Benefits of Physician Relationships With Industry—The Physician Payments Sunshine Act increased transparency of industry payments to physicians by creating the OPD through which these relationships can be reported.¹² The effects of these relationships on treatment practices have been the subject of many studies in recent years. Some have suggested that industry ties may impact prescription patterns of endorsed medications.¹³ It also has been reported that the chance of a research study identifying a positive outcome for a particular treatment is higher when the study is funded by a pharmaceutical company compared to other sponsors.¹⁴ On the other hand, some researchers have argued that, when established and maintained in an ethical manner, industry-physician relationships may help practitioners stay updated on the newest treatment paradigms and benefit patient care.¹⁵ Industry relationships may help drive innovation of new products with direct input from frontline physicians who take care of the patients these products aim to help.

Limitations of the OPD—Critics of the OPD have argued that the reported data lack sufficient context and are not easily interpretable by most patients.¹⁶ In addition, many patients might not know about the existence of the database. Indeed, one national survey-based study showed that only 12% of 3542 respondents knew that this information was publicly available, and only 5% knew whether their own physician had received industry payments.¹⁷

Increased Payments From Industry—Our analysis builds on previously reported data in dermatology from 2014 to 2016.^10,11 We found that the trends of increasing numbers and dollar amounts of payments made by industry to dermatologists continued from 2017 to 2019, which may reflect the intended effects of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, as more payments are being reported in a transparent manner. It also shows that relationships between industry and dermatologists have become more commonplace over time.

It is important to consider these trends in the context of overall Medicare expenditures and prescription volumes. Between 2008 and 2021, prescription volumes have been increasing at a rate of 1% to 4% per year, with 2020 being an exception as the volume decreased slightly from the year prior due to COVID-19 (−3%). Similarly, total Medicare and Medicaid expenditures have been growing at a rate of almost 5% per year.¹⁸ Based on our study results, it appears the total value of payments made between 2017 and 2021 increased at a rate that outpaced prescription volume and expenditures; however, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the relationship between payments made to dermatologists and spending without examining prescriptions specific to dermatologists in the OPD dataset. This relationship could be further explored in future studies.

COVID-19 Restrictions Impacted Payments in 2021—We hypothesize that COVID-19–related restrictions on traveling and in-person meetings led to a decrease in the number of payments, total payment amount, and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist. Notably, compensation for services other than consulting, including speaking fees, had the most precipitous decrease in total payment amount. On the other hand, honoraria and consulting fees were least impacted, as many dermatologists were still able to maintain relationships with industry on an advisory basis without traveling. From 2020 to 2021, the number of total payments and dollar amounts increased with easing of COVID-19 restrictions; however, they had not yet rebounded to 2019 levels during the study period. It will be interesting to continue monitoring these trends once data from future years become available.

Top-Compensated Dermatologists—Our study results also show that for all years from 2017 through 2021, the majority of industry payments were made to a small concentrated percentage of top-compensated dermatologists, which may reflect larger and more frequent payments to those identified by pharmaceutical companies as thought leaders and key opinion leaders in the field or those who are more willing to establish extensive ties with industry. Similarly skewed distributions in payments have been shown in other medical subspecialties including neurosurgery, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and orthopedics.^4,6,19,20 It also is apparent that the majority of compensated dermatologists in the OPD maintain relatively small ties with industry. For every year from 2017 to 2021, more than half of compensated dermatologists received total payments of less than $500 per year, most of which stemmed from the food and beverage category. Interestingly, a prior study showed that patient perceptions of industry-physician ties may be more strongly impacted by the payment category than the amount.²¹ For example, respondents viewed payments for meals and lodging more negatively, as they were seen more as personal gifts without direct benefit to patients. Conversely, respondents held more positive views of physicians who received free drug samples, which were perceived as benefiting patients, as well as those receiving consulting fees, which were perceived as a signal of physician expertise. Notably, in the same study, physicians who received no payments from industry were seen as honest but also were viewed by some respondents as being inexperienced or uninformed about new treatments.²¹

The contribution and public perception of dermatologists who conduct investigator-initiated research utilizing other types of funding (eg, government grants) also are important to consider but were not directly assessed within the scope of the current study.

Sex Disparities in Compensation—Multiple studies in the literature have demonstrated that sex inequities exist across medical specialties.^22,23 In dermatology, although women make up slightly more than 50% of board-certified dermatologists, they continue to be underrepresented compared with men in leadership positions, academic rank, research funding, and lectureships at national meetings.^24-27 In survey-based studies specifically examining gender-based physician compensation, male dermatologists were found to earn higher salaries than their female counterparts in both private practice and academic settings, even after adjusting for work hours, practice characteristics, and academic rank.^28,29

Our study contributes to the growing body of evidence suggesting that sex inequities also may exist with regard to financial payments from industry. Our results showed that, although the number of male and female dermatologists with industry relationships was similar each year, the number of payments made and total payment amount were both significantly (P<.001) higher for male dermatologists from 2017 through 2021. In 2021, the mean payment amount ($201.57 for male dermatologists; $117.73 for female dermatologists) and mean total amount of payments received ($6172.89 and $2957.79, respectively) also were significantly higher for male compared with female dermatologists (P<.001). The cause of this disparity likely is multifactorial and warrants additional studies in the future. One hypothesis in the existing literature is that male physicians may be more inclined to seek out relationships with industry; it also is possible that disparities in research funding, academic rank, and speaking opportunities at national conferences detailed previously may contribute to inequities in industry payments as companies seek out perceived leaders in the field.³⁰

Limitations and Future Directions—Several important limitations of our study warrant further consideration. As with any database study, the accuracy of the results presented and the conclusions drawn are highly dependent on the precision of the available data, which is reliant on transparent documentation by pharmaceutical companies and physicians. There are no independent methods of verifying the information reported. There have been reports in the literature questioning the utility of the OPD data and risk for misinterpretation.^16,31 Furthermore, the OPD only includes companies whose products are covered by government-sponsored programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and therefore does not encompass the totality of industry-dermatologist relationships. We also focused specifically on board-certified dermatologists and did not analyze the extent of industry relationships involving residents, nurses, physician assistants, and other critical members of health care teams that may impact patient care. Differences between academic and private practice payments also could not be examined using the OPD but could present an interesting area for future studies.

Despite these limitations, our study was extensive, using the publicly available OPD to analyze trends and disparities in financial relationships between dermatologists and industry partners from 2017 through 2021. Notably, these findings are not intended to provide judgment or seek to tease out financial relationships that are beneficial for patient care from those that are not; rather, they are intended only to lend additional transparency, provoke thought, and encourage future studies and discussion surrounding this important topic.

Conclusion

Financial relationships between dermatologists and industry are complex and are becoming more prevalent, as shown in our study. These relationships may be critical to facilitate novel patient-centered research and growth in the field of dermatology; however, they also have the potential to be seen as bias in patient care. Transparent reporting of these relationships is an important step in future research regarding the effects of different payment types and serves as the basis for further understanding industry-dermatologist relationships as well as any inequities that exist in the distribution of payments. We encourage all dermatologists to review their public profiles in the OPD. Physicians have the opportunity to review all payment data reported by companies and challenge the accuracy of the data if necessary.

Financial relationships between physicians and industry are prevalent and complex and may have implications for patient care. A 2007 study reported that 94% of 3167 physicians surveyed had established some form of paid relationship with companies in the pharmaceutical industry.¹ To facilitate increased transparency around these relationships, lawmakers passed the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010, which requires pharmaceutical companies and device manufacturers to report all payments made to physicians.² Mandatory disclosures include meals, honoraria, travel expenses, grants, and ownership or investment interests greater than $10. The information is displayed publicly in the Open Payments database (OPD)(https://openpayments-data.cms.gov/), a platform run by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The OPD allows for in-depth analyses of industry payments made to physicians. Many medical specialties—including orthopedics,^3-5 plastic surgery,^6,7 ophthalmology,⁸ and gastroenterology⁹—have published extensive literature characterizing the nature of these payments and disparities in the distribution of payments based on sex, geographic distribution, and other factors. After the first full year of OPD data collection for dermatology in 2014, Feng et al¹⁰ examined the number, amount, and nature of industry payments to dermatologists, as well as their geographic distribution for that year. As a follow-up to this initial research, Schlager et al¹¹ characterized payments made to dermatologists for the year 2016 and found an increase in the total payments, mean payments, and number of dermatologists receiving payments compared with the 2014 data.

Our study aimed to characterize the last 5 years of available OPD data—from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021—to further explore trends in industry payments made to dermatologists. In particular, we examined the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on payments as well as sex disparities and the distribution of industry payments.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of the OPD for the general payment datasets from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. The results were filtered to include only payments made to dermatologists, excluding physicians from other specialties, physician assistants, and other types of practitioners. Data for each physician were grouped by National Provider Identifier (NPI) for providers included in the set, allowing for analysis at the individual level. Data on sex were extracted from the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System’s monthly data dissemination for NPIs for July 2023 (when the study was conducted) and were joined to the OPD data using the NPI number reported for each physician. All data were extracted, transformed, and analyzed using R software (version 4.2.1). Figures and visualizations were produced using Microsoft Excel 2016.

Results

In 2017, a total of 358,884 payments were made by industry to dermatologists, accounting for nearly $58.0 million. The mean total value of payments received per dermatologist was $5231.74, and the mean payment amount was $161.49. In 2018, the total number of payments increased year-over-year by 5.5% (378,509 payments), the total value of payments received increased by 7.5% (approximately $62.3 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 5.3% ($5508.98). In 2019, the total number of payments increased by 3.0% (389,670 total payments), the total value of payments recieved increased by 13.2% (approximately $70.5 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 11.3% ($6133.45). All of these values decreased in 2020, likely due to COVID-19–related restrictions on travel and meetings (total number of payments, 208,470 [−46.5%]; total value of payments received, approximately $37.5 million [−46.9%], mean total value of payments received per dermatologist, $3757.27 [−38.7%]), but the mean payment amount remained stable at $179.47. In 2021, the total number of payments (295,808 [+41.9%]), total value of payments received (approximately $50.3 million [+34.4%]), and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist ($4707.88 [+25.3%]) all rebounded, but not to pre-2020 levels (Table 1). When looking at the geographic distribution of payments, the top 5 states receiving the highest total value of payments during the study period included California ($41.51 million), New York ($32.26 million), Florida ($21.38 million), Texas ($19.93 million), and Pennsylvania ($11.69 million).

For each year from 2017 to 2021, more than 80% of payments made to dermatologists were less than $50. The majority (60.7%–75.8%) were in the $10 to $50 range. Between 4% and 5% of payments were more than $1000 for each year. Fewer than 10% of dermatologists received more than $5000 in total payments per year. Most dermatologists (33.3%–36.9%) received $100 to $500 per year. The distribution of payments stratified by number of payments made by amount and payment amount per dermatologist is further delineated in Table 2.

Comment

Benefits of Physician Relationships With Industry—The Physician Payments Sunshine Act increased transparency of industry payments to physicians by creating the OPD through which these relationships can be reported.¹² The effects of these relationships on treatment practices have been the subject of many studies in recent years. Some have suggested that industry ties may impact prescription patterns of endorsed medications.¹³ It also has been reported that the chance of a research study identifying a positive outcome for a particular treatment is higher when the study is funded by a pharmaceutical company compared to other sponsors.¹⁴ On the other hand, some researchers have argued that, when established and maintained in an ethical manner, industry-physician relationships may help practitioners stay updated on the newest treatment paradigms and benefit patient care.¹⁵ Industry relationships may help drive innovation of new products with direct input from frontline physicians who take care of the patients these products aim to help.

Limitations of the OPD—Critics of the OPD have argued that the reported data lack sufficient context and are not easily interpretable by most patients.¹⁶ In addition, many patients might not know about the existence of the database. Indeed, one national survey-based study showed that only 12% of 3542 respondents knew that this information was publicly available, and only 5% knew whether their own physician had received industry payments.¹⁷

Increased Payments From Industry—Our analysis builds on previously reported data in dermatology from 2014 to 2016.^10,11 We found that the trends of increasing numbers and dollar amounts of payments made by industry to dermatologists continued from 2017 to 2019, which may reflect the intended effects of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, as more payments are being reported in a transparent manner. It also shows that relationships between industry and dermatologists have become more commonplace over time.

It is important to consider these trends in the context of overall Medicare expenditures and prescription volumes. Between 2008 and 2021, prescription volumes have been increasing at a rate of 1% to 4% per year, with 2020 being an exception as the volume decreased slightly from the year prior due to COVID-19 (−3%). Similarly, total Medicare and Medicaid expenditures have been growing at a rate of almost 5% per year.¹⁸ Based on our study results, it appears the total value of payments made between 2017 and 2021 increased at a rate that outpaced prescription volume and expenditures; however, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the relationship between payments made to dermatologists and spending without examining prescriptions specific to dermatologists in the OPD dataset. This relationship could be further explored in future studies.

COVID-19 Restrictions Impacted Payments in 2021—We hypothesize that COVID-19–related restrictions on traveling and in-person meetings led to a decrease in the number of payments, total payment amount, and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist. Notably, compensation for services other than consulting, including speaking fees, had the most precipitous decrease in total payment amount. On the other hand, honoraria and consulting fees were least impacted, as many dermatologists were still able to maintain relationships with industry on an advisory basis without traveling. From 2020 to 2021, the number of total payments and dollar amounts increased with easing of COVID-19 restrictions; however, they had not yet rebounded to 2019 levels during the study period. It will be interesting to continue monitoring these trends once data from future years become available.

Top-Compensated Dermatologists—Our study results also show that for all years from 2017 through 2021, the majority of industry payments were made to a small concentrated percentage of top-compensated dermatologists, which may reflect larger and more frequent payments to those identified by pharmaceutical companies as thought leaders and key opinion leaders in the field or those who are more willing to establish extensive ties with industry. Similarly skewed distributions in payments have been shown in other medical subspecialties including neurosurgery, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and orthopedics.^4,6,19,20 It also is apparent that the majority of compensated dermatologists in the OPD maintain relatively small ties with industry. For every year from 2017 to 2021, more than half of compensated dermatologists received total payments of less than $500 per year, most of which stemmed from the food and beverage category. Interestingly, a prior study showed that patient perceptions of industry-physician ties may be more strongly impacted by the payment category than the amount.²¹ For example, respondents viewed payments for meals and lodging more negatively, as they were seen more as personal gifts without direct benefit to patients. Conversely, respondents held more positive views of physicians who received free drug samples, which were perceived as benefiting patients, as well as those receiving consulting fees, which were perceived as a signal of physician expertise. Notably, in the same study, physicians who received no payments from industry were seen as honest but also were viewed by some respondents as being inexperienced or uninformed about new treatments.²¹

The contribution and public perception of dermatologists who conduct investigator-initiated research utilizing other types of funding (eg, government grants) also are important to consider but were not directly assessed within the scope of the current study.

Sex Disparities in Compensation—Multiple studies in the literature have demonstrated that sex inequities exist across medical specialties.^22,23 In dermatology, although women make up slightly more than 50% of board-certified dermatologists, they continue to be underrepresented compared with men in leadership positions, academic rank, research funding, and lectureships at national meetings.^24-27 In survey-based studies specifically examining gender-based physician compensation, male dermatologists were found to earn higher salaries than their female counterparts in both private practice and academic settings, even after adjusting for work hours, practice characteristics, and academic rank.^28,29

Our study contributes to the growing body of evidence suggesting that sex inequities also may exist with regard to financial payments from industry. Our results showed that, although the number of male and female dermatologists with industry relationships was similar each year, the number of payments made and total payment amount were both significantly (P<.001) higher for male dermatologists from 2017 through 2021. In 2021, the mean payment amount ($201.57 for male dermatologists; $117.73 for female dermatologists) and mean total amount of payments received ($6172.89 and $2957.79, respectively) also were significantly higher for male compared with female dermatologists (P<.001). The cause of this disparity likely is multifactorial and warrants additional studies in the future. One hypothesis in the existing literature is that male physicians may be more inclined to seek out relationships with industry; it also is possible that disparities in research funding, academic rank, and speaking opportunities at national conferences detailed previously may contribute to inequities in industry payments as companies seek out perceived leaders in the field.³⁰

Limitations and Future Directions—Several important limitations of our study warrant further consideration. As with any database study, the accuracy of the results presented and the conclusions drawn are highly dependent on the precision of the available data, which is reliant on transparent documentation by pharmaceutical companies and physicians. There are no independent methods of verifying the information reported. There have been reports in the literature questioning the utility of the OPD data and risk for misinterpretation.^16,31 Furthermore, the OPD only includes companies whose products are covered by government-sponsored programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and therefore does not encompass the totality of industry-dermatologist relationships. We also focused specifically on board-certified dermatologists and did not analyze the extent of industry relationships involving residents, nurses, physician assistants, and other critical members of health care teams that may impact patient care. Differences between academic and private practice payments also could not be examined using the OPD but could present an interesting area for future studies.

Despite these limitations, our study was extensive, using the publicly available OPD to analyze trends and disparities in financial relationships between dermatologists and industry partners from 2017 through 2021. Notably, these findings are not intended to provide judgment or seek to tease out financial relationships that are beneficial for patient care from those that are not; rather, they are intended only to lend additional transparency, provoke thought, and encourage future studies and discussion surrounding this important topic.

Conclusion

Financial relationships between dermatologists and industry are complex and are becoming more prevalent, as shown in our study. These relationships may be critical to facilitate novel patient-centered research and growth in the field of dermatology; however, they also have the potential to be seen as bias in patient care. Transparent reporting of these relationships is an important step in future research regarding the effects of different payment types and serves as the basis for further understanding industry-dermatologist relationships as well as any inequities that exist in the distribution of payments. We encourage all dermatologists to review their public profiles in the OPD. Physicians have the opportunity to review all payment data reported by companies and challenge the accuracy of the data if necessary.

The Diagnosis: Eczema Herpeticum

The patient’s condition with worsening facial edema and notable pain prompted a bedside Tzanck smear using a sample from the base of a deroofed forehead vesicle. In addition, a swab of a deroofed lesion was sent for herpes simplex virus and varicella-zoster virus (VZV) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. The Tzanck smear demonstrated ballooning multinucleated syncytial giant cells and eosinophilic inclusion bodies (Figure), which are characteristic of certain herpesviruses including herpes simplex virus and VZV. He was started on intravenous acyclovir while PCR results were pending; the PCR test later confirmed positivity for herpes simplex virus type 1. Treatment was transitioned to oral valacyclovir once the lesions started crusting over. Notable healing and epithelialization of the lesions occurred during his hospital stay, and he was discharged home 5 days after starting treatment. He was counseled on autoinoculation, advised that he was considered infectious until all lesions had crusted over, and encouraged to employ frequent handwashing. Complete resolution of eczema herpeticum (EH) was noted at 3-week follow-up.

Eczema herpeticum (also known as Kaposi varicelliform eruption) is a potentially life-threatening disseminated cutaneous infection caused by herpes simplex virus types 1 and 2 in patients with pre-existing skin disease.¹ It typically presents as a complication of atopic dermatitis (AD) but also has been identified as a rare complication in other conditions that disrupt the normal skin barrier, including mycosis fungoides, pemphigus foliaceus, pemphigus vulgaris, Darier disease, pityriasis rubra pilaris, contact dermatitis, and seborrheic dermatitis.^1-4

The pathogenesis of EH is multifactorial. Disruption of the stratum corneum; impaired natural killer cell function; early-onset, untreated, or severe AD; disrupted skin microbiota with skewed colonization by Staphylococcus aureus; immunosuppressive AD therapies such as calcineurin inhibitors; eosinophilia; and helper T cell (T_H2) cytokine predominance all have been suggested to play a role in the development of EH.^5-8

As seen in our patient, EH presents with a sudden eruption of painful or pruritic, grouped, monomorphic, domeshaped vesicles with background swelling and erythema typically on the head, neck, and trunk. Vesicles then progress to punched-out erosions with overlying hemorrhagic crusting that can coalesce to form large denuded areas susceptible to superinfection with bacteria.⁹ Other accompanying symptoms include high fever, chills, malaise, and lymphadenopathy. Associated inflammation, classically described as erythema, may be difficult to discern in patients with darker skin and appears as hyperpigmentation; therefore, identification of clusters of monomorphic vesicles in areas of pre-existing dermatitis is particularly important for clinical diagnosis in people with darker skin types.

Various tests are available to confirm diagnosis in ambiguous cases. Bedside Tzanck smears can be performed rapidly and are considered positive if characteristic multinucleated giant cells are noted; however, they do not differentiate between the various herpesviruses. Direct fluorescent antibody testing of scraped lesions and viral cultures of swabbed vesicular fluid are equally effective in distinguishing between herpes simplex virus type 1, herpes simplex virus type 2, and VZV; PCR confirms the diagnosis with high specificity and sensitivity.¹⁰

In our patient, the initial differential diagnosis included EH, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, allergic contact dermatitis, and Orthopoxvirus infection. The positive Tzanck smear reduced the likelihood of a nonviral etiology. Additionally, worsening of the rash despite discontinuation of medications and utilization of topical steroids argued against acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis and allergic contact dermatitis. The laboratory findings reduced the likelihood of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, and PCR findings ultimately ruled out Orthopoxvirus infections. Additional differential diagnoses for EH include dermatitis herpetiformis; primary VZV infection; hand, foot, and mouth disease; disseminated zoster infection; disseminated molluscum contagiosum; and eczema coxsackium.

Complications of EH include scarring; herpetic keratitis due to corneal infection, which if left untreated can progress to blindness; and rarely death due to multiorgan failure or septicemia.¹¹ The traditional smallpox vaccine (ACAM2000) is contraindicated in patients with AD and EH, even when AD is in remission. These patients should avoid contact with recently vaccinated individuals.¹² An alternative vaccine—Jynneos (Bavarian Nordic)—is available for these patients and their family members.¹³ Clinicians should be aware of this guideline, especially given the recent mpox (monkeypox) outbreaks.

Mild cases of EH are more common, may sometimes go unnoticed, and self-resolve in healthy patients. Severe cases may require systemic antiviral therapy. Acyclovir and its prodrug valacyclovir are standard treatments for EH. Alternatively, foscarnet or cidofovir can be used in the treatment of acyclovir-resistant thymidine kinase– deficient herpes simplex virus and other acyclovirresistant cases.¹⁴ Any secondary bacterial superinfections, usually due to staphylococcal or streptococcal bacteria, should be treated with antibiotics. A thorough ophthalmologic evaluation should be performed for patients with periocular involvement of EH. Empiric treatment should be started immediately, given a relative low toxicity of systemic antiviral therapy and high morbidity and mortality associated with untreated widespread EH.

It is important to maintain a high index of clinical suspicion for EH, especially in patients with pre-existing conditions such as AD who present with systemic symptoms and facial vesicles, pustules, or erosions to ensure prompt diagnosis and appropriate treatment.

The Diagnosis: Eczema Herpeticum

The patient’s condition with worsening facial edema and notable pain prompted a bedside Tzanck smear using a sample from the base of a deroofed forehead vesicle. In addition, a swab of a deroofed lesion was sent for herpes simplex virus and varicella-zoster virus (VZV) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. The Tzanck smear demonstrated ballooning multinucleated syncytial giant cells and eosinophilic inclusion bodies (Figure), which are characteristic of certain herpesviruses including herpes simplex virus and VZV. He was started on intravenous acyclovir while PCR results were pending; the PCR test later confirmed positivity for herpes simplex virus type 1. Treatment was transitioned to oral valacyclovir once the lesions started crusting over. Notable healing and epithelialization of the lesions occurred during his hospital stay, and he was discharged home 5 days after starting treatment. He was counseled on autoinoculation, advised that he was considered infectious until all lesions had crusted over, and encouraged to employ frequent handwashing. Complete resolution of eczema herpeticum (EH) was noted at 3-week follow-up.

Eczema herpeticum (also known as Kaposi varicelliform eruption) is a potentially life-threatening disseminated cutaneous infection caused by herpes simplex virus types 1 and 2 in patients with pre-existing skin disease.¹ It typically presents as a complication of atopic dermatitis (AD) but also has been identified as a rare complication in other conditions that disrupt the normal skin barrier, including mycosis fungoides, pemphigus foliaceus, pemphigus vulgaris, Darier disease, pityriasis rubra pilaris, contact dermatitis, and seborrheic dermatitis.^1-4

The pathogenesis of EH is multifactorial. Disruption of the stratum corneum; impaired natural killer cell function; early-onset, untreated, or severe AD; disrupted skin microbiota with skewed colonization by Staphylococcus aureus; immunosuppressive AD therapies such as calcineurin inhibitors; eosinophilia; and helper T cell (T_H2) cytokine predominance all have been suggested to play a role in the development of EH.^5-8

As seen in our patient, EH presents with a sudden eruption of painful or pruritic, grouped, monomorphic, domeshaped vesicles with background swelling and erythema typically on the head, neck, and trunk. Vesicles then progress to punched-out erosions with overlying hemorrhagic crusting that can coalesce to form large denuded areas susceptible to superinfection with bacteria.⁹ Other accompanying symptoms include high fever, chills, malaise, and lymphadenopathy. Associated inflammation, classically described as erythema, may be difficult to discern in patients with darker skin and appears as hyperpigmentation; therefore, identification of clusters of monomorphic vesicles in areas of pre-existing dermatitis is particularly important for clinical diagnosis in people with darker skin types.

Various tests are available to confirm diagnosis in ambiguous cases. Bedside Tzanck smears can be performed rapidly and are considered positive if characteristic multinucleated giant cells are noted; however, they do not differentiate between the various herpesviruses. Direct fluorescent antibody testing of scraped lesions and viral cultures of swabbed vesicular fluid are equally effective in distinguishing between herpes simplex virus type 1, herpes simplex virus type 2, and VZV; PCR confirms the diagnosis with high specificity and sensitivity.¹⁰

In our patient, the initial differential diagnosis included EH, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, allergic contact dermatitis, and Orthopoxvirus infection. The positive Tzanck smear reduced the likelihood of a nonviral etiology. Additionally, worsening of the rash despite discontinuation of medications and utilization of topical steroids argued against acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis and allergic contact dermatitis. The laboratory findings reduced the likelihood of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, and PCR findings ultimately ruled out Orthopoxvirus infections. Additional differential diagnoses for EH include dermatitis herpetiformis; primary VZV infection; hand, foot, and mouth disease; disseminated zoster infection; disseminated molluscum contagiosum; and eczema coxsackium.

Complications of EH include scarring; herpetic keratitis due to corneal infection, which if left untreated can progress to blindness; and rarely death due to multiorgan failure or septicemia.¹¹ The traditional smallpox vaccine (ACAM2000) is contraindicated in patients with AD and EH, even when AD is in remission. These patients should avoid contact with recently vaccinated individuals.¹² An alternative vaccine—Jynneos (Bavarian Nordic)—is available for these patients and their family members.¹³ Clinicians should be aware of this guideline, especially given the recent mpox (monkeypox) outbreaks.

Mild cases of EH are more common, may sometimes go unnoticed, and self-resolve in healthy patients. Severe cases may require systemic antiviral therapy. Acyclovir and its prodrug valacyclovir are standard treatments for EH. Alternatively, foscarnet or cidofovir can be used in the treatment of acyclovir-resistant thymidine kinase– deficient herpes simplex virus and other acyclovirresistant cases.¹⁴ Any secondary bacterial superinfections, usually due to staphylococcal or streptococcal bacteria, should be treated with antibiotics. A thorough ophthalmologic evaluation should be performed for patients with periocular involvement of EH. Empiric treatment should be started immediately, given a relative low toxicity of systemic antiviral therapy and high morbidity and mortality associated with untreated widespread EH.

It is important to maintain a high index of clinical suspicion for EH, especially in patients with pre-existing conditions such as AD who present with systemic symptoms and facial vesicles, pustules, or erosions to ensure prompt diagnosis and appropriate treatment.

The Diagnosis: Eczema Herpeticum

The patient’s condition with worsening facial edema and notable pain prompted a bedside Tzanck smear using a sample from the base of a deroofed forehead vesicle. In addition, a swab of a deroofed lesion was sent for herpes simplex virus and varicella-zoster virus (VZV) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. The Tzanck smear demonstrated ballooning multinucleated syncytial giant cells and eosinophilic inclusion bodies (Figure), which are characteristic of certain herpesviruses including herpes simplex virus and VZV. He was started on intravenous acyclovir while PCR results were pending; the PCR test later confirmed positivity for herpes simplex virus type 1. Treatment was transitioned to oral valacyclovir once the lesions started crusting over. Notable healing and epithelialization of the lesions occurred during his hospital stay, and he was discharged home 5 days after starting treatment. He was counseled on autoinoculation, advised that he was considered infectious until all lesions had crusted over, and encouraged to employ frequent handwashing. Complete resolution of eczema herpeticum (EH) was noted at 3-week follow-up.

Eczema herpeticum (also known as Kaposi varicelliform eruption) is a potentially life-threatening disseminated cutaneous infection caused by herpes simplex virus types 1 and 2 in patients with pre-existing skin disease.¹ It typically presents as a complication of atopic dermatitis (AD) but also has been identified as a rare complication in other conditions that disrupt the normal skin barrier, including mycosis fungoides, pemphigus foliaceus, pemphigus vulgaris, Darier disease, pityriasis rubra pilaris, contact dermatitis, and seborrheic dermatitis.^1-4

The pathogenesis of EH is multifactorial. Disruption of the stratum corneum; impaired natural killer cell function; early-onset, untreated, or severe AD; disrupted skin microbiota with skewed colonization by Staphylococcus aureus; immunosuppressive AD therapies such as calcineurin inhibitors; eosinophilia; and helper T cell (T_H2) cytokine predominance all have been suggested to play a role in the development of EH.^5-8

As seen in our patient, EH presents with a sudden eruption of painful or pruritic, grouped, monomorphic, domeshaped vesicles with background swelling and erythema typically on the head, neck, and trunk. Vesicles then progress to punched-out erosions with overlying hemorrhagic crusting that can coalesce to form large denuded areas susceptible to superinfection with bacteria.⁹ Other accompanying symptoms include high fever, chills, malaise, and lymphadenopathy. Associated inflammation, classically described as erythema, may be difficult to discern in patients with darker skin and appears as hyperpigmentation; therefore, identification of clusters of monomorphic vesicles in areas of pre-existing dermatitis is particularly important for clinical diagnosis in people with darker skin types.

Various tests are available to confirm diagnosis in ambiguous cases. Bedside Tzanck smears can be performed rapidly and are considered positive if characteristic multinucleated giant cells are noted; however, they do not differentiate between the various herpesviruses. Direct fluorescent antibody testing of scraped lesions and viral cultures of swabbed vesicular fluid are equally effective in distinguishing between herpes simplex virus type 1, herpes simplex virus type 2, and VZV; PCR confirms the diagnosis with high specificity and sensitivity.¹⁰

In our patient, the initial differential diagnosis included EH, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, allergic contact dermatitis, and Orthopoxvirus infection. The positive Tzanck smear reduced the likelihood of a nonviral etiology. Additionally, worsening of the rash despite discontinuation of medications and utilization of topical steroids argued against acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis and allergic contact dermatitis. The laboratory findings reduced the likelihood of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, and PCR findings ultimately ruled out Orthopoxvirus infections. Additional differential diagnoses for EH include dermatitis herpetiformis; primary VZV infection; hand, foot, and mouth disease; disseminated zoster infection; disseminated molluscum contagiosum; and eczema coxsackium.

Complications of EH include scarring; herpetic keratitis due to corneal infection, which if left untreated can progress to blindness; and rarely death due to multiorgan failure or septicemia.¹¹ The traditional smallpox vaccine (ACAM2000) is contraindicated in patients with AD and EH, even when AD is in remission. These patients should avoid contact with recently vaccinated individuals.¹² An alternative vaccine—Jynneos (Bavarian Nordic)—is available for these patients and their family members.¹³ Clinicians should be aware of this guideline, especially given the recent mpox (monkeypox) outbreaks.

Mild cases of EH are more common, may sometimes go unnoticed, and self-resolve in healthy patients. Severe cases may require systemic antiviral therapy. Acyclovir and its prodrug valacyclovir are standard treatments for EH. Alternatively, foscarnet or cidofovir can be used in the treatment of acyclovir-resistant thymidine kinase– deficient herpes simplex virus and other acyclovirresistant cases.¹⁴ Any secondary bacterial superinfections, usually due to staphylococcal or streptococcal bacteria, should be treated with antibiotics. A thorough ophthalmologic evaluation should be performed for patients with periocular involvement of EH. Empiric treatment should be started immediately, given a relative low toxicity of systemic antiviral therapy and high morbidity and mortality associated with untreated widespread EH.

It is important to maintain a high index of clinical suspicion for EH, especially in patients with pre-existing conditions such as AD who present with systemic symptoms and facial vesicles, pustules, or erosions to ensure prompt diagnosis and appropriate treatment.