Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
BMJ Open. 2024 Feb 8;14(2):e081252. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081252.
To compare industry payment patterns among US psychiatrists and psychiatric advanced practice clinicians (APCs) and determine how scope of practice laws has influenced these patterns.
Cross-sectional study.
This study used the publicly available US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Sunshine Act Open Payment database and the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) database for the year 2021.
All psychiatrists and psychiatric APCs (subdivided into nurse practitioners (NPs) and clinical nurse specialists (CNSs)) included in either database.
Number and percentage of clinicians receiving industry payments and value of payments received. Total payments and number of transactions by type of payment, payment source and clinician type were also evaluated.
A total of 85 053 psychiatric clinicians (61 011 psychiatrists (71.7%), 21 895 NPs (25.7%), 2147 CNSs (2.5%)) were reviewed; 16 240 (26.6%) psychiatrists received non-research payment from industry, compared with 10 802 (49.3%) NPs and 231 (10.7%) CNSs (p<0.001) for pairwise comparisons). Psychiatric NPs were significantly more likely to receive industry payments compared with psychiatrists (incidence rate ratio (IRR), 1.85 (95% CI 1.81 to 1.88); p<0.001)). Compared with psychiatrists, NPs were more likely to receive payments of > United States Dollars (US) $) 100 (33.9% vs 14.6%; IRR, 2.14 (2.08 to 2.20); p<0.001) and > US$ 1000 (5.3% vs 4.1%; IRR, 1.29 (1.20 to 1.38); p<0.001) but less likely to receive > US$ 10 000 (0.4% vs 1.0%; IRR, 0.39 (0.31 to 0.49); p<0.001). NPs in states with 'reduced' or 'restricted' scope of practice received more frequent payments (reduced: IRR, 1.22 (1.18 to 1.26); restricted: IRR, 1.26 (1.22 to 1.30), both p<0.001).
Psychiatric NPs were nearly two times as likely to receive industry payments as psychiatrists, while psychiatric CNSs were less than half as likely to receive payment. Stricter scope of practice laws increases the likelihood of psychiatric NPs receiving payment, the opposite of what was found in a recent specialty agnostic study.
比较美国精神科医生和精神科高级实践临床医生(APCs)的行业支付模式,并确定实践范围法如何影响这些模式。
横断面研究。
本研究使用了公开的美国医疗保险和医疗补助服务阳光法案公开支付数据库和国家计划和提供者登记系统(NPPES)数据库,研究年限为 2021 年。
数据库中包含的所有精神科医生和精神科 APC(细分为护士从业者(NPs)和临床护士专家(CNSs))。
接收行业支付的临床医生数量和百分比以及收到的支付金额。还评估了按支付类型、支付来源和临床医生类型的总支付和交易数量。
共审查了 85053 名精神科临床医生(61011 名精神科医生(71.7%)、21895 名 NPs(25.7%)、2147 名 CNSs(2.5%));与 NPs(49.3%)和 231 名(10.7%)CNS 相比,16240 名(26.6%)精神科医生接受了来自行业的非研究性支付(p<0.001)。与精神科医生相比,精神科 NPs 更有可能收到行业支付(发病率比(IRR),1.85(95%CI 1.81 至 1.88);p<0.001)。与精神科医生相比,NPs 更有可能收到超过 100 美元(33.9%比 14.6%;IRR,2.14(2.08 至 2.20);p<0.001)和超过 1000 美元(5.3%比 4.1%;IRR,1.29(1.20 至 1.38);p<0.001)的支付,但不太可能收到超过 10000 美元(0.4%比 1.0%;IRR,0.39(0.31 至 0.49);p<0.001)的支付。在实践范围“减少”或“限制”的州,NPs 收到的支付更频繁(减少:IRR,1.22(1.18 至 1.26);限制:IRR,1.26(1.22 至 1.30),均 p<0.001)。
精神科 NPs 收到行业支付的可能性几乎是精神科医生的两倍,而精神科 CNS 收到支付的可能性则不到一半。更严格的实践范围法增加了精神科 NPs 收到支付的可能性,这与最近一项专门研究的结果相反。