Skip to main content

Industry payments to female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgeons: an analysis of Sunshine Act open payments from 2014–2017


Introduction and hypothesis

We aim to examine the financial relationship between industry and female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgeons (FPMRS) during the first four full calendar years since the implementation of the Sunshine Act.


All board-certified FPMRS specialists were identified using the American Board of Medical Specialties directory. Program directors (PDs) were identified using an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) database. All identified physicians were categorized by gender, specialty, and American Urological Association (AUA) region. Payment data for each individual from 2014 to 2017 were accessed using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments website. Statistical analyses were performed to elucidate payment trends.


Of the 1,307 FPMRS physicians identified, 25.1% (n = 328) are urology-trained and 74.9% (n = 979) are obstetrics/gynecology (OB/GYN)-trained. Of all physicians analyzed, 6.8% had no reported payments over the 4-year period. 90.1%, 86.5%, 85.3%, and 84.4% received some sort of payment in 2014 to 2017 respectively. Median total payments for all physicians decreased yearly, whereas mean payments decreased from 2014 to 2015 before increasing in all subsequent years. Median general payments were higher for men versus women, urology-trained versus OB/GYN-trained, and PDs versus non-PDs in all years analyzed. The largest contributor to overall payments was the “others” compensation category, which includes gifts, royalties, honoraria, and non-continuing medical education speaking engagements.


Since institution of the Sunshine Act, the percentage of physicians receiving payments has decreased each year. Additionally, there has been a decrease in median total payments and an increase in yearly research payments in all years analyzed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1


  1. 1.

    Wazana A. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: is a gift ever just a gift? JAMA. 2000;283(3):373–80.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Gagnon MA, Lexchin J. The cost of pushing pills: a new estimate of pharmaceutical promotion expenditures in the United States. PLoS Med. 2008;5(1):e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J, Miller LG, Cleary PD, Blumenthal D. A national survey of physician-industry relationships. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(17):1742–50.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Watson PY, Khandelwal AK, Musial JL, Buckley JD. Resident and faculty perceptions of conflict of interest in medical education. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(4):357–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Nakayama DK, Bozeman AP. Industry support of graduate medical education in surgery. Am Surg. 2009;75(5):395–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Kirschner NM, Sulmasy LS, Kesselheim AS. Health policy basics: the physician payment sunshine act and the open payments program. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(7):519–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Muffly TM, Giamberardino WL, Guido J, Weterings R, Bastow B, Sheeder J. Industry payments to obstetricians and gynecologists under the Sunshine Act. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132(1):9–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Perez TY, Chen MC, Chung PH, Shenot PJ. Leaders in urologic education and their relationship to industry: an analysis of sunshine act open payments from 2014–2016. Urology. 2019;123:53–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Patel SV, Klingel M, Sonoda T. An assessment of the industry-faculty surgeon relationship within colon and rectum surgical training programs. J Surg Educ. 2016;73(4):595–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Cvetanovich GL, Chalmers PN, Bach BR. Industry financial relationships in orthopaedic surgery: analysis of the Sunshine Act open payments database and comparison with other surgical subspecialties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(15):1288–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Green MJ, Masters R, James B, Simmons B, Lehman E. Do gifts from the pharmaceutical industry affect trust in physicians? Fam Med. 2012;44(5):325–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Rosenthal MB, Mello MM. Sunlight as disinfectant—new rules on disclosure of industry payments to physicians. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(22):2052–4.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick J. Shenot.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

PJS (Ipsen—investigator with financial support, Merck—consultant). None of the other authors has anything to disclose.

Previous presentations

SUFU 2019 Conference, Miami Florida, 2/26/2019–3/2/2019.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material


(DOCX 103 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Teplitsky, S., Perez, T., Leong, J.Y. et al. Industry payments to female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgeons: an analysis of Sunshine Act open payments from 2014–2017. Int Urogynecol J 31, 799–807 (2020).

Download citation


  • Urology
  • Urogynecology
  • Industry
  • Payment
  • Sunshine Act