A Small Proportion of Presenters Receive Most Funding at National Conferences

Introduction: Funding from the medical device industry to physicians is a growing concern in medical research and education as it can impact patient care. At the North Atlantic Spine Society (NASS) conference, surgeons often consider the presented techniques and clinical findings for implementation into their practices. Given presenters potential effect on spine surgery practice, their funding is of notable interest as it may influence what they present.

Objective: This study aims to compare and analyze demographics and payments made to orthopedic spine and neurosurgeons participating in NASS to determine if any differences exist.

Methods: A list of 151 spine surgeons was generated based on those who presented techniques, moderated debates, reviewed abstracts, or were board members for the 2022 NASS conference. Demographic information was obtained from public records, including faculty, medical school, and physician group websites. General payments, research payments, associated research funding, and ownership interest were collected for each physician using the 2021 Open Payments database. The nature of the general payments was also recorded. Descriptive statistics and two-tailed t-tests were used to compare differences.

Results: In 2021, 151 spine surgeon conference participants received industry payments, totaling USD 48,294,115. The top 10% of orthopedic surgeons (n=9/99) receiving general payments accounted for 58.7% of total orthopedic general value, while the top 10% of neurosurgeons (n=5/52) accounted for 70.1%. There was no significant difference between these groups’ general payment amounts (123,243 vs. 67,621, P>0.05). Surgeons with 21-30 years of experience received the most general funding (P=0.004). There was no difference in general funding between surgeons in academic or private settings (103,787.26 vs. 104,716.57, P>0.05). Additionally, 40.4% of surgeons were from four states: California, New York, Florida, and Texas. For all surgeons, the royalty or license subgroup accounted for the largest percentage of the general value exchanged (62.6%), while the food or beverage subgroup accounted for the largest percentage of general transactions (47.2%).

Conclusions: With the influence participants have at spine surgery national conferences, it is essential to examine these surgeons’ funding. Our study found that only years of experience had a positive association with general payments. In addition, the majority of monetary value belonged to only a handful of spine surgeons. Accordingly, most presenters are likely to have less biases since they receive less money. However, for certain presenters receiving significant money, they may promote techniques or advancements which require products from companies that provide them with funding. Future conferences may require changes in disclosures so those attending can understand the degree of funding presenters receive.