Accuracy of Financial Disclosures by Scientific Presenters/Authors at the ASNR 2024 Annual Meeting

DISCUSSION

Our study results show high nondisclosure rates by presenters at the annual national meeting of ASNR. Sixty-eight percent (110/162 unique presenters with records in OPD) received at least 1 industry payment. Forty-one percent ($1,201,639/$2,954,303) of the absolute value of payments was in the research and associated research categories, to 22 of 110 individuals. Eighty-three percent of general payments and 92% of research payments were undisclosed. Similar to previous studies, the industry payments are highly concentrated while the median payment in the general category is relatively small ($744; IQR = $164–$4,657).^1,2,10

There are multiple possible reasons for the high nondisclosure rate. There seems to be lack of awareness of reporting requirements. For 2023, any payment over $12.69 had to be reported, and if the amount was lower, it needed to be disclosed if the aggregate amount exceeded 10 times that amount ($126.89) in the calendar year.¹¹ A commonly cited reason for nondisclosure is that physicians may deem the financial relationship as not relevant to the subject matter of the presentation.¹² However, the ASNR policy on disclosures is nonambiguous; “ASNR must be able to show that individuals in a position to control the content of an education activity, including committee members, reviewers, planners, authors, and presenters, have disclosed to ASNR all financial relationships with ineligible companies in the previous 24 months. Individuals in a position to control the content must disclose all relationships, regardless of their view of the relevance of the relationship(s) to the education.” The ACCME defines ineligible companies as “those whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, re-selling, or distributing health care products used by or on patients.” As the study results show (Supplemental Data), most of the industry payments were made from manufacturers of imaging equipment, contrast media, device manufacturers, and pharmaceutical companies.

In 2010, the US Congress passed the Physician Payments Sunshine Act as part of the Affordable Care Act to help increase transparency of industry-physician relationships. Industry payment data are collected and published by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and are publicly available in the OPD.¹³ The OPD site reflects the most recent 7 years of OPD data.¹⁴ The data for each calendar year are updated on the website in June end of the subsequent year. Covered recipients have a 45-day prepublication review and dispute period (April 1 to May 15) to ensure the data are accurate before releasing it to the public.¹⁵

There are several limitations to by using the OPD database. The data include information on US-based authors only. Considering that ASNR gets speakers/presenters from all around the world, the number of physicians receiving industry payments may be underreported here. The database relies on accurate reporting from the industry. Physicians are supposed to cross-check and dispute any entries that are being reported by the industry. However, there is a general lack of awareness. In the senior author’s personal experience, erroneous reporting by industry to OPD can go unchallenged unless disputed in the prescribed 45-day period. Challenging it subsequently is a difficult and time-consuming process.

This study focused on payments made to physicians and does not capture payments made to organizations or academic institutions. The proportion of authors receiving payments in this study may also be under-reported since trainees may be listed as presenters/authors and payments to trainees are excluded from the OPD database.

In conclusion, greater awareness and transparency on disclosures of financial conflicts-of-interest are needed. It would reduce the risk of bias, and increase the public’s trust in the science being presented.