In recent years, drug companies have started releasing details of the payments they make to doctors and other health professionals for promotional talks, research and consulting. As of 2014, 17 companies published the information, most because of legal settlements. Use this tool to search for payments.
As transparency increases and blockbuster drugs lose patent protection, drug companies have dramatically scaled back payments to doctors for promotional talks. This fall, all drug and medical device companies will be required to report payments to doctors. More »
Top U.S. medical schools and teaching hospitals have failed to adequately enforce policies that restrict faculty physicians for being paid for speaking by drug companies. More »
Professional groups like the Heart Rhythm Society write guidelines on treatments and the use of medical devices, but researchers say their acceptance of sponsorships and grants from drug and device makers poses a conflict of interest that many patients never consider. More »
All 66 Stories (0)updates since last visit
New data on drug and device company payments to doctors largely excludes nurse practitioners and physician assistants, though they play an ever-larger role in health care. One advanced-practice nurse pleaded guilty last month to taking drug company kickbacks.
Pharmaceutical and medical device companies paid billions to doctors from late 2013 through 2014, new data shows. Search for your doctor in our interactive database.
New data on payments from drug and device companies to doctors show that many doctors received payments on 100 or more days last year. Some received payments on more days than they didn't.
Details behind our drug company money database.
Flaws in information submitted to Open Payments, a government database of financial relationships in the medical field, complicated our analysis.
Our comprehensive analysis of drug company spending on doctors in the last five months of 2013 shows the most-promoted products typically were not cures, breakthroughs or top sellers.
The causes are not clear, but men account for more than 90 percent of the 300 doctors who received the most money from drug and medical device companies, according to new federal data.
The new Open Payments database of industry payments to doctors and teaching hospitals is more incomplete than previously known.
Our health reporter Charles Ornstein takes a test drive using the federal government's new website for drug and device payments. He finds it virtually unusable.
The government's data on payments to doctors and hospitals by drug and device makers is incomplete and hard to penetrate – but here's a first look.
The government's new website on drug and device company ties to doctors will be incomplete and may be misleading — for now.
Payments from pharmaceutical companies touch hundreds of thousands of doctors. The 17 companies we've tracked spent $1.4 billion in 2013 year alone. Here are our top five takeaways from following all that money.
The federal government won’t release data next month on some research payments to doctors. Health officials had acknowledged previously that the database wouldn’t include one-third of payments made by pharmaceutical and medical device companies.
Many payments to doctors made by pharmaceutical and medical device companies will not be included in the public release of the database next month. Federal officials cite data inconsistencies, say records will be posted next June.
The top four prescribers of the drug were promotional speakers, researchers or consultants.
The government had to take offline its system for doctors to verify payments from drug companies after at least one doctor had payments attributed to him that actually went to someone else.
Senior reporter Charles Ornstein on the significance of the data due to be made public next month under the Physician Payment Sunshine Act.
Doctors checking a soon-to-be-unveiled federal website that will publicly list drug company payments are encountering error messages if they have not accepted industry money.
Nearly every large drug maker based in the United States had at least one academic medical center official on its board, raising questions about their independence.
With more data on relationships between doctors and drug companies soon to be released, here are some ways journalists can use this information.
Research has been seen as less objectionable than other forms of interactions with drug companies, but 10 percent of researchers have multiple ties among the nine companies ProPublica analyzed. That raises questions about doctors’ impartiality.
Pharmaceutical company payments to health care professionals dropped between 2011 and 2012 among most of the companies and categories ProPublica tracks, driven in part by increased transparency as well as blockbuster drugs losing patent protection. Research payments, however, have increased among th
As transparency increases and blockbuster drugs lose patent protection, drug companies have dramatically scaled back payments to doctors for promotional talks. This fall, all drug and medical device companies will be required to report payments to doctors.
Drugmaker Cephalon had been required to post its payments to doctors online as part of a lawsuit settlement. After its agreement expired, it removed them from its website.
The sixth-largest drug maker already had begun cutting back on paid speaking, ProPublica’s Dollars for Docs database shows.
The drug maker denies wrongdoing, but the Justice Department and a whistleblower say Novartis used cash and meals to get doctors to prescribe its drugs.
We updated Dollars for Docs last week. Why is updating it so difficult?
Our database drugmaker payments to docs now includes more than $2 billion to hundreds of thousands of physicians.
Has your doctor received drug company money? Search ProPublica's Dollars for Docs database.
New data show drugmakers’ payments to hundreds of thousands of doctors, and some have made well over $500,000.
Drug companies have long kept secret details of the payments they make to doctors and other health professionals for promoting their drugs. Such payments aren't necessarily wrong, but they can raise ethical issues
Help inform our ongoing reporting into the relationship between drug companies and medical professionals.
Details behind our drug company money database.
After a long delay, the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services published final rules for the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which would bring transparency to financial relationships between physicians and industry.
Charlie Ornstein and Tracy Weber talk about the money docs get from drug companies, and why it matters.
Sens. Baucus and Grassley demand evidence of financial support from the drug industry to nonprofit groups that advocate use of opioid painkillers, including the newly defunct American Pain Foundation.
You can still find some older Allergan payments in ProPublica's Dollars for Docs database, along with data from 11 other drug companies.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, wants to know why an Ohio doctor wrote 54 prescriptions per weekday for the antipsychotic Abilify, while the biggest prescriber of Seroquel wrote an average nine prescriptions per hour.
Continued reporting on the influence of pharmaceutical money on medicine spurred tighter rules at medical schools across the nation.
The annual death toll from overdoses of painkillers has reached almost 15,000, prompting the head of the CDC o term it an "epidemic." But the American Pain Foundation continues to claim the risks are overblown. The advocacy group's biggest supporter? The drug industry.
American Pain Foundation board members Scott Fishman and Perry Fine, both physicians, have lectured and authored publications funded by makers of narcotic painkillers. They say the support doesn’t bias them.
The agency responsible for administering health care reform, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, published proposed rules last night, well after its Oct. 1 deadline.
Medicaid programs have long had evidence that a few physicians prescribed risky drugs in excess, but it wasn’t until Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, demanded to know the top prescribers that states began to investigate.
The Obama administration has yet to draft rules on the disclosure of industry payments to doctors, missing a deadline set out in last year's health-care law.
At least 15 drug and medical-device companies have paid $6.5 billion since 2008 to settle accusations of marketing fraud or kickbacks, but none of the more than 75 doctors named as participants were sanctioned.
Regional newspapers that analyzed ProPublica's Dollars for Docs data say drug company payments to physician speakers have declined in their states, suggesting that new restrictions and publicity are making an impact.
ProPublica's newly updated Dollars for Docs database offers a glimpse of what patients can expect in 2013, when all drug and medical-device companies must report to the federal government what they pay doctors to help market their products.
Hundreds of thousands of doctors have accepted free meals from pharmaceutical companies that invite them to scientific or educational sessions. At least 20 physicians accepted more than $2,000 worth of meals from one company last year, ProPublica's Dollars for Docs database shows.
An update of ProPublica's Dollars for Docs database includes more than $760 million in payments from 12 pharmaceutical companies to physicians and other health-care providers for consulting, speaking, research and expenses.
As ProPublica gets ready to refresh its Dollars for Docs database listing payments from drug companies to hundreds of thousands of doctors, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America says paid physician speakers play a critical role in improving patient care.
Two medical groups recruited to lobby the Food and Drug Administration against generic versions of a Sanofi-Aventis blood-thinner each received millions from the manufacturer.
Recommendations made by two medical societies give at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Reacting to ProPublica's Dollars for Docs coverage, Stanford and other schools discipline doctors, rewrite policies and increase scrutiny of drug-industry ties.
The Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions got more than half its income in 2009 from medical device and pharmaceutical makers. This week, a study in JAMA questioned why more patients who received angioplasty and stents didn’t first receive recommended medications.
Many physicians attending the Heart Rhythm Society conference see little cause for concern in the financial ties between medical societies and industry.
The Heart Rhythm Society says the financial support it receives from drug and medical-device makers plays no role in its advocacy for certain treatments, but does not mention potential risks in its publications.
Professional groups like the Heart Rhythm Society write guidelines on treatments and the use of medical devices, but researchers say their acceptance of sponsorships and grants from drug and device makers poses a conflict of interest that many patients never consider.
The Heart Rhythm Society a set of questions about potential conflicts of interest regarding the group’s acceptance of drug and device industry marketing money.
The Heart Rhythm Society’s annual conference is a marketing bonanza for drug companies and medical device makers.
The Heart Rhythm Society’s annual conference is a marketing bonanza for drug companies and medical device makers. Use this interactive graphic to find out how companies got their names seen.
Sen. Charles Grassley asked 33 health organizations who their corporate backers are, and responses show that some get half their income from the medical industry. Critics say public disclosure of industry ties is needed.
In a response to a request from Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, 33 professional associations and health advocacy groups listed their payments from the pharmaceutical, medical device and insurance industries.
ViiV Healthcare, which specializes in HIV medications, disclosed paying $3.4 million in speaking and consulting fees to doctors during the first three quarters of 2010. It becomes the eighth company in Dollars for Docs database.
The University of Colorado Denver and its affiliated teaching hospitals have launched an overhaul of conflict of interest policies after a ProPublica database revealed extensive ties between its faculty and pharmaceutical companies.
A series of programming and technical guides on how we collected data for Dollars for Docs.
ProPublica has added another $13 million in payments to our Dollars for Docs database of drug-company spending on doctors and other health professionals. That brings the total to nearly $295 million.
Drug companies keep strict control of materials doctors use in paid presentations about pharmaceuticals. The companies say this ensures that speakers comply with U.S. FDA regulations.
Top U.S. medical schools and teaching hospitals have failed to adequately enforce policies that restrict faculty physicians for being paid for speaking by drug companies.
Drug company reports of payments to Minnesota doctors show the difficulty in obtaining accurate records.
This week, Massachusetts became the first state to post an online database of payments from drug and medical device companies to the state's health care providers.
In the wake of our Dollars for Docs investigation, drug companies say they will more closely scrutinize the docs they pay to speak or promote their drugs.
Physicians on ProPublica’s Dollars for Docs list come from varied backgrounds, juggle big practices while promoting drugs on the side
While it’s not illegal for doctors to promote prescription drugs and accept payments from drug companies, such arrangements do raise ethical questions that some institutions have found concerning enough to try to limit.
The stories ProPublica is publishing today on the drug industry are part of a broader effort to expand the possibilities of collaborative journalism.
In lawsuits, former drug reps say that doctors were paid to push off-label uses of drugs.
Hundreds of doctors paid to promote companies’ drugs have been accused of professional misconduct, disciplined by state boards or lacked credentials, ProPublica has found.
Patients worry that a doctor who gets paid to promote a drug could impact the care they get, a survey shows.