An Assessment of the Industry—Faculty Surgeon Relationship Within Colon and Rectum Surgical Training Programs

Introduction Industry funding of surgical training programs poses a potential conflict of interest. With the recent implementation of the Sunshine Act, industry funding can be more accurately determined. Objective To determine the financial relationship between faculty surgeons within colon and rectal fellowship programs and industry. Design Review of industry funding based on the first reporting period (August-December, 2013) using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services online database. Setting ACGME certified colon and rectum surgical fellowship programs. Participants Overall, 343 Faculty surgeons from 55 colon and rectum surgical fellowship programs were identified using the American Board of Colon and Rectum Surgery website. There was complete identification of faculty surgeons in 47 (85.5%) programs, partially complete identification (i.e., >80%) in 6 (10.9%) programs, and inadequate identification of faculty in 2 (3.6%) programs. Main Outcome Industry funding as defined by the Sunshine Act included general payments (honorariums, consulting fees, food and beverage, and travel), research payments, and amount invested. Results In all, 69.1% of program directors and 59.4% of other faculty received at least one payment during the reporting period ( Δ 9.7%, 95% CI: −4.4% to 23.8%, p=0.18). Program directors received higher amounts of funding than other faculty ($7072.90 vs. $2,819.29, Δ $4,253.61, 95% CI: $1132-$7375, p=0.008). Overall, 49 of 53 (93%) programs had surgeons receive funding, with a median of 3.5 surgeons receiving funding per program. A total of 65 companies made payments to surgeons, with 80.1% of the funding categorized as general payments, 16.2% as investments, and 3.7% as research payments. Conclusions Industry funding was common. This financial relationship poses a potential conflict of interest in training fellows for future practice.