cms-open-payments · CMS
cms-open-payments · CMS
cms-open-payments · CMS
cms-open-payments · CMS
cms-open-payments · CMS
The Open Payments database is usually described in one number: the industry money that drug and device companies paid to physicians. That number — the one in nearly every headline and in the five companion studies on this site — is the general-payment total, $3.31 billion in 2024. It is the right number for a story about individual doctors. It is also barely a quarter of the money. The Sunshine Act discloses three kinds of payment, and the largest by far is the one almost no one counts: research.
The category that holds most of the money
Research payments were $8.49 billion in 2024 — 71.0% of every industry dollar disclosed that year — on just 4.7% of the records.
| Record type | Records | Total dollars | Share of dollars | Share of records | Average payment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research | 756,906 | $8,494,017,206 | 71.0% | 4.7% | $11,222 |
| General | 15,385,047 | $3,313,801,737 | 27.7% | 95.3% | $215 |
| Ownership | 4,591 | $147,781,836 | 1.2% | 0.0% | $32,189 |
Source: CMS Open Payments PY2024, all three record types, snapshot 2026-01-23.
The general-payment file is what makes Open Payments famous: 15.4 million small disclosures — the 14 million meals, the royalties, the consulting — each tied to a named clinician. Research is its structural opposite. The average research payment is $11,222, fifty-two times the $215 average general payment. A small number of very large transfers, against a vast number of small ones. The two files share a statute and almost nothing else.
The general-payments file is a story about individual doctors. The research file is a story about institutions — and almost none of the public coverage of Open Payments has ever opened it.
Research money is institutional, not personal
The reason research sits outside the usual coverage is that it does not land on people. 98.9% of research dollars — $8.40 billion — go to research institutions and teaching hospitals; only 1.1% reaches an individual clinician.
| Recipient type | Records | Research dollars | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Non-covered entity (research sites, clinics, orgs) | 605,703 | $6,727,235,867 | 79.2% |
| Teaching hospital | 123,817 | $1,674,441,900 | 19.7% |
| Physician | 25,613 | $91,476,016 | 1.1% |
| Non-physician practitioner | 1,729 | $713,451 | 0.0% |
Source: CMS Open Payments PY2024, research payments by recipient type, snapshot 2026-01-23.
Nearly four-fifths of research money goes to non-covered entities — the research sites, clinics, and organizations that run the trials but are not themselves Open Payments "covered recipients." Another fifth goes to teaching hospitals. The individual physician — the protagonist of every general-payment analysis, including the one finding 1% of doctors take two-thirds of the money — receives barely a hundredth of the research total. That single structural fact is why a category this large stays invisible: the tools built to follow money to a named doctor find almost nothing here.
A narrower field, paying more tightly
Research money is not only larger and more institutional — it comes from far fewer companies, and concentrates harder among them.
| Funder field | Distinct funders | Top 10 share | Top 25 share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Research payments | 683 | 56.0% | 74.8% |
| General payments | 1,763 | 32.4% | 52.3% |
Source: CMS Open Payments PY2024, funder concentration by record type, snapshot 2026-01-23.
Of 683 companies reporting research payments, the top 10 account for 56.0% of every research dollar and the top 25 for 74.8% — rising to 85.0% by the top 50. The general-payment field is roughly three times as broad and far flatter: 1,763 funders, the top 10 holding only 32.4%. Research is paid out by the large-cap end of the industry, and a handful of names carry most of it.
Who funds the research
The funder ladder is its own tell. The companies at the top of the research file are not the same ones that top the general-payment ranking, where device-royalty income dominates.
| Funder | Research records | Research dollars | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| ModernaTX, Inc. | 28,371 | $662,825,760 | 7.8% |
| Novartis Pharmaceuticals | 7,067 | $654,033,055 | 7.7% |
| Eli Lilly and Company | 12,435 | $642,014,681 | 7.6% |
| Pfizer Inc. | 36,060 | $626,184,002 | 7.4% |
| Merck Sharp & Dohme | 6,502 | $498,210,528 | 5.9% |
| AbbVie Inc. | 44,583 | $428,434,576 | 5.0% |
Source: CMS Open Payments PY2024, the six largest research funders, snapshot 2026-01-23.
Vaccine and metabolic-drug makers lead. ModernaTX is the single largest research funder at $662.8 million, 7.8% of the file on its own — the mRNA-platform trial pipeline made visible as disclosed dollars. Eli Lilly's place in the top three is the research footprint behind the GLP-1 spending wave. None of this is a judgment of the companies or their studies; it is the shape of where the disclosed research money comes from.
What one record actually is
Each row in cms_open_payments is one disclosed payment. A research row carries the funding company, the receiving institution or clinician, the dollar amount, and the year — reported by the company as connected to a research study. The file is a disclosure register, not a ledger of influence or wrongdoing: it records that money moved, not what it bought. Every figure in this study is a count or sum at the record-type, recipient-type, or funder level. No individual physician, institution, or company is named, ranked, or scored.
Methodology
All figures are direct aggregations over the cms_open_payments table, populated from the CMS Open Payments program-year-2024 release (PGYR2024, published 2026-01-23 via openpaymentsdata.cms.gov; public, read-only). The table holds 16,146,544 records for 2024 across three record types. "Research" is record_type = 'research', "general" is record_type = 'general', and "ownership" is record_type = 'ownership'. Recipient grouping uses the CMS recipient_type field; the institutional group is the union of non-covered entities and teaching hospitals, and the individual group is physicians, non-physician practitioners, and non-covered individuals. Funder concentration ranks manufacturer_name by summed total_amount_usd within each record type. Because these are counts and sums over a published file, every figure is exact as of the release rather than estimated. Methodology version: open-payments/v1. The source-provenance contract is documented in the provenance methodology.
Limitations
- A disclosure register, not an influence or wrongdoing signal. A research payment records industry funding for a study, reported by the company. It is unrelated to fraud, exclusion, or any assessment of a clinician, institution, or company. This study draws no inference of wrongdoing from any payment.
- Aggregate and category-level only. Every figure is a count or sum at the record-type, recipient-type, or funder level. No individual physician, institution, or company is named, ranked, or scored.
- Recipient type, not patient location or activity. Research dollars are attributed to the receiving institution or clinician as the company reported it, and say nothing about where the work was done or who benefited from it.
- Snapshot, not a trend. Figures reflect the single PY2024 release dated 2026-01-23. CMS publishes annually and restates prior years, so totals and shares shift between releases; this study does not model change over time.
- Funder names are as reported. Concentration is computed over
manufacturer_nameexactly as disclosed. Corporate families that report under multiple legal names appear as separate funders, which makes the concentration figures, if anything, conservative. - The non-covered-entity label is a CMS category, not a quality judgment. That a recipient is a "non-covered entity" describes its Open Payments reporting status only; it carries no implication about the institution.
Sources
- CMS — Open Payments (openpaymentsdata.cms.gov) — the federal disclosure database behind every figure in this study.
- CMS — Open Payments data dictionary and methodology — record-type and recipient-type coding rules.
- Physician Payments Sunshine Act — 42 U.S.C. §1320a-7h — the statute requiring manufacturer disclosure, including research payments.
- 42 CFR Part 403, Subpart I — Transparency Reports — the implementing regulation.
The companion dataset page for CMS Open Payments lists the full schema and refresh cadence, and the Open Payments data explorer exposes the underlying records. This study is the research-side counterpart to the general-payment work: what pharma actually buys, which companies pay doctors the most, the 1% of doctors who get two-thirds of the money, and where the money lands by state.
Frequently asked questions
- What is a research payment in Open Payments?
- It is a payment a drug or device company discloses as made in connection with a research study or clinical trial — the funding behind a trial, paid to the site, institution, or principal investigator conducting it. It is one of the three record types CMS publishes under the Sunshine Act, alongside general payments (meals, travel, consulting, royalties) and ownership or investment interests.
- Why is research the biggest category if nobody talks about it?
- Because it is institutional and lumpy rather than personal. Research payments were $8.49 billion in 2024 — 71.0% of all industry money — but on only 4.7% of the records, and 98.9% of the dollars went to research entities and teaching hospitals rather than to individual physicians. Coverage of Open Payments almost always reads the general-payment file, which is the story of money to named doctors; the research file is a story about institutions, and it is rarely opened.
- Who actually receives research money?
- Institutions. In 2024, $6.73 billion (79.2%) went to non-covered entities — research sites, clinics, and organizations that are not themselves Open Payments 'covered recipients' — and $1.67 billion (19.7%) to teaching hospitals. Only $92.3 million, 1.1% of the total, reached an individual physician or non-physician practitioner. The average research payment was $11,222, fifty-two times the $215 average general payment.
- How concentrated is research funding?
- Far more than general payments. Of 683 companies reporting research payments in 2024, the top 10 accounted for 56.0% of all research dollars and the top 25 for 74.8%. The general-payment field is much broader — 1,763 funders, with the top 10 holding only 32.4%. Research money comes from roughly a third as many companies and concentrates much more tightly among them.
- Which companies fund the most disclosed research?
- By 2024 dollars: ModernaTX ($662.8M, 7.8%), Novartis ($654.0M), Eli Lilly ($642.0M), Pfizer ($626.2M), Merck ($498.2M) and AbbVie ($428.4M). Vaccine and metabolic-drug makers lead — a different ladder from the general-payment ranking, where device royalties dominate. The figures describe disclosed research spending, not any judgment of the companies or the studies.
- Does a large research payment imply anything improper?
- No. A research payment is a disclosure of industry funding for a study, reported by the company. It is unrelated to fraud, exclusion, or any assessment of a clinician, institution, or company. This study draws no inference of wrongdoing from any payment; it only describes where the disclosed dollars sit.
- Can I reproduce these figures?
- Yes. Every number is a direct count or sum over the public cms_open_payments table for program year 2024 — the CMS Open Payments PY2024 release published 2026-01-23 — with no modeling. The exact SQL for the record-type split, the recipient-type breakdown, the funder concentration, and the research-versus-general contrast is published in the reproducibility block below. No individual is named.
Who uses this data
The source data behind this study is public
Compliance teams, journalists, and researchers work from the same federal source families cited above — queried by NPI or facility identifier through Fonteum’s open dataset pages and API. Every figure traces to a frozen, downloadable snapshot you can reproduce yourself.
Datasets used
Reproducibility
Every claim, reproducible
The SQL
-- The $8.5 billion nobody counts — RESEARCH payments are the largest slice of
-- industry money in Open Payments, yet every prior analysis reads only the
-- general slice. Fully reproducible query.
--
-- Question: of the three kinds of payment the Sunshine Act discloses — general,
-- research, and ownership — where do the dollars actually sit, who receives
-- them, and how concentrated is the field that funds them? The lead figure:
-- research payments are $8.49 billion, 71.0% of all 2024 industry money, from
-- only 4.7% of the records — and 98.9% of those dollars go to research
-- institutions and teaching hospitals, not to individual physicians. These are
-- disclosure aggregates, NOT a quality, fraud, or wrongdoing signal of any kind.
-- No individual is named, ranked, or scored.
--
-- Source:
-- public.cms_open_payments — CMS Open Payments program-year-2024 release
-- (PGYR2024, published 2026-01-23 via openpaymentsdata.cms.gov). Public,
-- read-only. 16,146,544 records for program year 2024. License:
-- US-Government-Works (17 U.S.C. Sec. 105).
-- methodology_version = 'open-payments/v1'.
--
-- Universe: program year 2024, all three record types. "Research" = record_type
-- 'research'; "general" = record_type 'general'; "ownership" = record_type
-- 'ownership'. Figures are exact counts and sums over the published file, not
-- modeled. CMS publishes annually and restates prior years.
-- ============================================================================
-- (1) Universe — the three kinds of payment side by side. Research holds 71.0%
-- of the dollars on 4.7% of the records; its average payment is $11,222,
-- 52x the $215 average general payment.
-- ============================================================================
WITH t AS (
SELECT sum(total_amount_usd) AS all_usd, count(*) AS all_rec
FROM public.cms_open_payments WHERE program_year = 2024
)
SELECT
record_type,
count(*) AS records,
round(sum(total_amount_usd)) AS total_usd,
round(100.0 * sum(total_amount_usd) / (SELECT all_usd FROM t), 1) AS pct_dollars,
round(100.0 * count(*) / (SELECT all_rec FROM t), 1) AS pct_records,
round(sum(total_amount_usd) / count(*)) AS avg_payment
FROM public.cms_open_payments
WHERE program_year = 2024
GROUP BY record_type
ORDER BY total_usd DESC;
-- research 756,906 $8,494,017,206 71.0% 4.7% $11,222
-- general 15,385,047 $3,313,801,737 27.7% 95.3% $215
-- ownership 4,591 $147,781,836 1.2% 0.0% $32,189
-- (all three together = $11,955,600,779 across 16,146,544 records.)
-- ============================================================================
-- (2) WHO receives research money — by recipient type. 98.9% of research
-- dollars go to NON-covered entities (research sites, clinics, and other
-- organizations that are not themselves Open Payments "covered recipients")
-- and to teaching hospitals; only 1.1% reaches an individual physician or
-- non-physician practitioner. Research is an institutional money flow.
-- ============================================================================
SELECT
recipient_type,
count(*) AS records,
round(sum(total_amount_usd)) AS total_usd,
round(100.0 * sum(total_amount_usd)
/ sum(sum(total_amount_usd)) OVER (), 1) AS pct_of_research
FROM public.cms_open_payments
WHERE program_year = 2024 AND record_type = 'research'
GROUP BY recipient_type
ORDER BY total_usd DESC;
-- Non-covered Recipient Entity $6,727,235,867 79.2%
-- Covered Recipient Teaching Hospital $1,674,441,900 19.7%
-- Covered Recipient Physician $91,476,016 1.1%
-- Covered Recipient Non-Physician Pract. $713,451 0.0%
-- Non-covered Recipient Individual $149,972 0.0%
-- institutions (entity + teaching hospital) = $8,401,677,767 = 98.91%
-- individuals (physician + NPP + individual) = $92,339,439 = 1.09%
-- ============================================================================
-- (3) HOW CONCENTRATED the funders are. 683 manufacturers report research
-- payments; the top 10 account for 56.0% of every research dollar, the top
-- 25 for 74.8%, the top 50 for 85.0%. The single largest (ModernaTX) is
-- 7.8% on its own.
-- ============================================================================
WITH m AS (
SELECT manufacturer_name, sum(total_amount_usd) AS usd
FROM public.cms_open_payments
WHERE program_year = 2024 AND record_type = 'research'
GROUP BY manufacturer_name
),
tot AS (SELECT sum(usd) AS t, count(*) AS n FROM m),
ranked AS (SELECT usd, row_number() OVER (ORDER BY usd DESC) AS rk FROM m)
SELECT
(SELECT n FROM tot) AS distinct_funders,
round((SELECT t FROM tot)) AS research_usd,
round(100.0 * sum(usd) FILTER (WHERE rk = 1) / (SELECT t FROM tot), 1) AS top1_pct,
round(100.0 * sum(usd) FILTER (WHERE rk <= 10) / (SELECT t FROM tot), 1) AS top10_pct,
round(100.0 * sum(usd) FILTER (WHERE rk <= 25) / (SELECT t FROM tot), 1) AS top25_pct,
round(100.0 * sum(usd) FILTER (WHERE rk <= 50) / (SELECT t FROM tot), 1) AS top50_pct
FROM ranked;
-- distinct_funders 683 · research_usd $8,494,017,206
-- top1 7.8% · top10 56.0% · top25 74.8% · top50 85.0%
-- ============================================================================
-- (4) The largest funders of disclosed research, top 12 by dollars. Vaccine and
-- metabolic-drug makers lead — a different ladder from the general-payment
-- ranking, where device royalties dominate.
-- ============================================================================
SELECT
manufacturer_name,
count(*) AS records,
round(sum(total_amount_usd)) AS total_usd,
round(100.0 * sum(total_amount_usd)
/ sum(sum(total_amount_usd)) OVER (), 1) AS pct_of_research
FROM public.cms_open_payments
WHERE program_year = 2024 AND record_type = 'research'
GROUP BY manufacturer_name
ORDER BY total_usd DESC
LIMIT 12;
-- ModernaTX, Inc. $662,825,760 7.8%
-- Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation $654,033,055 7.7%
-- Eli Lilly and Company $642,014,681 7.6%
-- PFIZER INC. $626,184,002 7.4%
-- Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC $498,210,528 5.9%
-- ABBVIE INC. $428,434,576 5.0%
-- AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP $345,584,468 4.1%
-- Genentech, Inc. $341,045,829 4.0%
-- Janssen Research & Development, LLC $340,333,107 4.0%
-- E.R. Squibb & Sons, L.L.C. $217,975,186 2.6%
-- GlaxoSmithKline, LLC. $210,445,131 2.5%
-- Amgen Inc. $196,729,122 2.3%
-- ============================================================================
-- (5) CONTRAST — funder concentration, research vs general. The same query over
-- general payments shows a far broader field: 1,763 funders, top 10 = 32.4%,
-- top 25 = 52.3%. Research dollars concentrate among roughly a third as many
-- funders, and far more tightly.
-- ============================================================================
WITH m AS (
SELECT record_type, manufacturer_name, sum(total_amount_usd) AS usd
FROM public.cms_open_payments
WHERE program_year = 2024 AND record_type IN ('research','general')
GROUP BY record_type, manufacturer_name
),
ranked AS (
SELECT record_type, usd,
row_number() OVER (PARTITION BY record_type ORDER BY usd DESC) AS rk,
sum(usd) OVER (PARTITION BY record_type) AS grp_total
FROM m
)
SELECT
record_type,
count(*) AS distinct_funders,
round(100.0 * sum(usd) FILTER (WHERE rk <= 10) / max(grp_total), 1) AS top10_pct,
round(100.0 * sum(usd) FILTER (WHERE rk <= 25) / max(grp_total), 1) AS top25_pct
FROM ranked
GROUP BY record_type
ORDER BY record_type;
-- general 1,763 funders · top10 32.4% · top25 52.3%
-- research 683 funders · top10 56.0% · top25 74.8%The snapshot
| dataset_id | cms-open-payments |
| snapshot_date | 2026-01-23 |
| sha256 | |
| doi | 10.5072/fonteum/open-payments-research-concentration-2024 |
| slsa_provenance_url |
The JOINs
universe: program year 2024, all three record types -- 16,146,544 records, $11,955,600,779 research total = sum(total_amount_usd) where record_type='research' -- $8,494,017,206 on 756,906 records = 71.0% of dollars, 4.7% of records avg research vs general = group avg(total_amount_usd) -- research $11,222 vs general $215 (52x) institutional share = sum where recipient_type in (entity, teaching hospital) -- $8,401,677,767 = 98.91%; individuals $92,339,439 = 1.09% funder concentration = top-N share of sum per manufacturer_name, research only -- 683 funders; top10 56.0%, top25 74.8%, top50 85.0%, top1 (Moderna) 7.8% contrast: same top-N over general payments -- 1,763 funders; top10 32.4%, top25 52.3%
The pipeline version
| git_sha | |
| slsa_provenance | |
| methodology_version | open-payments/v1 |
Reproduce this
Run the exact query against the frozen 2026-01-23.
Cite this study
Citation-ready for researchers and AI.
Check the chain
Each figure is snapshot-attested — re-derive the hash from the federal file.
cms-open-payments · 2026-01-23SHA-256 a3f1c9…7e6b- FINANCIAL DISTRESS · JUN 2026What pharma actually buys: food, travel, consulting and royaltiesIndustry made 15.4 million general payments to U.S. physicians in 2024, worth $3.31 billion — but the two halves barely overlap. Royalties, speaking and consulting are 2.9% of payments yet 63% of the dollars; food and beverage is 91.7% of payments but 12.4% of the money. The average meal was $29; the average royalty, $56,258.
- FINANCIAL DISTRESS · JUN 2026Which companies pay U.S. doctors the most? Device makers, not pharmaIn 2024, drug and device companies disclosed $3.31 billion in general payments to U.S. physicians under the Sunshine Act — and the largest payers are device makers, not pharma. BioNTech led at $180.6 million from just 164 royalty payments; the top 25 of 1,763 reporting companies account for 52% of every general-payment dollar.
- FINANCIAL DISTRESS · JUN 2026The 1% of doctors who get two-thirds of industry moneyIn 2024 the top 1% of physicians — 9,792 of the 979,136 who received any industry money — captured 66% of every general-payment dollar tied to a recipient, $1.74 billion of $2.64 billion. The bottom half split 1.2%. Measured across recipients, the Gini coefficient is 0.927, far above the ~0.41 of US household income.
- FINANCIAL DISTRESS · JUN 2026Industry payments to physicians by state: where the money landsIndustry's $3.31 billion in 2024 general payments to physicians spread across 59 U.S. jurisdictions, but not in proportion to population. California led at $334.5 million, yet Pennsylvania ranked third and Massachusetts fourth on far fewer payments — Massachusetts averaged $1,031 per payment against Texas's $153. Where royalty recipients live, not where patients are, shapes the map.
- FINANCIAL DISTRESS · JUN 2026Which medical specialties take the most industry money?In 2024, U.S. orthopedic surgeons received $381.4 million in general industry payments — more than any other specialty and over three times the second-place field. Counting spine, joint and sports-medicine subspecialties, orthopedics drew $531.8 million, about 16% of the $3.31 billion total. The average orthopedic payment was $1,711; the average internal-medicine payment was $96.
Federal source citations
Fonteum Research · June 16, 2026 · All figures trace to the frozen federal-data snapshot cited above.