129 papers by top-paid psychiatrists on drugs whose makers pay them: 93 favorable, none saying the drug fails
Federal payment records matched to 451 papers by the best-paid psychiatrists who publish. Where a drug's maker paid the author: 93 of 129 papers favorable, 29 neutral, 6 mixed, 1 negative. None concluded the drug does not work.
We have not finished checking this source. No judgement either way. how we score evidence
Caveat on this rating: A single reader classified the conclusions and a second reader would move some papers between groups. Payments made before a drug had a brand name are not attributed to it, which understates early money. A paper that names a drug is not always mainly about it. The analysis shows an association and a direction of conclusions; it cannot show that payment influenced any paper, and selection of successful investigators and publication bias are sufficient to produce much of the pattern.
This does not question a single finding. It asks something a journal reader is rarely helped to ask: when a leading psychiatrist writes about a drug, is its maker paying them, and which way does the paper come out?
Significant findings
Of the twenty US psychiatrists paid most by industry in 2024, ten publish research that can be identified reliably in PubMed. From 2019 to 2026 they wrote 451 papers. We matched each paper to the federal Open Payments record of what each author was paid, by product, from 2021 to 2024.
129 papers concern a branded drug whose maker had paid that author $10,000 or more. Reading the concluding sentences of each: 93 are favorable to the drug (it works, is well tolerated, is cost-effective or should be used), 29 are neutral or descriptive (mechanism, pharmacokinetics, a trial design, a correction), 6 are mixed or cautious, and 1 reports a trial that missed its goal. None concludes that the drug does not work. Nineteen of the favorable papers argue for a new use, a new group of patients or earlier use. Eighty two of the 129 list a co-author employed by a drug company.
The overlap is not random. Across 230 pairings of author and drug, the author had published on the drug in 42 percent of pairings where its maker paid them and 15 percent where it did not. Of all 451 papers, 163 name a brand still under patent and 48 name only generic drugs.
Worth asking
Several honest explanations fit. Companies hire the investigators who ran a drug's successful trials, so payment can follow the finding. Journals rarely publish a null result. Every one of these drugs was approved on positive trials. And Cochrane has shown that sponsored studies reach favorable conclusions more often with methods that look sound, because the tilt comes from which question is asked and how the conclusion is worded. None of that makes the relationship unimportant. A consensus statement naming a drug as first-line treatment reads differently when you know its authors are paid by the maker. The payments are legal and public. Almost nobody is shown them.
Source
Open Payments (federal record of industry payments to physicians), program years 2021 to 2024, matched to PubMed — Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; National Library of Medicine; analysis by veisund (2026)
Read the source: https://www.cms.gov/priorities/key-initiatives/open-payments
How this was scored
- Study design
- not recorded
- Funding
- not recorded
- Published in
- not recorded
- Sample size
- 129
- Preregistered
- not recorded
- Conflicts disclosed
- not recorded
- Independent of proponent
- not recorded
- Retracted
- No
We have not finished checking this source, so there is no scoring to show yet. “We have not checked this yet” and “this is disputed” are different statements, so no scored band is shown rather than a low one.
Read the full scoring rubric, including what it can't tell you.
Published September 21, 2026.
Questions
How strong is the evidence behind this?
veisund rates this source "not yet assessed". We have not finished checking this source. No judgement either way. One caveat travels with that badge: A single reader classified the conclusions and a second reader would move some papers between groups. Payments made before a drug had a brand name are not attributed to it, which understates early money. A paper that names a drug is not always mainly about it. The analysis shows an association and a direction of conclusions; it cannot show that payment influenced any paper, and selection of successful investigators and publication bias are sufficient to produce much of the pattern. The score is calculated from recorded facts about the source — study design, funding, publication venue, sample size, preregistration — not typed in by an editor.
What is the source for this?
Open Payments (federal record of industry payments to physicians), program years 2021 to 2024, matched to PubMed — Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; National Library of Medicine; analysis by veisund (2026). The full source is linked on this page so you can read it yourself.
Is this medical advice?
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.