Industry payments to your doctor are public, and you can check other experts too

Key takeaways

• Researchers found that 19 of the 20 scientists on the committee behind the 2020 federal dietary guidelines had ties to the food or drug industry, and they couldn’t find the members’ disclosures posted online.
• Drug and device makers reported $14.67 billion in payments and ownership interests involving U.S. clinicians and teaching hospitals for 2025, and you can search them for free in the federal Open Payments database.
• Open Payments covers chiropractors but not naturopaths, health coaches or nutritionists, so for many natural-health practitioners you have to check ties yourself.
• The American Medical Association’s ethics code says doctors who sell health products should disclose their financial interest and tell patients the same or similar products may be sold elsewhere.
• A conflict is a reason to look for independent evidence, not proof that a recommendation is wrong.

In 2020, a committee of 20 scientists reviewed the research behind the government’s advice on what Americans should eat. Their work informed the Dietary Guidelines for Americans for 2020 to 2025¹.

A team of researchers later combed through the members’ published papers, résumés and grant records. They found that 19 of the 20 had at least one tie to the food or drug industry¹. Kellogg, Abbott, Kraft, Mead Johnson, General Mills and Dannon were each linked to more than one member¹.

The ties weren’t only to big packaged-food and drug companies. Among the 15 industry players with the most ties were three commodity groups: the California Walnut Commission, the Almond Board of California and the Beef Checkoff¹. The committee’s report had said conflict disclosures would be posted online. The researchers couldn’t find them¹.

What the study did not show: that any of those ties changed the advice. The authors said that question was beyond their study’s scope¹.

The study deserves the same check it applied. It was funded by The Nutrition Coalition, a nonprofit with a policy of taking no industry money, and the group’s director, co-author Nina Teicholz, had input in the writing¹. The authors reported no conflicts of interest¹.

Neither set of ties proves anyone wrong. That’s the right way to think about conflicts of interest: a conflict is a reason to look harder.

This guide gives you a routine for checking the ties of anyone giving health advice, from your doctor to a guideline panel to the wellness expert with a supplement line. Companion articles cover influencer rules, affiliate links and company-funded studies, so this one focuses on finding and weighing conflicts.

A conflict is a risk, not a verdict

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), whose rules many leading journals follow, offers a useful definition. A conflict exists when someone’s judgment about a main duty, such as a patient’s welfare or a study’s accuracy, may be swayed by a second interest, such as money².

Two points in that definition matter. First, the word is “may.” ICMJE says a relationship doesn’t always mean a problem, but readers need to know about it to judge for themselves². Second, conflicts that only appear to exist count as much as actual ones².

Money is the easiest conflict to spot. ICMJE also lists nonfinancial pulls: friendships and feuds, competition between academics, and strongly held beliefs about what’s true². A 2011 national standard for medical guidelines adds institutional ties and asks panel members to disclose all of them⁴. It treats specialists who earn much of their income from the services a guideline covers as having a conflict, too⁴.

This is a map of the main kinds of conflict and where to look for each.

Type of conflict	What it looks like	Where to look
Industry payments	Consulting or speaking fees, meals, travel, research grants	Open Payments; the paper’s disclosure section
Ownership	Stock, patents, royalties, owning the brand	Disclosure statements; the company’s own website
Product sales	Supplements, tests, courses or programs sold by the person advising you	The practice’s store or website; ask directly
Income from services	Earning a living from the treatment being judged	Guideline panel lists and members’ specialties
Intellectual	A book, brand, clinic or career built on one idea	Books, courses, past public statements
Institutional	A university, hospital or nonprofit funded by a company	Funding pages, annual reports, sponsor lists
Personal	Family, friendship or rivalry	Disclosure statements; often hard to see

Small ties are linked to real decisions

Why bother checking? Because the research linking money to outcomes is solid. A 2017 Cochrane review of 75 papers found that studies paid for by drug and device makers more often reached conclusions that favored the sponsor⁵. Our article on sponsored research covers that evidence in depth.

Payments to doctors show a similar pattern. Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, matched 2013 Medicare prescribing data with payment records for 279,669 doctors⁶⁷. They looked at four brand-name drugs for cholesterol, blood pressure, heart problems and depression. Each had cheaper alternatives⁶.

About 95% of the payments were meals, and the average meal cost less than $20⁷. Even a single meal was linked to higher prescribing of the promoted drug. Depending on the drug, the odds rose from about 18% to more than double⁷. Doctors who got meals on four or more days prescribed one of the drugs at more than five times the rate of doctors who got none⁶.

This was an association, not proof of cause⁶⁷. The lead author suggested the time doctors spent with sales reps may matter more than the food⁶. The drug industry’s trade group said the study “cherry-picks” prescribing data⁶. Even so, the pattern is a good reason to know who is spending time and money on the people advising you.

Look up any U.S. doctor’s industry payments in five minutes

A federal program called Open Payments makes drug and device makers report what they pay to clinicians and teaching hospitals⁹¹⁰. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) runs it.

The numbers are large. For 2025, companies reported $14.67 billion, published in 2026⁸. That included $9.50 billion in research payments, $3.92 billion in general payments and $1.25 billion in ownership and investment interests⁸. General payments include things like meals, gifts, travel and fees for talks¹⁰.

The total for 2024 was $13.18 billion, so the figure grew by about $1.5 billion in a year⁸⁹.

How to check someone:

1. Go to openpaymentsdata.cms.gov and type the clinician’s name in the search box¹⁰.
2. Open the profile. It shows payments by year and type, and the companies that paid the most¹⁰.
3. Compare. The profile shows how the person stacks up against others in the same specialty and against all providers nationally¹⁰.
4. Note the type. Research payments are tied to studies, while general payments are not¹⁰. A steady stream of meals and speaking fees from one company is a different kind of tie than a research grant.
5. Check the date. CMS posts each year’s data by June 30 and refreshes it in January⁸.

Keep two cautions in mind. CMS says the data “is not intended to signify inappropriate relationships”¹⁰. And enforcement is light: CMS imposed no Open Payments penalties in fiscal year 2025⁹.

The bigger gap is who’s missing. Open Payments covers physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, nurse anesthetists, anesthesiologist assistants, certified nurse-midwives and teaching hospitals⁹¹⁴. For this program, “physicians” include dentists, podiatrists, optometrists and chiropractors, so you can look up your chiropractor¹⁴. Naturopaths, health coaches and nutritionists aren’t on CMS’s list¹⁴.

The reporting duty falls on drug and device makers, their distributors and companies under common ownership with them¹⁰¹⁴. CMS doesn’t address supplements directly. But by our reading of those definitions, a company that sells only supplements generally doesn’t have to report, so its payments won’t show up.

Read the disclosure section before the conclusion

Every serious journal article ends with a few short lines that many readers skip. Look for headings like “Competing interests,” “Conflicts of interest,” “Disclosures” or “Funding.”

Journals that follow ICMJE require authors to fill out a standard disclosure form². The form covers money tied to the study itself and other relevant financial ties from the 36 months before the paper was submitted³. Articles should name each funder and say what role it played, such as designing the study, analyzing the data or writing the paper². Editors and peer reviewers are supposed to disclose their ties, too².

Disclosures have limits. They are self-reported, so the real number of ties may be higher, as the dietary guidelines researchers noted¹.

A statement of “none” is a claim, not a guarantee. If an author is a U.S. physician, you can cross-check them in Open Payments.

Guideline panels have a standard. Check whether it was met

Guidelines tell doctors what to do, so their panels matter more than any single author. In 2011, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) set standards for trustworthy guidelines. On conflicts, they say⁴:

• Candidates should disclose all their ties in writing before they’re chosen.
• Members should sell off investments in companies the guideline could affect.
• The chair should have no conflicts.
• Members with conflicts should be no more than a minority.
• Funders should play no role in writing the guideline.

The standard recognizes real-world limits. When a panel can’t do its work otherwise, it may include specialists who earn much of their income from the services in question⁴.

The dietary guidelines committee shows why public disclosure matters. In 2017, the National Academies recommended that the departments running the process post their disclosure policy and form publicly¹. The researchers who studied the 2020 committee concluded that conflicts were so common the guidelines couldn’t meet that standard of openness without public disclosure¹.

To check any guideline, look for the list of panel members and a disclosure appendix. Count how many have ties to companies affected by the advice, check the chair and see who paid for the work. The same test applies to guidelines from natural-health and integrative medicine groups.

When the expert is also the store

Some practitioners and online experts sell the supplements, tests, courses or devices they recommend. That isn’t automatically wrong. It is a financial conflict, and it’s one Open Payments won’t show you.

The American Medical Association’s ethics code addresses it head on for physicians. It says selling health products from an office or website creates a financial conflict, can pressure patients and can erode trust¹¹. Doctors who sell should¹¹:

• offer only products whose claims rest on unbiased, reliable science
• disclose their financial interest
• tell patients the same or similar products may be available elsewhere
• limit sales to immediate needs, and offer products free or at cost when possible
• avoid deals that make a product available only through their office

The code is guidance for physicians, but its questions work for any practitioner who sells what they recommend.

Advertising law adds a layer. The Federal Trade Commission’s Endorsement Guides say that if it isn’t obvious a brand belongs to the person promoting it, the ownership should be disclosed¹². Employees, family members and paid experts should disclose their ties, too¹². Our article on influencer rules explains those requirements in detail.

Conflicts can also hide one step away, in the group doing the recommending.

In 2016, the FTC settled a case with Dr. Joseph Mercola and two Mercola.com companies over indoor tanning beds that sold for $1,200 to $4,000¹³. The FTC alleged that the ads falsely claimed research proves indoor tanning doesn’t raise melanoma risk¹³.

The FTC also alleged that the ads cited a recommendation from the Vitamin D Council without disclosing that the group was paid for its endorsement¹³. The settlement provided up to $5.3 million for refunds¹³.

Skepticism works best when it’s applied evenly

Many people came to natural health partly because they distrust drug-company money in medicine. The meal study and the dietary guidelines study suggest that instinct isn’t paranoia. Asking “who benefits?” is a healthy habit.

The fairest version of that habit applies to everyone. A supplement shelf in a clinic, a wellness author’s paid program and a nonprofit’s endorsement all deserve the same question you’d ask about a drug rep’s lunch.

Many sellers believe in what they sell. That belief is real, and it’s also a conflict of the intellectual kind that ICMJE describes². Sincere people can still be swayed by a stake in the answer. That’s why the goal is to look for evidence from people without that stake.

A step-by-step conflict check

Use this routine whenever a recommendation could cost you money or affect your health.

1. Name the claim and who benefits. Write down what you’re being asked to believe or buy, and who gains if you do.
2. Find the disclosure. For a study, read the competing-interests and funding lines. For a guideline, find the panel’s disclosure list. For an online expert, look for a disclosure page or affiliate notice.
3. Search open payments. If the person is a U.S. physician, chiropractor, dentist, nurse practitioner or physician assistant, look up their profile¹⁴.
4. Follow the products. Does the person sell, own or earn commissions on what they recommend? Check their website’s store and look for “my formula” or a discount code.
5. Look for intellectual stakes. Is there a book, course, clinic or reputation built on this idea?
6. Ask directly. Use the questions in the box below.
7. Weigh what you found. Does the conflict touch this specific claim? Is there independent evidence from people with no stake? Would someone without the conflict give the same advice?

How much should a conflict change your mind?

A conflict should change how much you rely on someone’s word alone. It shouldn’t make you reject a claim that independent evidence supports.

Use the conflict as a sorting tool. When an adviser with a stake makes a claim, give it extra weight only if people without that stake agree. When a claim rests mainly on people who profit from it, wait for independent confirmation before you spend much money or skip other care.

Claim	Rating	What’s behind it
Studies paid for by drug and device makers more often reach conclusions that favor the sponsor	Strong evidence	Cochrane review of 75 papers5
Industry-paid meals cause doctors to prescribe more of the promoted drug	Promising but early	A large, consistent link in 279,669 doctors, but cause wasn’t shown67
Members of the 2020 dietary guidelines committee commonly had industry ties	Strong evidence	19 of 20 members had documented ties1
A conflict of interest proves the advice is wrong	Evidence says no	Ties don’t always mean problems, and the guidelines study didn’t test for bias12

Questions readers ask

The bottom line

A conflict of interest is a risk, not a verdict. Money, products, beliefs and careers can all pull judgment in one direction, and the research shows those pulls are real. That doesn’t make every conflicted adviser wrong.

The practical move is the same for a doctor, a guideline panel or a wellness expert with a store: find the ties, ask plain questions and look for evidence from people with nothing to gain. If you hold drug companies to that standard, hold everyone else to it, too.

Keep exploring: cherry-picked studies.

Related reading

• What an influencer is legally required to tell you
• How commissions shape the supplement lists you read online
• Who paid for the study matters, even when the science is real
• When the company reading your labs also sells the fix
• Antidepressant trials succeeded 94% of the time in journals and 51% of the time in FDA files

Sources

1. Mialon M, Serodio PM, Crosbie E, Teicholz N, Naik A, Carriedo A. “Conflicts of interest for members of the U.S. 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.” Public Health Nutrition, 2024 (first published online 2022). cambridge.org
2. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. “Author Responsibilities: Disclosure of Financial and Non-Financial Relationships and Activities, and Conflicts of Interest.” ICMJE, accessed 2026. icmje.org
3. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. “ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest” (copy hosted by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians). racp.edu.au
4. Institute of Medicine. “Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust: Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines.” National Academies Press, March 2011 (standards summary hosted by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force). uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org
5. Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Schroll JB, Bero L. “Industry sponsorship and research outcome.” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017. cochrane.org
6. NPR, via KPBS. “Even A Small Meal For A Doctor Can Tip The Balance For A Brand-Name Drug.” June 21, 2016. kpbs.org
7. The Pharmaceutical Journal. “Doctors who accept industry lunches prescribe more promoted drugs” (report on DeJong C, et al., JAMA Internal Medicine, 2016). 2016. pharmaceutical-journal.com
8. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “Open Payments Data Overview.” CMS, updated July 2026. cms.gov
9. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “Open Payments Program Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2025.” CMS, 2025. cms.gov
10. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “Open Payments Data Publication Tutorial.” CMS, June 2025. cms.gov
11. American Medical Association. “Sale of Health-Related Products,” Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 9.6.4. AMA, accessed 2026. code-medical-ethics.ama-assn.org
12. Federal Trade Commission. “FTC’s Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking.” FTC, reflects 2023 revision; page updated July 2025. ftc.gov
13. Federal Trade Commission. “Marketers of Indoor Tanning Systems to Pay Refunds to Consumers.” Press release, April 14, 2016. ftc.gov
14. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “Open Payments Glossary and Acronyms.” CMS, accessed October 2026. cms.gov