CMS Open Payments · Tool
International Life Sciences vs Jenavalve Technology, Inc.
Side-by-side comparison of CMS Open Payments data for Program Year 2024. Select different companies below to start a new comparison.
A larger reported total is not "better" or "worse", it is a neutral fact about disclosure volume; a reported payment documents a financial relationship, not evidence of wrongdoing.
Compare Different Companies
Relationship comparison
Which recorded payment profile is more concentrated?
Jenavalve Technology, Inc. has the more concentrated recorded General Payments recipient profile in Program Year 2024: its recipient-distribution HHI is 640, versus 481 for the other company. Its single largest recorded recipient represents 0.1% of that company's General Payments recipient total.
HHI summarizes how payments are distributed across recorded recipients: higher means a less evenly distributed recipient pattern. This is a description of CMS-reported General Payments only, not a finding about conduct, prescribing, quality, or wrongdoing. Read it with the recipient count and underlying records below.
- International Life Sciences
- HHI 481 · top recipient 0.1%
- Ranked #1,301 of 1,838 companies by HHI
- Jenavalve Technology, Inc.
- HHI 640 · top recipient 0.1%
- Ranked #1,206 of 1,838 companies by HHI
Payment Overview
International Life Sciences
- Total Payments
- $883.8K
- % of Industry
- 0.0%
- Transactions
- 535
- Avg per Transaction
- $1.7K
- Recipients
- 535
- Avg per Recipient
- $1.7K
- Payment Types
- 4
- Top Payment Type
- Royalty or License
Jenavalve Technology, Inc.
- Total Payments
- $869.0K
- % of Industry
- 0.0%
- Transactions
- 185
- Avg per Transaction
- $4.7K
- Recipients
- 185
- Avg per Recipient
- $4.7K
- Payment Types
- 2
- Top Payment Type
- Compensation for Services Other Than Consulting
Highlighted values indicate the higher figure for each metric.
Total payments compared
International Life Sciences vs Jenavalve Technology, Inc. - total reported payments in CMS Open Payments PY2024
Payment Types Breakdown
International Life Sciences
49.1%
43.2%
5.4%
2.3%
Jenavalve Technology, Inc.
91.2%
8.8%
Top 5 General-Payment Recipients
This list uses CMS detailed General Payments records only; it excludes research and ownership/investment records, so it does not equal the all-category totals above. A reported payment documents a financial relationship, not evidence of wrongdoing; a higher total reflects reporting volume, not conduct. Verify directly at openpaymentsdata.cms.gov.
International Life Sciences
- 1
JESSE DOTY
$80,562.53 · 24 txns
- 2
RYAN SCOTT
$69,915.42 · 16 txns
- 3
STEVEN NEUFELD
$65,925.06 · 12 txns
- 4
JOHN ELLINGTON
$59,570.42 · 7 txns
- 5
ROBERT ANDERSON
$57,712.83 · 7 txns
Jenavalve Technology, Inc.
- 1
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
$100,784.88 · 2 txns
- 2
Univ Of Mi Hospitals & Hlth Ctrs
$100,388.00 · 3 txns
- 3
New York Presbyterian Hospital
$95,251.24 · 1 txns
- 4
The Methodist Hospital
$61,183.95 · 2 txns
- 5
Cleveland Clinic Hospital
$53,140.00 · 3 txns
Summary Comparison
| Metric | International Life Sciences | Jenavalve Technology, Inc. |
|---|---|---|
| Total Payments | $883.8K | $869.0K |
| % of Industry Total | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Transaction Count | 535 | 185 |
| Avg per Transaction | $1.7K | $4.7K |
| Recipient Count | 535 | 185 |
| Avg per Recipient | $1.7K | $4.7K |
| Payment Type Count | 4 | 2 |
| Top Payment Type | Royalty or License | Compensation for Services Other Than Consulting |
Data Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments, Program Year 2024. Data includes general payments, research payments, and physician ownership/investment interests as required by the Physician Payments Sunshine Act. All companies in the CMS Open Payments company corpus are available in the selector. Browse all companies →
Every figure on PlainPharmaWatch is rendered directly from federal source data, no number is typed in by an editor. This page draws directly on federal source data, no figure is typed in by an editor. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these numbers, or report a data error.