PlainPharmaWatch

States with the Highest Pharmaceutical Payments

All states ranked by total pharmaceutical industry payments to healthcare providers.

What This Ranking Tells Us

Pharmaceutical payments concentrate in states with major academic medical centers, large physician populations, and pharmaceutical industry presence. California, Florida, and Pennsylvania consistently rank highest due to their combination of large healthcare workforces, major research universities, and pharmaceutical company headquarters or manufacturing facilities. Population alone does not determine ranking — states with outsized research and academic medicine sectors receive disproportionately high payments.

What the Data Shows

This ranking covers 51 entries from the CMS Open Payments Public Use Files for Program Year 2024. The top-ranked entry, California, reports total payments of $334.5M, while the lowest entry on the list reports $1.5M — a span that captures the full range of pharmaceutical-industry engagement within this category. The aggregate total payments across all 51 ranked entries sums to $3.3B, and the average is $64.9M per entry. Large gaps between the top and bottom of a ranking are normal in Open Payments data: a small number of major pharmaceutical manufacturers, large academic medical centers, or prolific research physicians typically account for a disproportionate share of total reported transfers of value.

Concentration is a key signal in this dataset. The single top entry, California, represents 10.1% of the total payments aggregated across this ranking. The top 10 entries together represent 61.8% of the total — a useful indicator of how concentrated activity is at the high end of the distribution. In pharmaceutical payment data, high concentration at the top typically reflects a handful of companies with very broad sales forces or extensive patented product portfolios, a few academic medical centers conducting the bulk of industry-sponsored clinical research, or specialist physicians earning royalties from widely-used medical devices they helped invent. A flatter distribution, by contrast, suggests that industry engagement is more evenly spread across the sector.

Every figure on this page is drawn directly from the CMS Open Payments Public Use Files, which pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers are legally required to report under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act (Section 6002 of the Affordable Care Act). The data covers general payments, research payments, and physician ownership or investment interests. Readers can verify any individual physician or teaching hospital at openpaymentsdata.cms.gov, the official CMS search tool. This ranking surfaces reported financial relationships for transparency purposes only and does not constitute medical advice, a judgment about individual prescribing practices, or evidence of any ethical or legal violation by listed parties. Many large payments fund legitimate research, consulting, and education activities that benefit patient care.

# Name Total Payments
1 California CA $334.5M
2 Florida FL $304.7M
3 Pennsylvania PA $303.3M
4 Massachusetts MA $225.1M
5 Texas TX $221.2M
6 New York NY $211.9M
7 Missouri MO $120.1M
8 Illinois IL $118.0M
9 Ohio OH $109.3M
10 Michigan MI $100.2M
11 North Carolina NC $95.7M
12 Tennessee TN $81.2M
13 Virginia VA $79.4M
14 Georgia GA $78.0M
15 Arizona AZ $66.9M
16 New Jersey NJ $63.9M
17 Colorado CO $62.7M
18 Washington WA $57.1M
19 Maryland MD $53.2M
20 Minnesota MN $49.4M
21 Indiana IN $48.6M
22 Alabama AL $35.8M
23 South Carolina SC $34.8M
24 Connecticut CT $34.6M
25 Kentucky KY $34.5M
26 Utah UT $34.2M
27 Kansas KS $33.3M
28 Louisiana LA $33.1M
29 Hawaii HI $32.8M
30 Wisconsin WI $30.3M
31 Nevada NV $27.4M
32 District Of Columbia DC $25.5M
33 Oklahoma OK $24.0M
34 Oregon OR $19.5M
35 Iowa IA $17.4M
36 Mississippi MS $15.0M
37 Arkansas AR $13.1M
38 Idaho ID $12.1M
39 New Hampshire NH $9.2M
40 Nebraska NE $9.2M
41 West Virginia WV $8.1M
42 Puerto Rico PR $7.4M
43 South Dakota SD $7.2M
44 Rhode Island RI $7.1M
45 New Mexico NM $6.7M
46 Delaware DE $4.2M
47 Maine ME $3.4M
48 Montana MT $2.6M
49 North Dakota ND $1.7M
50 Wyoming WY $1.6M
51 Alaska AK $1.5M

Source: CMS Open Payments, Program Year 2024.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why do some states receive so much more than others?

The biggest factors are the number of physicians and teaching hospitals in the state, the presence of major academic medical centers that conduct industry-sponsored research, pharmaceutical company headquarters locations, and overall healthcare sector size. Massachusetts, for example, ranks disproportionately high relative to its population due to its concentration of world-class medical schools and research hospitals.

Does high payment volume mean more conflicts of interest?

Higher payment volumes correlate with more healthcare industry activity, not necessarily more conflicts. States with major medical research institutions receive enormous research grants that benefit patients through clinical trials and drug development. However, the concentration of payments warrants scrutiny to ensure financial relationships do not unduly influence prescribing patterns.

Related

Source: CMS Open Payments Database Industry payments to physicians and teaching hospitals · 2025

How to read this leaderboard

This page is generated dynamically from the latest PlainPharmaWatch snapshot of the CMS Open Payments database. Each row reflects an entity's reported total within the selected ranking dimension — companies, states, physicians, or teaching hospitals — and is recomputed on every request so values track the underlying ETL output rather than a frozen build-time copy. CMS publishes the dataset annually, with corrected snapshots issued mid-cycle when Sunshine-Act disputes change a record set. Anywhere PlainPharmaWatch presents a payment total, the figure is reconcilable to the row-level entries in the source dataset published at openpaymentsdata.cms.gov.

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act, enacted as Section 6002 of the Affordable Care Act, requires applicable manufacturers (drug, device, biological, and medical-supply makers) and applicable group purchasing organizations to report transfers of value made to physicians and teaching hospitals. Reportable categories include consulting fees, food and beverage, travel and lodging, education, gifts, speaking compensation, charitable contributions, royalties or licenses, research-related payments, and ownership or investment interests. Some categories are excluded by statute — payments under specific de minimis thresholds, research-related transfers tied to active clinical trials, and certain product samples — and these exclusions explain why aggregate figures here do not match every alternative pharma-spending measure.

Interpreting rank changes

Rank movement between annual releases reflects two distinct phenomena. Real underlying shifts occur when a manufacturer launches a major product, exits a therapeutic area, restructures its commercial organization, or settles a Department of Justice investigation that alters its marketing approach. Reporting-level shifts occur when CMS revises submission guidelines, when applicable-manufacturer definitions change, or when a previously unreported subsidiary begins consolidated reporting. PlainPharmaWatch does not attempt to attribute rank changes to either cause — that requires looking at the underlying payment-category breakdown on each company's detail page, which itself links back to the raw CMS records.

For physicians ranked individually, year-over-year rank instability is the norm: an active clinical-trial principal investigator may receive the bulk of their reported payments in one program year and far less in adjacent years. A surgeon who licenses a successful medical device may show a sudden royalty-driven spike and then stable lower amounts thereafter. Teaching-hospital rankings tend to be more stable because they reflect institution-wide aggregates across many simultaneously active research programs.

Where to look next

Click any entity name to drill into its full per-entity detail page. Company detail pages decompose total payments by category (consulting, food, royalties, etc.) and show the top recipient physicians and teaching hospitals. State detail pages show payments split between physician and teaching-hospital recipients, plus per-physician averages and recipient counts. The methodology page documents ingestion, normalization, and known limitations end-to-end. For context on the Sunshine Act itself and how the Open Payments dataset compares to alternative pharmaceutical-spending measures (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Frequently Asked Questions, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's drug-approval registers, and academic literature on payment-prescribing correlations), the guides section walks through the relevant regulatory background.