Medical Doctor Program year 2025 Reported 2019–2025 Source: CMS Open Payments, 2026 publication

Matthew Miller

Dermatology Greenville, SC Medical Doctor

NPI 1679528756 CMS profile 211979

369 Woodruff Rd, Greenville, SC 29607

Open in the dashboard

General payments

$27,924

1,416 records reported · program years 2019–2025

Research payments

$0

Paid to them · None reported · program years 2019–2025

Ownership & investment interest

$0

None reported

Research they led as principal investigator

$2,762,736 paid to institutions, not to them · program years 2019–2025

Through program year 2025, Matthew Miller of Greenville, SC is reported in the CMS Open Payments database as having received $27,924 across 1,416 general payments and $0 in research payments paid to them. Separately, studies naming them as principal investigator received $2,762,736 in research payments, paid to institutions rather than to them.

No combined total General, research and ownership are kept apart. Each is reported under its own rules, and ownership is not money that moved at all but the value of a stake held. A meal, a clinical trial grant and a shareholding do not add up to anything meaningful, so this site does not add them. The principal-investigator line is research money paid to institutions for studies they led — not to them — and is not added to anything either.

General payments for this record sit in the 90th percentile of Dermatology profiles with reported payments. Percentile describes the distribution, not the conduct.

By program year

7 rows
Year Kind Relative to this record's peak year Amount Records
2025 General $5,052 278
2024 General $5,077 261
2023 General $4,513 223
2022 General $3,298 178
2021 General $2,911 171
2020 General $4,695 144
2019 General $2,379 161

Beside peers

Year by year, beside peers General payments · among profiles paid that year
  • Matthew Miller
  • Dermatology median
  • Middle half of Dermatology
  • National median

In program year 2025, general payments to Matthew Miller were reported at $5,052. Among 10,363 Dermatology profiles paid that year, the median was $788 and the middle half received between $207 and $1,974.

Show as a table
Year Matthew Miller Dermatology median Middle half National median
2019 $2,379 $454 $129–$1,240 $163
2020 $4,695 $235 $81–$756 $114
2021 $2,911 $377 $108–$1,108 $132
2022 $3,298 $514 $143–$1,391 $149
2023 $4,513 $607 $159–$1,674 $160
2024 $5,077 $751 $204–$1,903 $164
2025 $5,052 $788 $207–$1,974 $169

Breakdown

Who paid General payments · program years 2019–2025
  1. AbbVie, Inc. $5,904 264 payments
  2. Janssen Biotech, Inc. $2,123 148 payments
  3. Amgen Inc. $1,973 89 payments
  4. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Inc. $1,971 81 payments
  5. Pfizer Inc. $1,662 93 payments
  6. Lilly USA, LLC $1,333 61 payments
  7. LEO Pharma Inc. $1,287 66 payments
  8. UCB Biosciences Inc. $1,217 16 payments
  9. Incyte Corporation $1,088 47 payments
  10. Regeneron Healthcare Solutions, Inc. $967 38 payments
  11. Other $8,399 513 payments

Every payment, record by record

What the payments were for General payments · program years 2019–2025
  1. Food and Beverage $25,254 1,407 payments
  2. Consulting Fee $1,800 2 payments
  3. Travel and Lodging $687 4 payments
  4. Education $182 3 payments
Products named General payments · program years 2019–2025
  1. SKYRIZI $3,641 116 payments
  2. Otezla $1,973 89 payments
  3. TREMFYA $1,689 115 payments
  4. ILUMYA $1,539 64 payments
  5. HUMIRA $1,270 67 payments
  6. CIBINQO $1,212 66 payments
  7. RINVOQ $1,163 82 payments
  8. TALTZ $1,098 54 payments
  9. OPZELURA $1,088 47 payments
  10. ADBRY $1,076 52 payments
  11. Other $16,125 961 payments

A payment can name more than one product, so these amounts overlap and do not add up to the general-payment figure.

Prescribing to Medicare patients

Part D · data year 2024 · 29 drugs

Part D claims

1,887

Median for Dermatology: 534

Drug cost

$622,539

Median for Dermatology: $67,151

Branded share of claims

7.8%

Median for Dermatology: 8.1%

Drugs this doctor was counted under in Medicare Part D 2024, by drug cost
Drug Type Relative to their largest Claims Drug cost
Tremfya Guselkumab Brand 20 $265,314
Humira(Cf) Pen Adalimumab Brand 26 $214,908
Dupixent Pen Dupilumab Brand 17 $92,752
Clobetasol Propionate Generic 188 $9,488
Cyclosporine Generic 11 $7,302
Triamcinolone Acetonide Generic 294 $4,498
Metronidazole Generic 67 $3,896
Fluticasone Propionate Generic 138 $3,430
Ketoconazole Generic 118 $2,591
Clindamycin Phosphate Generic 107 $2,325

The 10 drugs with the highest cost, of 29 counted.

Drug cost is what was paid for the drugs at the pharmacy — by Medicare, the patient and others — and is not money to the prescriber. Medicare Part D only: drugs dispensed to Medicare beneficiaries. A drug with fewer than 11 claims for this prescriber is not published, so a missing drug does not mean zero. The medians are for the 13,550 Part D prescribers listed as Dermatology; they describe a distribution and say nothing about conduct.

Billing to Medicare

Part B · data year 2024 · 90 billing codes

Paid by Medicare

$508,739

Of which drugs: $89,729

Medicare patients

1,776

Average age 75

Services billed

12,319

804 women, 972 men among their patients

Share of this provider's Medicare patients with each condition
Condition among their Medicare patients Relative to the most common Share of patients
High blood pressure 70%
Arthritis 41%
Ischemic heart disease 27%
Diabetes 22%
Chronic kidney disease 20%
Depression 18%
Cancer 17%
Atrial fibrillation 16%
Drugs given in the clinic that this provider billed Medicare Part B for
Drug given in the clinic Where Patients Services Paid by Medicare
Injection, triamcinolone acetonide, not otherwise specified, 10 mg J3301 Office 39 328 $230

Medicare Part B only: services billed to Medicare. Rows covering fewer than 11 beneficiaries are not published. Only drugs given in the clinic are itemised here; the rest of what this provider billed is in the total above.

Payments and prescribing

First 5 of 29 products · payments 2024

Two separate records. The payments come from Open Payments and the claims from Medicare. They are set side by side because they name the same product; they do not show that a payment affected a prescription.

Products this doctor was paid in connection with in 2024, beside Medicare claims for the same product
Product Paid by Related payments Part D claims Part B services
SKYRIZI
$445 — —
Otezla
$440 — —
ADBRY
$415 — —
TREMFYA
$359 20 —
RINVOQ
$358 — —

A dash means Medicare published no figure for this doctor and product — fewer than 11 claims, or the product is not covered under that part — which is not the same as none. Payments are general payments only; one that names several products is split evenly between them, so an amount is payments related to the product, not money paid for it.

See more in the dashboard: 25 with a free account, all 29 with Patron

Records

1,416 reported

Every payment, record by record

Date, company, amount, what it was for and the product named — filter by year, kind and company, or download as CSV.

Other Dermatology in South Carolina

Related records

What this means

U.S. law requires drug and medical device manufacturers to report payments and transfers of value they make to physicians and teaching hospitals. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services publishes that record each year. This page shows what was reported about this person, and nothing else.

An ownership interest is different from the other two. It is not a payment: it is a stake — shares, options, a partnership holding — that a physician or an immediate family member held in a manufacturer during that year. The figure shown is what the stake was reported to be worth.

Research payments frequently pass through a clinician to the institution running a trial, and rarely represent personal income. They should be read differently from general payments.

Provenance

Source: CMS Open Payments · through program year 2025

Data current to program year 2025, from CMS's 2026 publication.

We reproduce what manufacturers reported. We do not verify, edit or correct the underlying records.

A payment record is not evidence of wrongdoing. Financial relationships between industry and medicine are legal, common and often necessary for research. Who Paid My Doc reports what was disclosed; it does not judge it.

Who Paid My Doc is independent and is not affiliated with, endorsed by or sponsored by CMS or any U.S. government agency. It is not a consumer reporting agency and this is not a consumer report; do not use it for decisions covered by the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

How to dispute or correct a record