Who Paid My Doc
Nazema Siddiqui
Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery Durham, NC Medical Doctor
NPI 1144311291 CMS profile 97280
5324 McFarland Rd Ste 310, Durham, NC 27707
General payments
$28,768
Research payments
$0
Ownership & investment interest
$0
Research they led as principal investigator
$1,058,543
Through program year 2025, Nazema Siddiqui of Durham, NC is reported in the CMS Open Payments database as having received $28,768 across 18 general payments and $0 in research payments paid to them. Separately, studies naming them as principal investigator received $1,058,543 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 Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery profiles with reported payments. Percentile describes the distribution, not the conduct.
By program year
3 rows| Year | Kind | Relative to this record's peak year | Amount | Records |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | General | $195 | 2 | |
| 2023 | General | $6,781 | 10 | |
| 2019 | General | $21,791 | 6 |
Beside peers
- Nazema Siddiqui
- Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery median
- Middle half of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery
- National median
In program year 2025, general payments to Nazema Siddiqui were reported at $195. Among 802 Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery profiles paid that year, the median was $412 and the middle half received between $133 and $1,300.
Show as a table
| Year | Nazema Siddiqui | Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery median | Middle half | National median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | $21,791 | $358 | $132–$1,270 | $163 |
| 2020 | $0 | $198 | $86–$642 | $114 |
| 2021 | $0 | $361 | $118–$1,182 | $132 |
| 2022 | $0 | $410 | $128–$1,175 | $149 |
| 2023 | $6,781 | $434 | $152–$1,344 | $160 |
| 2024 | $0 | $494 | $193–$1,331 | $164 |
| 2025 | $195 | $412 | $133–$1,300 | $169 |
Breakdown
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 · 11 drugsPart D claims
469
Drug cost
$92,082
Branded share of claims
46.7%
| Drug | Type | Relative to their largest | Claims | Drug cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Myrbetriq Mirabegron | Brand | 79 | $52,600 | |
| Gemtesa Vibegron | Brand | 28 | $19,119 | |
| Estradiol | Generic | 119 | $8,809 | |
| Methenamine Hippurate | Generic | 54 | $5,099 | |
| Trospium Chloride | Generic | 19 | $2,563 | |
| Trospium Chloride Er Trospium Chloride | Brand | 13 | $1,784 | |
| Nitrofurantoin Mono-Macro Nitrofurantoin Monohyd/M-Cryst | Brand | 57 | $1,445 | |
| Cephalexin | Generic | 30 | $329 | |
| Ciprofloxacin Hcl | Generic | 28 | $171 | |
| Cefuroxime Cefuroxime Axetil | Brand | 11 | $83 |
The 10 drugs with the highest cost, of 11 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 24,311 Part D prescribers listed as Obstetrics & Gynecology; they describe a distribution and say nothing about conduct.
Billing to Medicare
Part B · data year 2024 · 50 billing codesPaid by Medicare
$56,884
Medicare patients
177
Services billed
2,276
| Condition among their Medicare patients | Relative to the most common | Share of patients |
|---|---|---|
| High blood pressure | 70% | |
| Arthritis | 59% | |
| Depression | 37% | |
| Osteoporosis | 33% | |
| Diabetes | 27% | |
| Ischemic heart disease | 23% | |
| Cancer | 21% | |
| Chronic kidney disease | 19% |
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.
Records
18 reportedEvery 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 Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery in North Carolina
Cary Fishburne
Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery · Charlotte, NC
William Porter
Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery · Charlotte, NC
Erinn Myers
Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery · Charlotte, NC
Amie Kawasaki
Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery · Durham, NC
Cindy Amundsen
Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery · Durham, NC
Sarah Bradley
Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery · Cary, NC
Related records
Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery in North Carolina
Practitioners in the same specialty and state, ranked by reported value.
All Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery
Everyone recorded under this specialty, nationwide.
Doctors in North Carolina
Every practitioner in the state with a reported payment.
How to read this page
What each amount means, and what it does not mean.
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.