Who Paid My Doc
Sarah Sarbacker
Dermatology Sioux Falls, SD Medical Doctor
NPI 1598762544 CMS profile 163281
4950 S Minnesota Ave, Sioux Falls, SD 57108
General payments
$7,580
Research payments
$0
Ownership & investment interest
$0
Through program year 2025, Sarah Sarbacker of Sioux Falls, SD is reported in the CMS Open Payments database as having received $7,580 across 444 general payments and $0 in research payments paid 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.
General payments for this record sit in the 74th 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 | $1,390 | 73 | |
| 2024 | General | $1,482 | 68 | |
| 2023 | General | $1,132 | 63 | |
| 2022 | General | $1,202 | 76 | |
| 2021 | General | $1,015 | 71 | |
| 2020 | General | $459 | 26 | |
| 2019 | General | $902 | 67 |
Beside peers
- Sarah Sarbacker
- Dermatology median
- Middle half of Dermatology
- National median
In program year 2025, general payments to Sarah Sarbacker were reported at $1,390. 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 | Sarah Sarbacker | Dermatology median | Middle half | National median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | $902 | $454 | $129–$1,240 | $163 |
| 2020 | $459 | $235 | $81–$756 | $114 |
| 2021 | $1,015 | $377 | $108–$1,108 | $132 |
| 2022 | $1,202 | $514 | $143–$1,391 | $149 |
| 2023 | $1,132 | $607 | $159–$1,674 | $160 |
| 2024 | $1,482 | $751 | $204–$1,903 | $164 |
| 2025 | $1,390 | $788 | $207–$1,974 | $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 · 9 drugsPart D claims
205
Drug cost
$45,547
Branded share of claims
22%
| Drug | Type | Relative to their largest | Claims | Drug cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dupixent Pen Dupilumab | Brand | 12 | $40,939 | |
| Clobetasol Propionate | Generic | 37 | $2,090 | |
| Metronidazole | Generic | 20 | $931 | |
| Valacyclovir Valacyclovir Hcl | Brand | 33 | $713 | |
| Triamcinolone Acetonide | Generic | 49 | $418 | |
| Ketoconazole | Generic | 13 | $178 | |
| Doxycycline Hyclate | Generic | 12 | $124 | |
| Minoxidil | Generic | 18 | $116 | |
| Terbinafine Hcl | Generic | 11 | $37 |
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 codesPaid by Medicare
$252,033
Medicare patients
936
Services billed
3,057
| Condition among their Medicare patients | Relative to the most common | Share of patients |
|---|---|---|
| High blood pressure | 62% | |
| Arthritis | 37% | |
| Ischemic heart disease | 19% | |
| Diabetes | 18% | |
| Chronic kidney disease | 17% | |
| Cancer | 17% | |
| Osteoporosis | 17% | |
| Atrial fibrillation | 16% |
| Drug given in the clinic | Where | Patients | Services | Paid by Medicare |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Injection, triamcinolone acetonide, not otherwise specified, 10 mg J3301 | Office | 11 | 32 | $25 |
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 22 products · payments 2024Two 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.
| Product | Paid by | Related payments | Part D claims | Part B services |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DUPIXENT |
|
$230 | 12 | — |
| SKYRIZI |
|
$200 | — | — |
| TREMFYA |
|
$109 | — | — |
| RINVOQ |
|
$85 | — | — |
| ILUMYA |
|
$83 | — | — |
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 all 22 in the dashboard with a free accountRecords
444 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 Dermatology in South Dakota
Related records
Dermatology in South Dakota
Practitioners in the same specialty and state, ranked by reported value.
All Dermatology
Everyone recorded under this specialty, nationwide.
Doctors in South Dakota
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.