Last December, the Senate Finance Committee’s Chuck Grassley sent letters 33 medical advocay groups, including the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and American Academy of Family Physicians for details about the money they and their board members received from drug and device makers (background here).
The move came several months after Grassley and his staffers discovered that the National Alliance on Mental Illness received sizeable pharma donations while also conducting lobbying efforts with drug makers and pushing legislation that benefits these companies. Since then, NAMI has posted that sort of info on its web site (look here). But what about the others?
Well, The Chronicle of Philanthropy has done an update by checking in with the various organizations and found that the groups Grassley is investigating receive more than $100 million in aggregate each year from drug and device makers in the form of donations, advertising revenue, exhibit fees, corporate memberships, andsupport for continuing medical education.
However, the amount of disclosure varies. The paper writes that 14 offered info about corporate contributions, while 12 more provided only limited data. The remainder - including The American Dental Association, the American Medical Association and the American Society of Anesthesiologists - declined to say how they responded to Grassley and post very little or nothing on their web sites beyond names of corporate donors (see this and this).
“You have to preserve the confidentiality of donors and respect donors’ rights,” Paulette Maehara, president of the Association of Fundraising Professionals, tells the paper. “Donors do have rights regardless of what Senator Grassley might think.”
Then there's the other point of view: “These patient-advocacy groups have kind of gotten a free pass,” says Howard Brody, director of the Institute for the Medical Humanities at the University of Texas Medical Branch, adding that some drugmakers treat them like “an extension of the marketing department.” He suggests there has been less scrutiny of groups such as the American Cancer Society, because they seem like “God, mother, and apple pie.”
15 Comments
“You have to preserve the confidentiality of donors and respect donors’ rights,”
Which is really saying; corporations need to be able to use these shills to market products and make political hay under the disguise of "not for profit" because they control the purse strings, lobbying clout, and message.
Corporation are not individuals, and should not be afforded the same "rights" when they are standing to profit and gain influence from bank rolling these front organizations. "not for profit" or "non-profit" is actually a misnomer in all practical purpose.
NAMI- how is that Fitzpatrick guy still running that place?
I recently sent a letter to Sen. Grassley and members of the Senate finnce Committee about the National Academy of Science. NAS Advises Congress but is supported by every industry, Foundtions and members like John Holdren. Holdren, Government of the United States Advisor to Pres. Obama on Science. Election Year: 1991 to NAS NAS Section: Human Environmental Sciences Status: Member Holdren is the leading policy-oriented researcher in his age class who has bridged physical and social sciences in developing a framework for integrated analysis of the environmental and human implications of growth in population and technology. There are thousands of non-profit think tanks all supportedby alli ndustries-especially pharmaceuticals---and the National Academy of Science receives funding from Congress.
The Academy States the Following: Four organizations comprise the Academies: the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council. Known collectively as the National Academies, our organization produces reports that have helped shape sound policies, inform public opinion, and advance the pursuit of science, engineering, and medicine.
Their reports pose a conflict of interest since the Academy's goal is to support their financial backers---as with all other think tanks.
funny how many did not want to respond.
Each year JAMA collects 45 million dollars in advertising revenue. It is now wonder that they do not want to disclose this clear conflict of interest.
Anyone who talks about NAMI or the American cancer society as a shill, obviously does nothing for the welfare of patients, and sits around all day pontificating and feeling self righteous!
Some of these numbers are pretty high. Also, posting them on their websites is a good start- so give NAMI credit for doing that.
NAMI pledged publicly to change their corporate pandering ways - just look at the evidence through the numbers, donors, money sources, and you can see they have not.
NAMI is and will forever be nothing more than a shill extension of pharmaceutical corporate marketing.
Disgusted; why don't you present your evidence of how NAMI is at all interested in the welfare of patients; when we know they are far more interested in the Big Pharma dollars they bring in...
You appear quite ignorant to the facts, and have shown not an inkling of knowledge or interest in patient welfare except to cast cheap insults with your own self serving indulgent platitudes here.
In fact, NAMI isn't about actual patients in the least. What it is about is misleading family members of patients and the greater public sector with a lot of dangerous misinformation and unconscionable distortions.
Like I said you have nothing better to do than sit around and talk trash. You are the ignorant self serving individual here. Furthermore. I don't remember you at the anti war protests, the civil rights marches... Stop your nonsense!
Ahhhhhh,.. so nice to see, that, some things never change.
I'm sure glad I opened my email to see what was discussed on Pharmalot and ended up here because I was feeling a little down.
I love those rare occasions on the internet when something makes me laugh out loud and reading that first comment made by "disgusted" caused me to burst right out laughing.
I say "disgusted" is either Peter Pitts or Roberg Goldberg, or a paid blogger. I think I'm going to look for a part-time job like that. LOL.
You just go around to different blogs writing nonsense all day. I'd probably sit here laughing (on the clock), while thinking up stupid things to write.
i am also glad to read this. what a hoot.
Pringle, you're spot on as usual.
Mr. Silverman does a diservice when he mixes a trash organization like the American Medical association with NAMI or the American Cancer Society. But that said, it is interesting to see the paranoid ideation of the numerous readers of this blog.
Dear Disgusted,
Thanks for your note. However, I was not offering an independent judgment about any of the organizations named here, but instead reported what the Senate Finance Committee had examined as part of its investigation and cited the groups contacted by the Chronicle of Philanthropy. If you have an issue, please take it up with them.
Hope this helps, ed
I think a review of this is in order
Harvard Professor starts non-profit, opposes doctor-pharma ties scrutiny of conflicts of interest http://tinyurl.com/2f77834
Especially the link to Pharma Giles if you want a good LOL