Health Advocacy Groups Take Drug Company Cash—Often Without Full Disclosures, Report Says - ProPublica

[Guest guest]

http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/health-advocacy-groups-take-drug-company-cas\

hoften-without-full-disclosures



The ProPublica Blog

Health Advocacy Groups Take Drug Company Cash—Often Without Full Disclosures,

Report Says

by n Wang

ProPublica, Jan. 13, 2011, 4:14 p.m.

37 Comments

Republish

E-mail

Print



Photo by Magill

We’ve reported extensively on the ties between pharmaceutical companies and

the physicians they fund to speak, consult and do research. But doctors aren’t

the only ones taking money from drug companies—and they’re not the only

stakeholders in the field of health whose public disclosures aren’t complete.

According to a new study in the American Journal of Public Health,

not-for-profit health advocacy groups like the American Diabetes Association and

the National Alliance on Mental Illness also get money from drug companies in

the form of grants that—more often than not—aren’t disclosed by those

groups.

The study examined more than 160 health advocacy organizations that received

funding from Eli Lilly in the first half of 2007. (Lilly was the first company

to make its grant registry public.) Here’s what the analysis found:

As an aggregate, 25% of HAOs acknowledged Lilly funding anywhere on their Web

site. Eighteen percent acknowledged Lilly in their 2007 annual report, 1%

acknowledged Lilly on a corporate sponsors page, and 10% acknowledged Lilly as

the sponsor of the grant event reported in the [Lilly Grant Registry.]

Health advocacy groups often advocate for research and the approval of new drugs

on top of promoting public awareness. According to the study, their reputation

as a trusted resource for information on specific diseases and their treatments

should prompt “far more detailed†disclosure of their corporate grants and

industry relationships.

This report isn’t the first time such ties have been spotlighted.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness, or NAMI, came under similar scrutiny

back in 2009 when Sen. Grassley, a top Republican, began making

inquiries.

From 2006 to 2008, the group took in nearly $23 million in drug company

donations—about three-quarters of its fund-raising. At the time, NAMI’s

executive director told The New York Times that “the percentage of money from

pharma has been higher than we have wanted it to be†and promised greater

disclosures.

Following the revelations about NAMI, Sen. Grassley sent letters to 33

health advocacy groups asking them to disclose details about their financial

ties to drug and device makers. He has not released the responses he received

from the groups.

Today’s report, however, highlighted continued concerns about the degree to

which a group’s funding influences its advocacy and helps boost sales for drug

companies making donations. Here’s an example from the report, involving NAMI:

This lack of transparency is disappointing because, either by design or through

a convergence of interests, the HAOs in the current study pursued activities

that promoted the sale of Lilly products.

In the area of neurosciences, Lilly gave NAMI $450,000 for its Campaign for the

Mind of America. NAMI has advocated that cost should not be a consideration when

prescribing for patients. ‘‘For the most severely disabled,’’ insisted

NAMI, ‘‘effective treatment often means access to the newest medications

such as atypical anti- psychotic and anti-depressive agents. . . . Doctors must

be allowed to utilize the latest breakthrough in medical science . . . without

bureaucratic restrictions to the access for life-saving medications.’’To the

degree that NAMI’s campaign succeeded, the market for Lilly’s neuroscience

drugs expanded.

As we’ve noted, the health care law contains a provision requiring greater

disclosure of drug company payments to physicians by 2013, but it does not

include company payments to health advocacy organizations.

Follow on Twitter: @mariancw

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

[Guest guest]

http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/health-advocacy-groups-take-drug-company-cas\

hoften-without-full-disclosures



The ProPublica Blog

Health Advocacy Groups Take Drug Company Cash—Often Without Full Disclosures,

Report Says

by n Wang

ProPublica, Jan. 13, 2011, 4:14 p.m.

37 Comments

Republish

E-mail

Print



Photo by Magill

We’ve reported extensively on the ties between pharmaceutical companies and

the physicians they fund to speak, consult and do research. But doctors aren’t

the only ones taking money from drug companies—and they’re not the only

stakeholders in the field of health whose public disclosures aren’t complete.

According to a new study in the American Journal of Public Health,

not-for-profit health advocacy groups like the American Diabetes Association and

the National Alliance on Mental Illness also get money from drug companies in

the form of grants that—more often than not—aren’t disclosed by those

groups.

The study examined more than 160 health advocacy organizations that received

funding from Eli Lilly in the first half of 2007. (Lilly was the first company

to make its grant registry public.) Here’s what the analysis found:

As an aggregate, 25% of HAOs acknowledged Lilly funding anywhere on their Web

site. Eighteen percent acknowledged Lilly in their 2007 annual report, 1%

acknowledged Lilly on a corporate sponsors page, and 10% acknowledged Lilly as

the sponsor of the grant event reported in the [Lilly Grant Registry.]

Health advocacy groups often advocate for research and the approval of new drugs

on top of promoting public awareness. According to the study, their reputation

as a trusted resource for information on specific diseases and their treatments

should prompt “far more detailed†disclosure of their corporate grants and

industry relationships.

This report isn’t the first time such ties have been spotlighted.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness, or NAMI, came under similar scrutiny

back in 2009 when Sen. Grassley, a top Republican, began making

inquiries.

From 2006 to 2008, the group took in nearly $23 million in drug company

donations—about three-quarters of its fund-raising. At the time, NAMI’s

executive director told The New York Times that “the percentage of money from

pharma has been higher than we have wanted it to be†and promised greater

disclosures.

Following the revelations about NAMI, Sen. Grassley sent letters to 33

health advocacy groups asking them to disclose details about their financial

ties to drug and device makers. He has not released the responses he received

from the groups.

Today’s report, however, highlighted continued concerns about the degree to

which a group’s funding influences its advocacy and helps boost sales for drug

companies making donations. Here’s an example from the report, involving NAMI:

This lack of transparency is disappointing because, either by design or through

a convergence of interests, the HAOs in the current study pursued activities

that promoted the sale of Lilly products.

In the area of neurosciences, Lilly gave NAMI $450,000 for its Campaign for the

Mind of America. NAMI has advocated that cost should not be a consideration when

prescribing for patients. ‘‘For the most severely disabled,’’ insisted

NAMI, ‘‘effective treatment often means access to the newest medications

such as atypical anti- psychotic and anti-depressive agents. . . . Doctors must

be allowed to utilize the latest breakthrough in medical science . . . without

bureaucratic restrictions to the access for life-saving medications.’’To the

degree that NAMI’s campaign succeeded, the market for Lilly’s neuroscience

drugs expanded.

As we’ve noted, the health care law contains a provision requiring greater

disclosure of drug company payments to physicians by 2013, but it does not

include company payments to health advocacy organizations.

Follow on Twitter: @mariancw

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

[Guest guest]

http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/health-advocacy-groups-take-drug-company-cas\

hoften-without-full-disclosures



The ProPublica Blog

Health Advocacy Groups Take Drug Company Cash—Often Without Full Disclosures,

Report Says

by n Wang

ProPublica, Jan. 13, 2011, 4:14 p.m.

37 Comments

Republish

E-mail

Print



Photo by Magill

We’ve reported extensively on the ties between pharmaceutical companies and

the physicians they fund to speak, consult and do research. But doctors aren’t

the only ones taking money from drug companies—and they’re not the only

stakeholders in the field of health whose public disclosures aren’t complete.

According to a new study in the American Journal of Public Health,

not-for-profit health advocacy groups like the American Diabetes Association and

the National Alliance on Mental Illness also get money from drug companies in

the form of grants that—more often than not—aren’t disclosed by those

groups.

The study examined more than 160 health advocacy organizations that received

funding from Eli Lilly in the first half of 2007. (Lilly was the first company

to make its grant registry public.) Here’s what the analysis found:

As an aggregate, 25% of HAOs acknowledged Lilly funding anywhere on their Web

site. Eighteen percent acknowledged Lilly in their 2007 annual report, 1%

acknowledged Lilly on a corporate sponsors page, and 10% acknowledged Lilly as

the sponsor of the grant event reported in the [Lilly Grant Registry.]

Health advocacy groups often advocate for research and the approval of new drugs

on top of promoting public awareness. According to the study, their reputation

as a trusted resource for information on specific diseases and their treatments

should prompt “far more detailed†disclosure of their corporate grants and

industry relationships.

This report isn’t the first time such ties have been spotlighted.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness, or NAMI, came under similar scrutiny

back in 2009 when Sen. Grassley, a top Republican, began making

inquiries.

From 2006 to 2008, the group took in nearly $23 million in drug company

donations—about three-quarters of its fund-raising. At the time, NAMI’s

executive director told The New York Times that “the percentage of money from

pharma has been higher than we have wanted it to be†and promised greater

disclosures.

Following the revelations about NAMI, Sen. Grassley sent letters to 33

health advocacy groups asking them to disclose details about their financial

ties to drug and device makers. He has not released the responses he received

from the groups.

Today’s report, however, highlighted continued concerns about the degree to

which a group’s funding influences its advocacy and helps boost sales for drug

companies making donations. Here’s an example from the report, involving NAMI:

This lack of transparency is disappointing because, either by design or through

a convergence of interests, the HAOs in the current study pursued activities

that promoted the sale of Lilly products.

In the area of neurosciences, Lilly gave NAMI $450,000 for its Campaign for the

Mind of America. NAMI has advocated that cost should not be a consideration when

prescribing for patients. ‘‘For the most severely disabled,’’ insisted

NAMI, ‘‘effective treatment often means access to the newest medications

such as atypical anti- psychotic and anti-depressive agents. . . . Doctors must

be allowed to utilize the latest breakthrough in medical science . . . without

bureaucratic restrictions to the access for life-saving medications.’’To the

degree that NAMI’s campaign succeeded, the market for Lilly’s neuroscience

drugs expanded.

As we’ve noted, the health care law contains a provision requiring greater

disclosure of drug company payments to physicians by 2013, but it does not

include company payments to health advocacy organizations.

Follow on Twitter: @mariancw

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

[Guest guest]

http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/health-advocacy-groups-take-drug-company-cas\

hoften-without-full-disclosures



The ProPublica Blog

Health Advocacy Groups Take Drug Company Cash—Often Without Full Disclosures,

Report Says

by n Wang

ProPublica, Jan. 13, 2011, 4:14 p.m.

37 Comments

Republish

E-mail

Print



Photo by Magill

We’ve reported extensively on the ties between pharmaceutical companies and

the physicians they fund to speak, consult and do research. But doctors aren’t

the only ones taking money from drug companies—and they’re not the only

stakeholders in the field of health whose public disclosures aren’t complete.

According to a new study in the American Journal of Public Health,

not-for-profit health advocacy groups like the American Diabetes Association and

the National Alliance on Mental Illness also get money from drug companies in

the form of grants that—more often than not—aren’t disclosed by those

groups.

The study examined more than 160 health advocacy organizations that received

funding from Eli Lilly in the first half of 2007. (Lilly was the first company

to make its grant registry public.) Here’s what the analysis found:

As an aggregate, 25% of HAOs acknowledged Lilly funding anywhere on their Web

site. Eighteen percent acknowledged Lilly in their 2007 annual report, 1%

acknowledged Lilly on a corporate sponsors page, and 10% acknowledged Lilly as

the sponsor of the grant event reported in the [Lilly Grant Registry.]

Health advocacy groups often advocate for research and the approval of new drugs

on top of promoting public awareness. According to the study, their reputation

as a trusted resource for information on specific diseases and their treatments

should prompt “far more detailed†disclosure of their corporate grants and

industry relationships.

This report isn’t the first time such ties have been spotlighted.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness, or NAMI, came under similar scrutiny

back in 2009 when Sen. Grassley, a top Republican, began making

inquiries.

From 2006 to 2008, the group took in nearly $23 million in drug company

donations—about three-quarters of its fund-raising. At the time, NAMI’s

executive director told The New York Times that “the percentage of money from

pharma has been higher than we have wanted it to be†and promised greater

disclosures.

Following the revelations about NAMI, Sen. Grassley sent letters to 33

health advocacy groups asking them to disclose details about their financial

ties to drug and device makers. He has not released the responses he received

from the groups.

Today’s report, however, highlighted continued concerns about the degree to

which a group’s funding influences its advocacy and helps boost sales for drug

companies making donations. Here’s an example from the report, involving NAMI:

This lack of transparency is disappointing because, either by design or through

a convergence of interests, the HAOs in the current study pursued activities

that promoted the sale of Lilly products.

In the area of neurosciences, Lilly gave NAMI $450,000 for its Campaign for the

Mind of America. NAMI has advocated that cost should not be a consideration when

prescribing for patients. ‘‘For the most severely disabled,’’ insisted

NAMI, ‘‘effective treatment often means access to the newest medications

such as atypical anti- psychotic and anti-depressive agents. . . . Doctors must

be allowed to utilize the latest breakthrough in medical science . . . without

bureaucratic restrictions to the access for life-saving medications.’’To the

degree that NAMI’s campaign succeeded, the market for Lilly’s neuroscience

drugs expanded.

As we’ve noted, the health care law contains a provision requiring greater

disclosure of drug company payments to physicians by 2013, but it does not

include company payments to health advocacy organizations.

Follow on Twitter: @mariancw

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T