News Ticker

Advocacy for Sale?

Politics makes strange bedfellows. However, advocacy organizations should inform the public and policy makers about the financial relationships with for-profit entities with whom advocacy groups consort.

Health advocacy organizations (HAOs) are typically organizations of prominent, trusted stakeholders who conduct campaigns to promote disease awareness, update members to new diagnostic tests and drugs, facilitate physician referrals, deliver health care services, and advocate for policies believed to be in their member’s best interest.   They range in size from national organizations with many thousands of members focused on widespread disease to smaller entities with a more narrowed focus.  This study looked at the Lilly Grant Registry (of drug-maker Eli Lilly) – a record of the company’s grant awards – to specifically investigate grants provided to health advocacy organizations for the first two quarters of its 2007 annual report.  This information was used for multiple purposes: (1) to compare Eli Lilly’s grant giving and marketing goals, (2) to identify those HAOs receiving said grants, and (3) to examine the HAOs’ websites to discover their funding disclosure practices.

One hundred sixty one health advocacy organization websites were included in the study out of 188 listed in the Lilly Grant Registry.  A search was conducted between September 30, 2008 and January 12, 2009 of HAO websites listed in the Lilly Grant Registry.  Dichotomous (yes/no) answers were provided for whether Eli Lilly was acknowledged in the HAO’s 2007 annual report, acknowledged on the corporate sponsor’s page, acknowledged as a grant event sponsor, acknowledged anywhere on the HAO’s website,  or if the amount of the Lilly grant was reported.

Grants from Eli Lilly to health advocacy organizations totaled $3,211,144 (10.2 percent of its total grant giving) with 94 percent of this given to HAOs active in Lilly’s three main therapeutic areas of interest (neuroscience, endocrinology, and oncology; representing 45, 31 and 11 percent of total sales respectively).  A break down of Eli Lilly awards to HAOs showed that 66 percent of grants went to 114 HAOs involved in neuroscience, 21 percent to 17 oncology HAOs and 8 percent to 6 HAOs involved with endocrinology.

Overall, only 25 percent of health advocacy organizations acknowledged Lilly funding anywhere on their website.  Eighteen percent acknowledged Lilly in their 2007 annual report, one percent mentioned Lilly on a corporate sponsor’s page, and ten percent reported Lilly as the sponsor of a grant event recorded in the Lilly Grant Registry. This reporting varied significantly by therapeutic area of interest with HAOs involved in endocrinology and oncology disclosing at a higher rate than those involved in neuroscience.

Commentary

Policy makers and the public at large need to remember that bias cannot be removed from a system with so many competing ambitions.  With every decision it is important to work through the evidence and agendas to consider the source of information as a potential source of bias.

Exposing sources of bias requires transparency.  This article presents evidence suggesting that Eli Lilly targeted grants to specific health advocacy organizations in order to drive the profits of its commercial interests.  Yet these HAOs, through their lack of disclosure, withheld basic information regarding the funding stream powering their policy agendas.

Health advocacy organizations are entities that hold significant influence in the realm of health policy, on both a national and local level; they directly and indirectly affect how health care is delivered to patients.  The concern this article raises is the lack of transparency by HAOs with disclosing the financial interests who support their agendas.  This lack of transparency is a concern because neither policy makers, nor the public, can readily discern the relationship between an HAO and its grant sponsors to determine potential conflicts of interest between improving health and maximizing profits.  By extension, policy makers and the public are not fully aware of the source of information supplied to them.  Transparency by health advocacy organizations represents a vital component of the information that informs policy makers. It must be clear that the  decisions of policy makers are in the best interest of the public, and not subverted to maximize the profits of private institutions.

Rothman, SM, et al. Health Advocacy Organizations and the Pharmaceutical Industry: An Analysis of Disclosure Practices. Am J Public Health. 2011. 101 (4): 602–609.

by

Patrick Fitzgerald

Download the printer-friendly version of “Advocacy for Sale?”

 

  

About Patrick Fitzgerald, MPH

Mr. Fitzgerald currently works as an analyst for UCare, a Managed Care Organization serving Medicaid and Medicare recipients in Minnesota and western Wisconsin. Mr. Fitzgerald received his Master’s in Public Health Administration and Policy Management from the University of Minnesota where the primary focus of his graduate work was health care policy and payment system reform. He has previously worked as a project coordinator at the Veterans’ Affairs Medical Center performing drug efficacy and comparative effectiveness trials. His current position involves conducting systematic reviews of literature for public and private entities looking to develop best practice recommendations for evidence-based medicine. He began contributing to Policy Prescriptions® in 2010. More Posts

%d bloggers like this: