Pharma money is all over the place \u2014 in universities, companies doing continuing medical education for doctors and in prominent patient advocacy organizations that are household names across America.<\/p>\n

Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy nonprofit, reports today that between 2010 and 2022, the drug industry\u2019s main lobbying group and member companies provided at least $6 billion in grants to more than 20,000 organizations.<\/strong> The analysis<\/a>, provided exclusively to KFF Health News in advance of its release, focused on the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America<\/strong> (PhRMA) and 31 drug companies that were members of the trade group as of March.<\/p>\n

The money dwarfs industry spending over that time on federal lobbying and campaign contributions to lawmakers. With high drug prices a regular topic of debate in Washington, drug industry grants to patient advocacy groups in particular raises questions about conflicts of interest \u2014 including whether organizations that accept the industry\u2019s money shy away from pushing policies the drugmakers oppose, even if patients may benefit.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThere\u2019s a risk that those entanglements influence the work of those organizations,\u201d said Matthew McCoy, an assistant professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied patient advocacy groups\u2019 influence and transparency.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

He said there\u2019s another important dynamic likely at play, too. Companies aren\u2019t blindly choosing which groups to fund but instead are \u201cprobably selecting organizations that are already inclined to see the world, see the policy issues, the way they see it.\u201d<\/p>\n

A couple examples you\u2019ll recognize: The American Heart Association<\/strong> received $64.1 million<\/strong> over the 12-year period. The American Cancer Society<\/strong> and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network<\/strong>, together received $23.1 million.<\/strong>\u00a0<\/p>\n

The question is whether the money affects the heavyweight groups\u2019 advocacy. After the House passed the Inflation Reduction Act in August 2022, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network<\/u><\/strong>\u2019s statement<\/u><\/a> hailed the bill\u2019s cap on Medicare enrollees\u2019 out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs and additional tax credits for ACA insurance plans. But the group was silent on a contentious provision giving Medicare the ability to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Lisa Lacasse<\/strong>, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network<\/strong>, said in an emailed statement that the organization didn\u2019t take a formal position on Medicare drug negotiation because \u201cthe policy\u2019s impact on patient access to and affordability of cancer treatments was unclear.\u201d In contrast, the Part D out-of-pocket cap \u201chas evidence-based patient benefit.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cACS CAN\u2019s only constituents are cancer patients, survivors, and their loved ones nationwide. <\/strong>ACS CAN\u2019s policy agenda is driven entirely by evidence with the single purpose of achieving our mission to end cancer as we know it, for everyone,\u201d she added. \u201cContributions to the organization do not influence policy decisions or positions.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The American Heart Association <\/strong>similarly has touted its support of the three-year extension of enhanced Obamacare tax credits in the IRA, but was silent on drug price negotiation. \u201cWe have strict standards in place to monitor relationships with industry and protect against conflicts of interest,\u201d Steve Weiss<\/strong>, a spokesperson for the group, said in an emailed statement. \u201cThese funds in no way influence our advocacy, programs or science.\u201d<\/p>\n
- \u201cWe engage with different organizations who have a wide array of health care opinions and priorities<\/strong>,\u201d Alex Schriver<\/strong>, senior vice president of public affairs at PhRMA, said in an emailed statement. \u201cWe may not agree on every issue, but we believe engagement and dialogue is important to promoting a health care policy environment that supports innovation, a highly-skilled workforce and access to lifesaving medicines.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
  While the patient groups\u2019 primary mission is to advocate for people with particular diseases, including by boosting funding for research, their work in Washington often bolsters that of pharmaceutical companies whose drugs their patients rely upon. At the same time, the story isn\u2019t always black and white, and just because a group gets money doesn\u2019t automatically make them a \u201cpharma lackey,\u201d said Mike Tanglis<\/strong>, research director at Public Citizen<\/strong>. \u201cIt\u2019s not so clean cut,\u201d McCoy added.<\/p>\n
  The American Diabetes Association<\/strong> received $26.4 million<\/strong> from the drug industry \u2014 \u00a0yet the group supported allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices. Multiple drug companies have sued to stop the program.\u00a0<\/p>\n
  Francisco Prieto<\/strong>, chair of the American Diabetes Association<\/strong>\u2019s national advocacy committee, said in a statement that support from its corporate and other partners allows the group to provide resources about diabetes to health care personnel as well as patients and their caregivers.\u00a0<\/p>\n
  \u201cOur partners do not influence our business or policy decisions, which are made solely based on our mission and what is in the best interest of patients around the world,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
  Many groups receiving grants do criticize high drug prices generally or highlight patients\u2019 difficulties in affording care. But, \u201cspecifically calling out pharma companies doesn\u2019t seem to be a huge priority for them,\u201d Tanglis said.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n
  It isn\u2019t always obvious which groups drug companies are paying. Congress in 2010 enacted the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, a law that required payments to physicians from drug and medical device makers to be registered on a public website. But patient groups were not addressed in the bill. Drug companies\u2019 payments to patient groups can be \u2014 but aren\u2019t always \u2014 included in annual filings to the IRS or in charitable giving reports.<\/strong><\/p>\n
  The American Heart Association<\/strong> in its 2022 annual report<\/u><\/a> lists contributions from corporations, foundations and others. The American Diabetes Association<\/strong> in its latest annual report<\/u><\/a> lists corporate sponsors and ranges for the amounts they give, but not precise dollar figures. Similarly, the American Cancer Society<\/strong>\u2019s most recent report<\/u><\/a> names corporate sponsors giving more than $1 million<\/strong>, but exact amounts aren\u2019t disclosed.<\/p>\n
  McCoy believes there should be \u201csome kind of mandated transparency across the board\u201d for payments and that patient groups should openly answer questions about steps they take to make sure the funding doesn\u2019t influence their decisions.<\/p>\n
  \u201cThose are all great things that patient advocacy groups can and should be doing,\u201d McCoy said.<\/p>\n
  \n
  This article is not available for syndication due to republishing restrictions. If you have questions about the availability of this or other content for republication, please contact NewsWeb@kff.org<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n
  \n
  \n
  \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRachana Pradhan: <\/span>
  \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t rpradhan@kff.org<\/a>,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
  \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t@rachanadpradhan<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n<\/aside>\n
  \n
  \n
  \n\t\t\t\tRelated Topics\t\t\t<\/h3>\n
  \t\t\t\t
  \n\t\t\tContact Us\t\t<\/a>
  \n\t\t
  \n\t\t\tSubmit a Story Tip\t\t<\/a>\n\t<\/div>\n<\/section><\/div>\n