NAMI Runs A Survey On Pharma Funding
16 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // December 15th, 2009 // 10:23 am
The National Alliance on Mental Illness is on the defensive. After reports that most donations made to the big advocacy group came from drug makers in recent years, NAMI agreed to disclose its funding sources. The disclosure, however, came after protracted criticism of NAMI for coordinating lobbying efforts with drug makers and pushing legislation that also benefits the pharma industry.
The embarassing episode prompted NAMI’s executive director, Michael Fitzpatrick, to acknowledge industry donations were excessive and that things would change (see funding sources here). Meanwhile, board member Richard Lamb resigned over the issue, complaining little was changing, saying NAMI’s dependence on drugmakers made some actions impossible, such as warning against the use of some mental health drugs with life-threatening side effects (see here and scroll down).
Now, NAMI is conducting a survey to gauge public sentiment about such things as corporate funding, transparency and openness, and the perception these issues have on its ability to do what it does best. You can look at the survey here http://surveys.polling.net/Survey2.aspx?sID=53984191&SAMP=1 (sorry for the link, but just do a cut and paste). One has to wonder, though, why some survey questions are necessary when the issue has been so controversial. If enough participants say they’re not bothered by corporate ties, will NAMI backpeddal on its promised changes?
Hat tip to Furious Seasons
taller yet today
New leadership for NAMI anyone?
bill franklin
haha, i took a look at the survey and it asks questions about “what your perception of NAMI is” etc.
i have no clue how this survey is suppose to help NAMI figure out whats wrong with them… what was wrong with NAMI was reported in the NYT’s.
Carey
Kinda reads like a push poll.
genoiu tipoep
NYT
Grassley Seeks Details on Medical Financing
By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: December 7, 2009
A top Republican senator, Charles E. Grassley, has sent letters to the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society and 31 other disease and medical advocacy organizations asking them to provide details about the amount of money that they and their directors receive from drug and device makers.
Skip to next paragraph
Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
Senator Charles E. Grassley has been studying the influence of drug and device makers on the medical profession.
Such financing amounts are often considered proprietary by the organizations and their directors, but critics contend that the industry’s sway over such groups leads them to lobby on the industry’s behalf.
Mike Lynch, a spokesman for the A.M.A., said the organization had received the senator’s letter and would respond. Mr. Lynch said industry financing made up less than 2 percent of the organization’s budget.
Steve Weiss, a spokesman for the American Cancer Society, sent an e-mail message stating that the society “holds itself to the highest standards of transparency and public accountability, and we look forward to working with Senator Grassley to provide the information he requested.”
Kate Meyer, a spokeswoman for the Alzheimer’s Association, which also received a letter from the senator, said the organization “was going to answer all of his questions,” but she would not immediately say what share of the organization’s financing comes from drug or device makers.
The letter is part of Mr. Grassley’s long-running investigation into the influence of drug and device makers on the practice of medicine. Mr. Grassley, an Iowa Republican, has also long been interested in how charities get and spend their tax-deductible contributions.
“These organizations have a lot of influence over public policy, and people rely on their leadership,” he said. “There’s a strong case for disclosure and the accountability that results.”
Earlier this year, Mr. Grassley sent a similar letter to the National Alliance on Mental Illness. The group told the senator that more than two-thirds of its donations came from the pharmaceutical industry. In response to the disclosure, Dr. H. Richard Lamb resigned from the group’s board.
Dr. Lamb joined the board of the organization in 2005, when he was “shocked to learn that approximately half of NAMI’s income comes from the large pharmaceutical companies,” he wrote in a resignation letter that Mr. Grassley made public. Alliance officials assured Dr. Lamb that the situation would change. “However,” Dr. Lamb wrote, “very little has changed, right up to the present day.” In an interview, Dr. Lamb said that NAMI’s dependence on the drug industry made some actions impossible. For instance, Dr. Lamb said that NAMI should consider warning against the use of some mental health drugs with life-threatening side effects. But Dr. Lamb said the organization could not consider such a move because it could threaten much of its financing.
Michael J. Fitzpatrick, the organization’s executive director, promised that the industry’s share of the group’s fund-raising would drop significantly next year.
Mr. Grassley’s request that organizations provide details about the outside income of directors may cause some consternation. While a few large patient advocacy groups have provided general guidance about their reliance on industry, almost none have given such details about their leaders.
john
what a waste of time
bill franklin
this is a joke, wonder how much nami is spending on this…
Dan
For some reason, I was emailed this NAMI survey some time ago, and found it interesting from a public relations paradigm.
JaT
Hey Ed,
I can’t find the complete list of the advocacy groups that Grassley is looking into. Do you happen to have it?
Svensong
Should Sven’s comment above be taken as a (somewhat pitiful) form of intimidation?
Just wondering.
Svensong
Oh, this appears to be just a weird habit…
http://www.pharmalot.com/2009/11/most-academic-researchers-have-industry-ties/
gen fielf
NAMI would like more pharma funds
gen fielf
Grassley wrote these groups:
AAOS
Alzheimer’s Association
AAAAI
American Academy of Dermatology
American Academy of Family Physicians
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
American College of Surgeons
American Dental Association
American Diabetes Association
American Dietetic Association
American Heart Association
American Hospital Association Inc.
American Medical Association
American Psychological Association
American Society of Anesthesiologists
American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons
American Society of Consultant Pharmacists
American Society of Health –System Pharmacists
American Society of Hypertension, Inc.
American Society of Nephrology
American Society of Plastic Surgeons
CHADD
DBSA
Heart Rhythm Society
Mental Health America
NARSAD
National Association of Chain Drug Stores
NORD
NASS
Screening for Mental Health Inc.
TeenScreen
The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society
American Cancer Society
Mario Rocco
What a joke. NAMI is disclosing only corporate funding. The majority of NAMI funding comes for the government. Hmmm…now that is a conflict of interest. Post your government grants NAMI. Then we’ll see why it no longer an effective advocacy group. Oh that’s right, Grassley is a part of our big government that controls mental health advocacy. Guess he wants to keep it that way with b.s. like this. Mario.
Jack Wolf MD
Government grants are public record Mario, and I doubt you actually looked up the data to make the claim that the “majority of..funding” comes from the government. Whether government funding of science is advisable is a topic open for discussion, but has little to due with the issue of conflict of interest. The manufacturers of Seroquel, Abilify, Zyprexa etc. are trying to sell product and are hiding their activity and influence. The government is trying to promote science and has little to gain or lose in this. I would worry if the government were giving money to the Democratic or Republican party. I would not worry if Pfizer was giving money to the Salvation Army, but I do worry that the majority of support for these organizations that make reccomendations on the use of drugs is coming from the manufacturers of those drugs. As a physician, I personally refuse to accept the reccomendations of the disease specific organizations that industry targets and stick with the more broad based organizations that take little or no money from industry such as the AAFP or ACS or AMA.
john
What I find surprising is the senator’s apparent belief that the agendas of organizations are affected by their funding sources only if that funding comes from pharma.
Demonstrating that the AMA gets only a tiny fraction of its budget from pharma provides only the assurance that the AMA will faithfully represent the financial interests of its dues paying members. There’s nothing wrong with this as long as we don’t buy into any industry organization’s propaganda that they are simply guardians of the public interest.
Over the last 10 years, the AMA’s lobbying spend has exceeded that of PhRMA.
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s
Wesley R. Alcorn
One should not ignore the equally or perhaps more dangerous NAMI money connections, support, lobbying and promotion of the pharmacuetical
research industry- a perfect circle. Nothing new under the sun