Journalists shouldn’t take organizations they report on at face value. Rather, they should ask who calls the shots and who provides the funding. And they should report findings that call into question a group’s credibility.
But as HealthNewsReview.org has repeatedly found, that essential legwork often doesn’t occur when it comes to patient advocacy groups. Most recently we chronicled how news stories and op-ed taglines didn’t call out the pharmaceutical industry backing behind the nonprofit Alliance for Patient Access.
There’s good reason to be skeptical. Well over half of patient advocacy groups acknowledged accepting money from drug, biotech, or medical device companies in recent surveys published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine. Nearly 40 percent reported having a current or former corporate executive on their board, according to the latter study.
Why does this matter? Corporate cash may buy a nonprofit organization’s silence on skyrocketing drug costs or induce its help in clearing regulatory hurdles for unproven treatments or quashing cost controls. For example, last year pharma-backed patient groups such as the AfPA and Patients Rising lobbied to defeat a Medicare Part B demonstration project to lower the cost of drugs administered in physicians’ offices.
It’s not always possible to know the precise impact of a particular contribution, but the public can better judge an organization’s credibility and motives when financial interests are in the open.
By year’s end, Kaiser Health News plans to unveil a database of at least 1,000 patient advocacy nonprofits that will include each group’s financial information, an overview of its policy positions, and a list of publicly disclosed contributions from industry.
“We hope this will be a resource for readers and reporters interested in critically engaging with issues that patient advocacy groups have a stake in,” said KHN investigative reporter Emily Kopp. “We hope to assist independent patient advocates, journalists and news consumers in keeping patient advocacy groups accountable to the constituencies they represent.”
With her input, we’ve compiled a list of quick-and-dirty steps journalists and consumers can take to do their own nonprofit sleuthing. Most of these can be accomplished in less time than it takes to brew a pot of coffee.
Plug the organization’s address into Google Maps. Does the address take you to the location of a Washington, D.C., consulting firm or an expensive home? If so, that’s a red flag that the group might be front for a corporate interest. If the address isn’t listed on the web, you can find it on the first page of the organization’s Form 990 (next step).
Drawback: This won’t help you detect a legitimate advocacy group whose agenda is being influenced by corporate contributions.
The IRS requires tax-exempt organizations to disclose some of their inner workings by filing an annual Form 990. These documents are free online through outfits such as the Foundation Center, CitizenAudit.org, ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer, Charity Navigator and Guidestar. Nonprofits must disclose governing officers, key employees, and the five highest paid contractors making more than $100,000. They’re also required to describe their most expensive programs and list any business relationships between board members and the organization.
Some questions to explore:
Drawback: Nonprofits do not have to disclose their financial contributors. Also, these records are usually a year or two old.
A group’s website will give you a feel for its commitment to transparency. Many nonprofits voluntarily disclose their funders on their web sites, often listed as “partners,” “sponsors,” or “corporate members.” Sometimes funders are listed in annual reports posted on the web site. Sometimes the data is there, but it’s sketchy or difficult to find. An appendix to the NEJM study suggests questions including: Does the organization list the names of donors? Does it claim that the list is complete? Are the amounts and uses of donations disclosed? Does the organization state total revenue from corporate sources?
Other things to check:
Drawback: Exact amounts of contributions and what they are used for are seldom disclosed.
If physicians are on the board, see if they receive corporate cash. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, drug makers are required to disclose payments to physicians. ProPublica’s Dollars for Docs and CMS’ Open Payments house this data. It’s also worth plugging a physician’s name into PubMed and reading any publicly available research papers, where financial disclosures are usually listed at the end.
Drawback: These sources don’t capture all potential economic conflicts. For example, oncologists and rheumatologists can profit significantly from Medicare markups on drugs they administer in their offices through injection or infusion. Also, they only apply to doctors, not other health professionals.
Public pressure, criminal prosecutions and state mandates have led some companies to report their contributions to nonprofits on their web sites or in annual reports, although it’s not required by law. Also, some companies voluntarily disclose donations to social welfare nonprofits, known as 501(c)(4)s, and those are tracked by the Center for Public Accountability.
It could be worth investigating corporate contributions made indirectly through nonprofits. Nonprofit trade groups such as the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), and the Medical Device Manufacturers Association (MDMA) must disclose contributions to nonprofit advocacy groups on their own 990 tax forms. Some corporations do at least some giving through private foundations, which disclose their beneficiaries via their own versions of a 990, called a 990-PF. But again, those filings will not include direct corporate contributions.
Drawback: Voluntary corporate disclosures aren’t always easy to find, don’t always include amounts, and often aren’t searchable. And they’re voluntary, so if a company wants to hide a contribution, it can.
Yes, they exist. However, some fit a broader definition of health advocacy rather than patient advocacy, notes Sharon Batt, a longtime researcher and writer on the topic who compiled the list with Adriane Fugh-Berman, M.D., of Georgetown University Medical Center and PharmedOut.org.
Perusing these organizations’ web sites will give you an idea of what good disclosure practices and conflict-of-interest policies look like.
Drawback: None that we can identify.