NAMI pharma front group gets millions
ri...@math.missouri.edu
$20 million to the nonprofit advocacy group National Alliance on
Mental Illness. That figure was unearthed by Chuck Grassley, the
Senator behind the never-ending inquiry into the drug industrys
financial ties, and reported this week in the New York Times.
Now Grassley wants to know how much drug makers contributed to state
chapters of NAMI.
Interestingly enough, these drug company grants to NAMI have come
almost to a screeching halt. Instead of the $$millions from previous
reports these grants have just about quit!
Here is Lilly's report.
https://www.lillygrantoffice.com/docs/q2_09_registry_report.pdf
Here is AstraZeneca's report.
http://www.astrazeneca-us.com/_mshost795281/content/media/Contributions_20090
909
Shows $45,000 to NAMI national vs. $1,440,000 same period last year.
http://www.astrazeneca-us.com/_mshost795281/content/media/Contributions_20080
909
October 22, 2009 Drug Makers Are Advocacy Groups Biggest Donors By
GARDINER
HARRIS<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/gardiner_
harris/index.html?inline=nyt-per>
WASHINGTON A majority of the donations made to the National Alliance
on Mental Illness<http://www.nami.org/>, one of the nations most
influential disease advocacy groups, have come from drug makers in
recent years, according to Congressional investigators.
The alliance, known as NAMI, has long been criticized for coordinating
some of its lobbying efforts with drug makers and for pushing
legislation that also benefits industry.
Last spring, Senator Charles E.
Grassley<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/charles
_e_grassley/index.html?inline=nyt-per>, Republican of Iowa, sent
letters to the alliance and about a dozen other influential disease
and patient advocacy organizations asking about their ties to drug
and device makers. The request was part of his investigation into
the drug industrys influence on the practice of medicine.
The mental
health<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealtht
opics/mentalhealthanddisorders/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>
alliance, which is hugely influential in many state capitols, has
refused for years to disclose specifics of its fund-raising, saying
the details were private.
But according to investigators in Mr. Grassleys office and documents
obtained by The New York Times, drug makers from 2006 to 2008
contributed nearly $23 million to the alliance, about three-quarters
of its donations.
Even the groups executive director, Michael Fitzpatrick, said in
an interview that the drug companies donations were excessive and
that things would change.
For at least the years of 07, 08 and 09, the percentage of money
from pharma has been higher than we have wanted it to be, Mr.
Fitzpatrick said.
He promised that the industrys share of the organizations fund-raising
would drop significantly next year.
I understand that NAMI gets painted as being in the pockets of
pharmaceutical companies, and somehow that all we care about is
pharmaceuticals<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsa
ndhealthtopics/drugspharmaceuticals/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>,
Mr.
Fitzpatrick said. Its simply not true.
Mr. Fitzpatrick said Mr. Grassleys scrutiny, which he described as
understandable given the attention paid to potential conflicts of
interest in medicine, had led his organization to begin posting on
its Web site the names of companies that donate $5,000 or more. And
he predicted that other patient and disease advocacy groups would
be prodded by Mr. Grassleys investigation to do the same.
Everyone I talk to wants to have more balanced fund-raising, Mr.
Fitzpatrick said.
In a statement, Mr. Grassley praised the alliance for its disclosures.
Itd be good for the system for other patient groups to do what NAMI
has done, he said.
Mr. Grassleys scrutiny has been unnerving for patient and disease
advocacy groups, which are often filled with sincere people who are
either afflicted with serious illnesses themselves or have family
members who have been affected. Many join the groups in the hope
of making sense of their misfortune by helping to find a cure or
raising awareness of a diseases risks and frequency.
Drug makers are natural allies in these pursuits since cures may
come out of corporate laboratories and the industrys money can help
finance public service campaigns and fund-raising dinners. But
industry critics have long derided some patient organizations as
little more than front groups devoted to lobbying on issues that
affect industry profits, and few have come under more scrutiny for
industry ties than the mental health alliance.
For years, the alliance has fought states legislative efforts to
limit doctors freedom to prescribe drugs, no matter how expensive,
to treat mental illness in patients who rely on government health
care programs like
Medicaid<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealt
htopics/medicaid/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>. Some of these
medicines routinely top the list of the most expensive drugs that
states buy for their poorest patients.
Mr. Fitzpatrick defended these lobbying efforts, saying they were
just one of many the organization routinely undertook.
The close ties between the alliance and drug makers were on stark
display last week, when the organization held its annual gala at
the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium on Constitution Avenue in Washington.
Tickets were $300 each.
Before a dinner of roasted red bell pepper soup, beef tenderloin
and tilapia, Dr. Stephen H. Feinstein, president of the alliances
board, thanked Bristol-Myers Squibb, the pharmaceutical company.
For the past five years, Bristol-Myers has sponsored this dinner
at the highest level, Dr. Feinstein said.
He then introduced Dr. Fred Grossman, chief of neuroscience research
at Bristol-Myers, who told the audience that now, more than ever,
our enduring relationship with NAMI must remain strong.
Documents obtained by The New York Times show that drug makers have
over the years given the mental health alliance along with millions
of dollars in donations direct advice about how to advocate
forcefully for issues that affect industry profits. The documents
show, for example, that the alliances leaders, including Mr.
Fitzpatrick, met with AstraZeneca sales executives on Dec. 16, 2003.
Slides from a presentation delivered by the salesmen show that the
company urged the alliance to resist state efforts to limit access
to mental health drugs.
Solutions: Play Hard Ball, one slide was titled. Hold policy makers
accountable for their decisions in media and in election, it
continued.
The alliances own slides concluded by saying, We appreciate
AstraZenecas strong support of NAMI.
Mr. Fitzpatrick said that the alliance frequently had such meetings
and that the organization would fight for better access to mental
health drugs even if we had no relationship with pharmaceutical
companies.