Login
Subscribe
A number of patients’ groups came out in opposition to a recent Medicare Part B proposal to reduce drug costs. The groups purport to be independent and focused on patients’ needs. But an August 4 report by Public Citizen, titled Patients’ Groups and Big Pharma, shows that an overwhelming majority of these groups received funding from the pharmaceutical industry.[1]
Public Citizen identified 147 patients’ groups who had signed letters sent to congressional leaders and to the Centers...
A number of patients’ groups came out in opposition to a recent Medicare Part B proposal to reduce drug costs. The groups purport to be independent and focused on patients’ needs. But an August 4 report by Public Citizen, titled Patients’ Groups and Big Pharma, shows that an overwhelming majority of these groups received funding from the pharmaceutical industry.[1]
Public Citizen identified 147 patients’ groups who had signed letters sent to congressional leaders and to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) siding with the drug industry against the proposal.[2] The report found that of these groups, at least 110 (75 percent) received funding from the industry.
Because the report’s findings were based on voluntary disclosures of corporate sponsorships on the websites of patients’ groups and pharmaceutical companies, they likely underrepresent the proportion of the patients’ groups opposing the proposal that received industry support. In addition, how much the groups received from industry is largely unknown.
The Medicare proposal in question, which Public Citizen supports along with numerous allied consumer and health groups, aims to limit the perverse incentive for physicians to needlessly administer the priciest medicines when equally effective and affordable alternatives are available. The proposed demonstration project would test reducing the reimbursement to physicians for administering drugs in their offices or outpatient clinics.
As Public Citizen’s report notes, the pharmaceutical industry has a clear financial incentive for its forceful opposition to the Medicare proposal, as do the many doctors’ groups that also oppose it. Thus, their interest in lobbying against the proposal is rightly perceived as purely financial.
In contrast, patients’ groups present themselves as representing the voices of suffering individuals whose sole interest is to get better. When such groups side with the drug industry against proposed policy reforms, they lend credibility and a sympathetic voice to industry lobbying efforts. However, patients’ groups that rely on contributions from the pharmaceutical industry to fund programs for the patients they serve should not be viewed as being independent advocates whose interest in such policy battles is categorically different from the industry’s financial interests.
Public Citizen’s report offers two important take-home messages. First, patients’ groups should be disclosing their financial conflicts of interest whenever advocating for or against a particular government policy. And second, members of Congress, policymakers at CMS and others need to be skeptical of these groups’ independence and their advocacy against the Medicare Part B proposal.
References
[1] Public Citizen. Patients’ Groups and Big Pharma. August 4, 2016. http://www.citizen.org/documents/patients-groups-and-big-pharma-money-report.pdf. Accessed August 15, 2016.
[2] Letter organized by the Partnership to Improve Patient Care to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. May 9, 2016. http://www.citizen.org/documents/pipc-part-b-letter-may-9-2016.pdf. Accessed August 15, 2016; and letter organized by the Community Oncology Alliance to Congress. March 17, 2016. http://www.citizen.org/documents/coa-groups-letter-march-17-2016.pdf. Accessed August 15, 2016.
