As we noted in April, NAMI gets a significant portion of its funding from pharmaceutical companies. We had to guess at what that percentage was, however, because the National Alliance for Mental Illness (NAMI) refused to detail their pharmaceutical grants and donations in their annual reports and IRS filings.
At the time, I was generous and said that it’s likely that 30 to 50 percent of NAMI’s funding came from pharmaceutical companies. I was off. Way off.
The New York Times reported yesterday that nearly 75 percent of NAMI’s donations come from pharmaceutical companies — $23 million over 3 years’ time:
The mental health 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. Grassley’s 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 group’s executive director, Michael Fitzpatrick, said in an interview that the drug companies’ donations were excessive and that things would change.
How much can they change? NAMI is not some brand new organization that just happened upon pharmaceutical funding. They’ve been around for decades, and I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the percentage of pharma funding has been similar for most of that time.
If you cut that funding substantially, NAMI will have to cut their advocacy efforts, services and staff. And that would be a shame, because despite the controversy, NAMI is one of only a handful of national organizations that advocates relentlessly on behalf of people with mental illness. Their peer, family and patient programs are unmatched throughout the country.
Their balance sheet is not encouraging. If you lopped off even just 25 percent of pharma funding (to bring it under half of their total revenues), you’d have to cut significant services and support programs. This kind of money can not just be “made up” by individual member contributions or other fundraising efforts. Dues from 2007 to 2008, for example, actually declined (while grant funding went up). Perhaps they could start with meetings and travel, which makes up nearly 13 percent of their annual budget.
The primary objection to this kind of significant funding from any single industry is that it has undue influence on the organization’s advocacy efforts:
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. 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. […]
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 alliance’s 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.
And that’s really the core of the problem.
The organization has seemingly allowed its relationship with pharmaceutical companies to guide (some might say “dictate”) some of their advocacy efforts. There’s no problem in taking pharmaceutical company money (we do here, after all). The problem comes when you’re secretive about such funding, and let it influence how you choose to deliver your services. NAMI has used such funding for great support and patient care programs, by and large, and it would be a shame if any of these are adversely impacted by this revelation.
We applaud NAMI’s forthcoming response to Senator Charles E. Grassley’s request for transparency, but we wish it hadn’t taken a U.S. Senator’s inquiry for them to make this information public. As a nonprofit advocacy organization, we expect such organizations to be transparent, especially about something that’s so clearly been an issue in the public spotlight.
Read the full article: Drug Makers Are Advocacy Group’s Biggest Donors
9 comments
You live by the sword, you die by the sword. This is supposed to evoke sympathy from me? NAMI has become a pill pushing organization, and they have lost their way. Maybe some house cleaning and throwing out the garbage that promoted this lapse of responsibility is needed. The people I know in my profession, and patients as well who are better educated, know to minimize or avoid NAMI input these days. Maybe this site should reconsider its support of NAMI as well.
does this mean you’re not going to the convention? t
As a Mom of someone who was diagnosed with schizophrenia, I have seen my son over-medicated, under medicated and incorrectly medicated. The mental health care system is broken and doctors in the public mental health system will use less expensive, less effective medications due to the cost of the newer meds. NAMI’s advocacy has helped many patients receive correct and proper medications at appropriate doses.
Just as a followup, NAMI disputes The New York Times’ reporting of the issue as a letter-to-the-editor:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/opinion/l30donors.html?_r=1
Let’s be clear, then — out of all the fundraising the NAMI does annually, $3 out of every $4 comes from a pharmaceutical company. NAMI receives additional money for its budget from other grant makers and such. I should also note that The New York Times did not issue a correction regarding its story, sticking to the facts it originally reported.
The good work NAMI does with this money has never been in dispute. What has been in dispute is NAMI’s secrecy about it for years for “competitive” reasons. Competition in mental health fundraising? Who is NAMI competing with on the same level? Shouldn’t non-profits be working together to increase their impact and effectiveness, rather than competing against one another like for-profits??
Philip Dawdy over at Furious Seasons has another perspective, too:
http://www.furiousseasons.com/archives/2009/10/nami_lies_in_nyt_letter_to_the_editor.html
The real tragedy here is that NAMI has relied most heavily on government grants and contracts (not pharma) and therfore has clearly let that guide it’s advocacy efforts or lack of effort in some areas. NAMI was once a great organization. Now it is controlled by government. Mario
I think I am going to be sick, but in all fairness, is it not just a matter of the pot calling the kettle black? I hear a lot of talk and see a lot of commercials, and a lot of people getting paid, but I have not seen anyone not paid by a drug company coming out to say, “Anti-depressants saved my life.” In fact, there is evidence showing that suicide rates are actually higher in medicated depressed persons than non-medicated depressed persons. (See Dr. Marsha Linehan) Why are we talking about money instead of research, treatment and recovery? Face it. We are all a pack of greedy, selfish, fools chasing a negotiated illusion as life passes us by: intelligent.
From personal experience with close relatives, no NAMI office contacted offered anything but a depressive staff member whose goal seemed to be to ensure that psychic illness research and treatment keeps the status quo. NAMI should be disbanded; the folk the attend their galas and donate should be ashamed to support a harmful organization. With the internet, and with the DSMV placing grieving over death in it’s little book, one would think that someone would not only bust NAMI wide open, but prohibit the use of the pejorative and misunderstood term, “mental illness.” “Mental illness.” Sounds like anyone “having it” is a dope. Worse, the general public, even when they know better, as well as physicians, and other medical personnel, fail to discern the difference between, (pardon me), your basic every day neurotic, and a violent psychotic. Who needs this? No. There need to be small organiztions developed who will advocate for individuals suffering; advocate for psychologists over social workers, and address the physiological as well as psychological. NAMI should — I mean, even the acronym sounds – “not me?” and whining, but never getting past either. Is this the 21st century or isn’t it.
Please let’s have NAMI include the natural remedies that are listed on schizophrenia.com, they help patients lower the pharmaceutical dose of meds or some patients use the supplements instead.
If you do the research you will find that there is a lot out there that helps. The meds reduce life by up to 20 years and I have had several doctors verify that fact and it is not well known by families or patients.
While I too am critical of the lack of transparency in NAMI’s disclosures of donations and how they’ve influenced their decisions, I find it more than odd that PycheCentral so freely takes pharm companies’ money. Perhaps I haven’t looked into it deeply enough, and frankly won’t, but there’s an odd irony. PsychCentral apparently doesn’t let the company endorsements influence editorial decisions nor have a role in which companies advertise, somehow mediated by third parties like google. Does the organization not care about the conflict of undermining sponsors’ goods and doctors’ tools/methods while blithely allowing the banner of goods and services to be waived? Is there really enough nuance on all fronts to be morally and politically free and unbiased? I have my doubts. I could elaborate, but perhaps you get my drift? You can respond, but I must admit, I won’t be using PsycheCentral as a central resource. I take part in NAMI actually, quite a bit, but as a researcher, explorer, and advisor, not by any means a paying member. It needs to tighten up and get it together, especially it’s organizational philosophy rather than support groups, before I feel like it’s my advocate and deserves my money and intimate devotion.
Comments are closed.