A Well Placed Question by Professor Mirkay: “Should Medical-Related Charities Increase Disclosure of Their Donors?”

We’ve written a great deal here at HRW about the need for transparency in industry/profession interactions and the elimination of conflicts of interest–the Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy here at Seton Hall Law has, in fact, over the course of the last two years, issued two White Papers on the subject–with another on the way. In the last, “Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Trial Recruitment & Enrollment: A Call for Increased Oversight,” the Center proposed legal and policy changes to address conflicts of interest in the relationships between industry and doctors that can create unwarranted risks to trial participants and to the scientific integrity of research. In the Paper prior,  ”Drug and Device Promotion: Charting a Course for Policy Reform,” The Center recommends: (1) making payments by drug and device companies to doctors transparent, with public disclosure by industry and physicians of their financial relationships; (2) adopting federal legislation to ban gifts, meals and other benefits provided to doctors as part of the current marketing model; (3) setting new policies to give FDA the authority to require studies of safety and efficacy of drugs and devices used off-label; and (4) undertaking a fundamental change in funding for continuing medical education to end industry support.

But over at Nonprofit Law Prof Blog, Professor Nicholas A. Mirkay of Widener University School of Law, has a post–and an additional question–well worth considering:

“Should Medical-Related Charities Increase Disclosure of Their Donors?”

Professor Mirkay points to a recent Chronicle of Philanthropy article which raises the issue as the National Alliance of Mental Illness (NAMI) has begun disclosing the names of corps and foundations who (does Citizens United make that “who” correct? Never mind appropriate.) donate more than $5,000. NAMI is said to have done so on the heels of an investigation by Senator Chuck Grassley into their financial relationship with the pharmaceutical industry. Mirkay writes:

NAMI’s actions have given Grassley further impetus to force 33 other nonprofit medical associations to follow NAMI’s lead.  In a related article, the Chronicle reports that Grassley’s inquiry into these other groups represents a “broader effort by the senator and others to expose and curtail corporate influence on the medical field.”  Grassley commented that “[t]hese organizations have a lot of influence over public policy, and people rely on their leadership.  There’s a strong case for disclosure and the accountability that results.”

Professor Mirkay also writes

In December 2009, Grassley sent a letter to 33 such nonprofit associations requesting information on the amount of funds received from pharmaceutical, medical-device and insurance companies from 2006 to 2009, the identity of the donors and how their money was spent by the medical group, and additional information on the outside income earned by the groups’ top executives and board members.

The (partial) results of those queries are not particularly heartening, but are certainly worth considering. Mirkay writes:

The Chronicle acquired more than half of the solicited groups’ responses to Grassley’s letter, finding that such groups receive aggregately more than $100 million annually from medical-related companies via “donations, advertising revenues, exhibit fees, corporate memberships, and support for continuing medical education.”  For some groups, this can represent as much as 78% of their revenue, while for others it only represents a small percentage of their total receipts.

Despite the longings of Elvis Costello, it’s hard to bite the hand that feeds you–and 78% of revenue pretty much constitutes (in)visible means of support. In pushing further with our (or more accurately, the Supreme Court’s) Citizens United “who” conceit, one might think 78% sufficient in some sense to constitute dependent status under the tax code–at least for purposes of context. Having said that, in addition to not biting, it’s not hard to imagine the dependent regularly fed doing that which it may to help assure the continued regularity of that feeding. Especially if the feedings are invisible.

It should also be noted that Mirkay rightly points out that “This effort is further evidence of Grassley’s commitment to increased transparency of tax-exempt nonprofits.” He’s right. And being that Senator Grassley follows HRW on Twitter, and as I have at times been critical of some of his positions in the past regarding other issues, it’s worth noting that the Senator should be roundly applauded for his efforts.

[And if you haven't been over to the Nonprofit Law Prof Blog, you should. It's in our blog roll for good reason-- their work is informative, brief and well written.]

Sometimes It’s Better Not to be Ranked #1

Photo by bitzi

The Chronicle of Philanthropy lead off its annual executive compensation story with the headline that “Nearly three in 10 of the leaders of the nation’s biggest charities and foundations have taken pay cuts in the past year as the recession causes donations to drop and batters endowments”.

USA Today interpreted the annual survey results differently, with yesterday’s headline: “Non-profit execs make millions: Big organizations have highly paid leaders,” coupled with the usual USA Today chart, this one listing the leaders of the pack, compensation-wise.  The accompanying article questioned why nonprofit compensation is so high.

How much is too much is a fair question, and one readers of this blog will recall that Attorney General Ann Milgram is asking about Stevens Institute’s President.  The ubiquitous Senator Grassley thinks non-profit salaries are too high, and is using health care reform as an opportunity for reforming more than the health sector — one of the 500+ amendments to the Baucus healthcare reform bill comes from Grassley, who wants to eliminate the presumption of reasonableness afforded federally tax exempt organization salaries as long as boards obtain inter alia a comparability study (which unsurprisingly, most do).

According to a recent IRS hospital study, “Although high compensation amounts were found in many cases, generally they were substantiated based on appropriate comparability data”.  The IRS is currently focusing on salaries at colleges and universities.   Somewhat unclear is whether the comparability study may include salaries from the business sector — the IRS has waffled so far, but then-New York Attorney General Spitzer was pretty clear in his mind that it was improper for Richard Grasso’s friends on the compensation committee to have relied on for-profit numbers when it came to setting Grasso’s $187 million compensation package as head of the then-nonprofit NYSE.

Some are outraged by non-profits’ salaries, which are, after all, subsidized by donors and the tax-payer, while others think that politicians should let nonprofit boards run their own show.  The argument is that nonprofits have to compete with the business-world for the best talent.

Is there any law on the subject?  Yes, but it’s rarely enforced.  State nonprofit corporate law contains a non-distribution constraint–that is, nonprofits can’t pay out dividends or excessively pay its employees or those with whom they do business — the money is supposed to be used to further the entity’s mission.  On the tax side, federal law prohibits private inurement and excess benefit, which essentially seeks to accomplish the same goals.  So, on the one hand, critics of excessive compensation do have a legal leg to stand on. On the other, all anyone seems to do about the issue is complain - neither the IRS nor state AG’s have boards particularly concerned about their compensation decisions.  In fact, all boards have to do is follow the right procedure, and their CEO salaries are presumptively reasonable.  So, if all non-profits essentially use the same small group of compensation consultants, and set salaries coincidentally high, then it’s a self-reinforcing system and nobody gets in trouble.

I have little hope that the real questions will be seriously considered, which include what the role of the nonprofit is in our society, and what we expect of nonprofits in exchange for their not having to pay taxes, and for their donors getting tax deductions.  The IRS has begun collecting information on the revised 990 about hospital “community benefit”, but the real question is whether any real change will come out of the whole thing, and whether it will go further than health care.  Nudge would suggest that merely by asking the right questions behavior will change!  I’m more in the Grassley camp of being a noodge….

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Looks to Help “Navigate” Health Care Reform

photo by aulia.m via flickr

As we posted back in January, “California Foundations Advocate for Health Care Reform,” the L.A. Times had reported that Paul Brest, “president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation in Menlo Park and author of a book on philanthropic strategies” stated that: “What I’ve seen is foundations moving from thinking all we needed to do is support good research in the field and the rest will happen to realizing that unless we are going to support organizations to take the research and try to turn it into policy, then the research is going to sit in the bottom of a pile somewhere.” With a noted caveat (”Advocacy is risky for foundations, since most are categorized by the IRS as 501(c) nonprofits, which restricts them from direct lobbying or participation in partisan politics.”), one welcomes the foundations and their massive intellectual and financial capital further into the fray. They hold the talent and ability of some of the best and brightest among us.

Having said that, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) has advanced the battle line one smart step forward. Whereas the lobbying spoken of above goes to delivery of the “message,” RWJF has undertaken to put the message in a more deliverable form.

There’s an interesting post on the subject over at the RWJF Health Reform Blog, The Users’ Guide to the Health Reform Galaxy. The post was written by Brian Quinn, Ph.D, a program officer in the RWJF Research and Evaluation Unit, and goes to the question of form regarding applied research, or “How to package the evidence for health reform.”

Mr. Quinn smartly points out that considering the abundance and complexity of journal articles and reports intent on health reform that each day brings, without some form of translation and synthesis geared to those who will actually make decisions about health reform, the “applied” portion of “applied research” may turn out to be nothing more than just an intent.

As a means of cultivating application, and assuring that worthwhile research doesn’t languish “at the bottom of the pile,” RWJF has initiated the Synthesis Project, “to produce user-friendly briefs and reports that synthesize research findings on perennial health policy questions.” The Project is timely and their work is well worth a look.

At the end of a post the other day, I noted some personal experience relating to the sensibility of providing cancer patients with “Navigators” to help them best understand and utilize the health care resources at hand. I finished the post by stating: “It is simply not reasonable to think that patients will do (or do well) that which they do not understand.” Substitute “policy makers” for “patients” and the statement still holds true.