Vaccination News Home Page                                            subscribe Vaccination NewsLetter

http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7385/351?etoc

PDF of this article Email this article to a friend Respond to this article Read responses to this article PubMed citation Related articles in PubMed Download to Citation Manager Search Medline for articles by: Moynihan, R. Alert me when: New articles cite this article

Collections under which this article appears: Other Ethics Other Health Policy Other Public Health Organization of health care Governments - non UK Competing interests / conflicts of interest Patients' views

BMJ 2003;326:351 ( 15 February )

News

US seniors group attacks pharmaceutical industry "fronts"

Ray Moynihan, Washington

The giant US seniors group AARP, which has 35 million members aged over 50, has accused the pharmaceutical industry of funding "front" groups that purport to represent older Americans but instead push industry friendly political messages.

An investigation by the AARP Bulletin has discovered that three key organisations, the United Seniors Association, the Seniors Coalition, and the 60 Plus Association, have all received substantial contributions in recent years from the drug industry.

"When the pharmaceutical industry speaks these days, many Americans may not be able to recognize its voice. That's because the industry often uses `front groups' that work to advance its agenda under the veil of other interests," says the article.

AARP is one of the strongest citizens groups in the United States, and it is currently lobbying hard for a national pharmaceutical scheme to help older people to meet their drug costs. Proposals for a new scheme have split the US congress, with Democrats favouring a government-run approach, and the Republicans supporting a more privatised market based plan, also being promoted by the pharmaceutical industry.

The AARP article gave detailed figures of drug company funding for the three seniors groups, and cited examples of pro-industry campaigning, including multimillion dollar television advertisements in the closing weeks of the congressional elections in November 2002. The 60 Plus Association is accused of being involved with "astro-turfing"allegedly helping to create a false grass roots campaign to defeat proposed state laws on prescription drugs.

The AARP's policy director, John Rother, said his organisation was now considering calling for new laws mandating disclosure of sponsors' names in any political advertising. He told the BMJ that apart from Pfizer, which mounted a campaign in its own name before the 2002 elections, "the rest of the industry hid behind this device of using phoney seniors' organisations."

A spokesperson for Pfizer said that its campaign was designed to improve understanding of the industry's involvement in research and generate support for a prescription drug scheme.

Jeff Trewhitt, spokesman for the Washington based lobby group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, refused to respond to the specific allegations that industry was hiding behind front groups, saying that industry did not discuss its tactics: "I don't see a problem here."

The 60 Plus Association's president, Jim Martin, rejected the accusations about front groups, telling the BMJ that his 10 year old group started taking money from drug companies only two years ago. He said his association had 225000 donors but that to protect privacy it had a policy of not revealing names.

Footnotes

The article, "Front Groups: Drug industry Pulls Strings From Afar," is available at www.aarp.org/bulletin/

© 2003 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd

Rapid responses:

Read all Rapid responses

AARP attack on "shadow promotion outfits" for Pharm Houses (selected)

Frank J. Elsner, et al.

bmj.com, 20 Feb 2003 [Full text]

PDF of this article Email this article to a friend Respond to this article Read responses to this article PubMed citation Related articles in PubMed Download to Citation Manager Search Medline for articles by: Moynihan, R. Alert me when: New articles cite this article

Collections under which this article appears: Other Ethics Other Health Policy Other Public Health Organization of health care Governments - non UK Competing interests / conflicts of interest Patients' views

© 2003 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd

Vaccination News Home Page

ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE.  THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.