Finally the AARP does something I approve.

[Guest guest]

bmj.com Moynihan 326 (7385): 351

 

Home Help Search/Archive Feedback Table of Contents

 

--

PDF of this article

Email this article to a friend

Respond to this article

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

 

 

PDF of this article

Email this article to a friend

Respond to this article

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

 

 

 

 

--

Home Help Search/Archive Feedback Table of Contents

 

© 2003 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd