Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, last month asked state-level chapters of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) to be transparent and disclose the funding they have received from pharmaceutical companies.

Grassley said “People rely on medical advice and taxpayers spend billions of dollars on prescription drugs and devices through Medicare and Medicaid. Public confidence could be greatly improved if financial relationships were disclosed.”

Frankly, in this era of high-stakes corruption pitted against the desired institutionalization of transparency and accountability, I don’t think anyone or any organization should be free to make or accept contributions for favors without also being subject to full disclosure and public review. It is simply unjust.
I’m a little dismayed in reading Sen. Grassley’s letter that NAMI relies in part on funding from pharma. I would have thought it was a member-funded organization that sought donations from the public and grants from more legitimate sources to do their good works. This news leaves a sour taste in my mouth. As much as big pharma is good for the relief of disease-specific symptoms, it has not made advocating for improved behavioral health coverage any easier. Nor has pharma made it easier to align the behavioral health system of care for the sake of access, quality and cost-controls.

I should be shocked to hear that NAMI accepts the money and should be terribly angry that they have thus far refused to disclose it but I am neither. I am growing cynical when it comes to this kind of thing. And that is a sad statement about the current state of affairs.

NAMI should do itself and the rest of the field a favor – disclose the funding you receive from pharma. Then take one more important step and stop taking their money. Don’t misunderstand me. Pharma is not the problem. They produce important, life-saving drugs. The problem is a little thing called Conflict of Interest and the public – let alone congressional - perception that a squeaky clean non-profit advocacy group like NAMI could wind up in the pocket of corporations ensuring the continued demand for their products and profits.
 

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed