Systems of Care Yakima: Front Groups and Astroturf

A front group is an organization that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned -- typically, a corporate or government sponsor. The tobacco industry is notorious for using front groups to create confusion about the health risks associated with smoking, but other industries use similar tactics as well. The pharmaceutical and healthcare industries use front groups disguised as "patients rights" advocates to market their products and to lobby against government policies that might affect their profits. Food companies, corporate polluters, politicians -- anyone who has a message that they are trying to sell to a skeptical audience is tempted to set up a front group to deliver messages that they know the public will reject if the identity of the sponsor is known.

The shadowy way front groups operate often makes it difficult to know whether a seemingly independent organization is actually representing some other entity. That's why we need your help to research and expose them. Using the resources that we have listed here, it is often possible to identify publicize the hidden sponsor who lurks behind a front group. We need you to help in the search.

National Alliance on Mental Illness

(Redirected from NAMI)

The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), sometimes mistakenly called the "National Alliance for the Mentally Ill," is a U.S. organization that describes itself as the "nation’s largest grassroots mental health organization dedicated to improving the lives of persons living with serious mental illness and their families."^[1]

Astroturf refers to apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions that are primarily conceived, created and/or funded by corporations, industry trade associations, political interests or public relations firms.

Lobbying for positions counter to the welfare of the mentally ill

In 2004, NAMI opposed the placement of "black box" warnings on antidepressants determined to cause suicide in under-18 year olds, and in 2006 opposed black box warnings on ADHD drugs causing heart attack, stroke and sudden death in children in 2006. Despite overwhelming evidence of serious adverse cardiac events and sudden deaths caused by ADHD drugs, in 2006 NAMI took the position that the “black box” warning on ADHD drugs was “premature.” Also, on December 18, 2003, The New York Times exposed that NAMI had bused scores of protestors to a hearing in Frankfort, Kentucky, took out full page ads in Kentucky newspapers, and sent angry faxes to state officials, all to protest a state panel proposal to exclude the antipsychotic drug Zyprexa from Medicaid’s list of preferred medications. According to the article, “What the advocacy groups did not say at the time was that the buses, ads and faxes were all paid for” by the manufacturer of the antipsychotic drug Zyprexa, Eli Lilly.^{[4] (emphasis mine)}

Characteristics of patient-advocacy pharmaceutical front groups

Patient advocacy groups that serve as pharmaceutical fronts may display some or all of the following characteristics.

They may:

Derive most, if not all of their revenue from pharmaceutical manufacturers;
Lobby for treatment programs that also benefit their drug-company donors;
Tend to be slower to publicize treatment problems than breakthroughs;
Tend not to openly question drug prices;
Tend to encourage patients to stay on their medications and offer programs to help patients stay on their medication, and push insurers to pay for it;
Funding from drug companies to the organization usually comes from the drug makers' marketing or sales divisions, not charity offices;
Fail to adequately discuss, or minimize discussion of adverse drug side effects of drugs like brain damage or suicide;
Fail to lobby for more or additional safety research due to the potential for cutoff of their pharma funding^[5]
Focus on drugs as the preferred treatment, and neglect issues like housing and income support, vocational training, rehabilitation, and empowerment, all of which can play a role in recovery from mental illness.^[6]

Truly independent patient advocacy groups are likely to be controlled by volunteers who actually take mental health drugs themselves. True grassroots patient advocacy groups are likely to have "fire walls" against donor influence, like policies against accepting funding from drug companies.

Funding

NAMI is funded in part by pharmaceutical corporate benefactors. [1] In May 2006, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that NAMI president Michael J. Fitzpatrick "said one donor recently demanded that, in return for funding a TV public-service announcement, the ad include the company's direct contact information. Fitzpatrick said NAMI refused." [2]

NAMI's 2004 Annual Report lists the following company's as corporate supporters ^[7]

Contact details

NAMI
3803 N. Fairfax Dr., Ste. 100
Arlington, VA 22203
Main: 703-524-7600
Fax: 703-524-9094
TDD: 703-516-7227
Email: info AT nami.org
Web: http://www.nami.org

Federal Lawsuit
UFCW Local 1776 v. Lilly Class Action Federal Lawsuit
Lilly has been the largest contributor among pharmaceutical manufacturers to NAMI, giving the organization approximately $2.87 million between 1996 and 1999. Lilly “donations” to NAMI were not limited to money. In 1999, Mother Jones Magazine reported that Lilly executive Jerry Radke was “on loan” to NAMI as an executive. Also in 1999, Bob Postlethwait, a Lilly executive (and TeenScreen advisor) who headed the group that produced and marketed Zyprexa assisted NAMI Indiana in securing government funding for an executive director. Lilly also provided funding for a variety of brochures and programs produced by NAMI highlighting the use of atypical antipsychotics such as Zyprexa. Another – the 2001 “Access to Effective Medications” brochure produced by NAMI National for legislators and paid for by Lilly – lays out a blueprint for nationwide NAMI lobbying of state governments to reduce or remove any limitations to payments for atypical antipsychotics, again down-playing the side effects of such drugs.

Using money from Lilly and other pharmaceutical companies, NAMI – both the various state-level association and the national organization – has effectively lobbied state and federal governments to increase spending on atypical antipsychotic drugs and to reduce restrictions on access to those pharmaceuticals, thereby protecting pharmaceutical industry profits through the guise of independent, grassroots advocacy. For example, between 1998 and 2000, Lilly gave NAMI Washington State $91,000. During that time, NAMI Washington State, in an effort led by NAMI lobbyist Brad Boswell, lobbied the state legislature for $1 million specifically for atypical antipsychotic drugs. Brad Boswell was Lilly’s Washington state lobbyist just prior to his assignment with NAMI Washington State. NAMI also joined a suit initiated by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) against the state of Michigan in order to increase physician access to higher cost pharmaceuticals – including atypical antipsychotics – under the state’s Medicaid program.
(emphasis mine)