Skip to main content

Healthcare PACs Tilt Toward GOP

 |  By jcantlupe@healthleadersmedia.com  
   March 01, 2012

Physicians and others in healthcare are flooding GOP coffers with money for congressional and senate campaigns. And individual healthcare contributors are giving more money to President Obama than each of the Republican candidates.

Confusing?

How about this? Some of the heavyweight physician political action committees (PACs) obviously are interested in the outcome of the presidential race. But they don't funnel a dime into the presidential campaigns.

Yes, it's political season, and contradictions litter the landscape.

The political spending this time around comes while physicians' diagnoses of the healthcare business in America isn't great. That's reflected in the HealthLeaders Media Industry 2012 survey (PDF) which shows that at least 53% of physician leaders say that healthcare is on the wrong track. And 36% say that government is to blame for the healthcare industry mess, with 26% saying government laws and mandates are among the top three drivers of healthcare costs.

That's a lot of dissatisfaction in the wake of the healthcare reform initiated by President Obama. Those complaints are reflected in funding choices revealed in healthcare campaign financing reports—particularly among physician PACs—filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Some 97 healthcare professional PACS, which include physician organizations, have contributed $8.9 million to federal campaigns, with $5.2 million (59%) directed to Republicans and $3.6 million (41%) to Democrats, according to FEC figures released this month and compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, and reviewed by HealthLeaders Media. The center is a non-partisan, non-profit group based in Washington D.C. that tracks campaign spending. 

(Besides the physician PACS, others, including hospital, nursing homes, health services and HMOS political action committees, contributed about $ 21 million,  some 58% to Republicans and 42% to Democrats, the data shows.)

This year's donations by physician and nurse organizations contrast with substantial Democratic contributions in 2010, and with the last presidential election in 2008. Two years ago, a total of $26.3 million was contributed, with $14.6 million to Democrats (56%), and $11.6 million to Republicans, (44%). In 2008, a total of $24.5 million was contributed, with $14.2 million (58%) for Democrats, and $10.2 million (46%) for Republicans.

Donations to Presidential Candidates
Of the $136 million Obama has raised to date, members of the healthcare industry, including physicians and nurses, have contributed less than $1 million ($967,291 to be exact,) and hospitals/nursing homes, $715,849, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. 

Of the $42.3 million former Massachusetts Governor and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney has received, $642,703 was garnered from healthcare professionals and $314,377 from hospitals and nursing homes.

Romney's leading rival, Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, has received $47,431 from health professionals, and $54,200 from hospitals and nursing homes. His mother, incidentally, was a nurse.

The healthcare boost to Republican congressional candidates and the overall support for Democrat Obama is not surprising to some election experts.

"Basically, these groups want to curry favor with both sides," says Brian Dowling, senior fellow for government studies at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington D.C, to HealthLeaders Media. "With healthcare reform, Republicans have promised to repeal it, and that's part of the agenda. Physicians and healthcare representatives want to be part of it, and be a player in the room if they repeal 'Obamacare.' If Obama wins, he will definitely continue to implement healthcare reform, and he's not going to repeal it, but healthcare wants to be in the room."

Focus is on Congress
PACs are particularly focusing on congressional races, especially in light of "one of the most significant issues being the ongoing ''doc fix' issue, related to reductions in Medicare reimbursements to physicians.  It's been a yearly exercise and [lately it's been] ' a monthly exercise," Dowling adds. Congress recently voted to postpone the cuts to the end of 2012.

Indeed, most of the large physician PACs, such as the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons and the American Society of Anesthesiologists, funnel their largesse to congressional campaigns, not presidential races.

Officials of healthcare PACS say they aren't concentrating necessarily on the politicians or their parties, but the policies.

When the American Society of Anesthesiologists' leaders get together, "we don't use a specific formula for making campaign decisions," Jeffrey Mueller, MD, chair of the ASAPAC executive board tells HealthLeaders Media. "We have a saying on the ASAPAC executive board, 'not red, or blue, just working for you.' Our members are very active locally in helping us to identify candidates of both parties who understand anesthesiology. In the end, ASAPAC goes where our members want it to go."

"ASAPAC leadership realized some years ago that no party has a lock on understanding the issues that are important to anesthesiologists," Mueller adds. Indeed, in an evaluation of campaigns over the years, the Center of Responsive Politics noted in a statement, "You're sleeping if you believe the American Society of Anesthesiologists strongly favors one political party over another."

But in this election cycle, the ASAPAC, like many other physician and healthcare groups especially, are favoring the GOP, with only the American Physical Therapy Association among the top five spending PACs leaning toward Democrats so far, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Based on the February filings with the FEC, the top spending PACS are: 



click to view
top-spending PACs

Although not in the top ten among those cited by the Center for Responsive Politics, the American Medical Association is listed as a perpetual heavy hitter in contributions to congressional campaigns. According to the latest filings, the AMA PAC has contributed $125,200, with $75,700 to the GOP, and $49,500 to Democrats. It contributed $1.1 million in 2010, with 57% to Democrats, and 43% to Republicans.

When asked about the contributions, an AMA spokeswoman said, "AMAPAC does not weigh in on who people should support in presidential races."

Representatives of physician PACs say they can get more accomplished in congressional and senate campaigns than in the presidential races, with more contributions already being generated, though not filed yet with the FEC.

The American Academy of Orthopedics Surgeons PAC, for instance, says it now has $1.7 million in contributions, an amount that will not be filed with the Federal Election Commission until this summer. Every four years, the members vote on whether they should contribute to the presidential campaign, says Stuart Weinstein, MD, the PAC for the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons.

Essentially, the AAOS believes it can be more effective both in terms of resources and achieving policy goals by contributing to individual congressional races. 

"Everyone realizes that when you talk about presidential campaigns, you are talking about massive amounts of funding for each candidate to compete," Weinstein says. "We feel we can have a greater impact on issues affecting our patients in our profession by building relationships with members of Congress. We always consider that question for each election cycle: What do we want to do for our members? Our philosophy is that we're a bipartisan PAC. We support both Democrats and Republicans, and we are most supportive of candidates who understand what we want—appropriate access for specialty care."

Mueller, of the American Society of Anesthesiologists agrees. "Congressional races offer our members the best opportunities to fully participate in campaigns," he says. "The large scale of a presidential campaign simply doesn't offer the same meaningful experience. For the time being, we think our resources are best used where our anesthesiologists can more fully engage with the candidates."

Whether it's dealing with the "record number of drug shortages or making progress on fixing payment issues, there are members on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers of Congress who understand these issues and how they relate to our specialty," Mueller says.

At this point, the healthcare PACs are "looking for a target audience," says Dowling of the Heritage Foundation. "In this case, it's Congress. It's paying for influence."

Joe Cantlupe is a senior editor with HealthLeaders Media Online.
Twitter

Tagged Under:


Get the latest on healthcare leadership in your inbox.