Publication Cover
Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings
The peer-reviewed journal of Baylor Scott & White Health
Volume 36, 2023 - Issue 6
84
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Research: Quality, Health Care Delivery, and Financing

Healthcare lobbying and campaign finance activities of vision-related professional societies, 2015 to 2022

, BSAORCID Icon, , BS, , MPH, MBA, , MD, , BS, , BBA, , MPH & , MD, PhD show all
Pages 722-727 | Received 20 May 2023, Accepted 22 Jul 2023, Published online: 09 Aug 2023
 

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the lobbying expenditures and political action committee (PAC) campaign finance activities of the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO), American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS), and American Optometric Association (AOA) from 2015 to 2022.

Methods

Financial data were collected from the Federal Election Commission and OpenSecrets database. Analysis was performed to characterize and compare financial activity among the organizations. P < 0.05 was considered significant and all analyses were two-sided.

Results

From 2015 to 2022, the AAO, ASCRS, and AOA spent $6,745,000, $5,354,406, and $13,335,000 on lobbying, respectively. The AOA’s annual lobbying expenditure (median, $1,725,000) was significantly greater than AAO’s ($842,500, P = 0.03) and ASCRS’s ($694,289, P < 0.001). In PAC donations, OPHTHPAC, affiliated with AAO, received $3,221,737 from 2079 donors (median, $900); eyePAC, affiliated with ASCRS, received $506,255 from 349 donors ($500); and AOA-PAC received $6,642,588 from 3641 donors ($825). Compared to eyePAC, median donations to OPHTHPAC (P = 0.01) and AOA-PAC (P = 0.04) were significantly higher. In campaign spending, OPHTHPAC contributed $2,728,500 to 326 campaigns (median, $5000), eyePAC contributed $293,500 to 58 campaigns ($3000), and AOA-PAC contributed $5,128,673 to 617 campaigns ($5500). eyePAC’s median campaign contribution was significantly lower than the AOA’s (P < 0.001) and AAO’s (P = 0.007). Every PAC directed most of its contributions toward Republican campaigns; eyePAC donated the highest proportion (64.9%).

Conclusions

AOA was more assertive in shaping policy by increasing lobbying expenditures, fundraising, and donating to a greater number of election campaigns.

Disclosure statement/Funding

Akash Kakkilaya, Praneeth Kalva, Arsalan Ali, and Dr. Karanjit Kooner are members of the American Academy of Ophthalmology and the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. No conflicting financial relationships exist for any author, and no non-financial relationships exist for any other author.

Additional information

Funding

This study was supported in part by NIH grant P30 EY030413 (Bethesda, Maryland), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Student Research Program (Dallas, TX), and NIH award UL1TR001105 (Bethesda, Maryland).

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 37.00 Add to cart

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 65.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.