ACCP is pleased to welcome the College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists (CPNP) as a partner in our comprehensive advocacy initiative to pursue recognition of the direct patient care services of qualified clinical pharmacists as a covered benefit under the Medicare program through legislative and regulatory changes to the Medicare program and relevant sections of the Social Security Act.
For more information on our advocacy effort, visit our Medicare Coverage Initiative webpage for up-to-date resources and details about how you can get more involved.
In a press release announcing the partnership, ACCP Executive Director Dr. Michael Maddux stated:
We are delighted that CPNP shares our goal of making the direct patient care services of clinical pharmacists available to Medicare beneficiaries and has chosen to partner with us in this vital initiative. ACCP’s Board of Regents has identified this effort as the primary advocacy priority of the College, and we are fully committed to its success.
Dr. Rex Lott, CPNP president, remarked:
We are excited to be partnering with ACCP in this initiative. CPNP is committed to increasing access to direct patient care services provided by clinical pharmacists for all patients, including Medicare beneficiaries—especially those with psychiatric illnesses. Patients will benefit from comprehensive medication management services provided by clinical pharmacists with their unique set of knowledge and skills. Psychiatric pharmacists are also trained to show respect and compassion for patients with psychiatric illness and to effectively evaluate their medication-related needs to improve their physical and emotional well-being. We strongly embrace the concept of team-based care that involves the psychiatric team, the patient, and family members. Clinical pharmacists are important participants in team-based care; their role is to provide comprehensive medication management services to all patients with psychiatric and medical illnesses. This is an important component of “getting the medications right” for the patients we serve.
CPNP is an association of specialty pharmacists who work to improve the minds and lives of those affected by psychiatric and neurologic disorders. These professionals apply their clinical knowledge in a variety of health care settings and positions ranging from education to research, with the goal of applying evidence-based, cost-efficient best practices in achieving patient recovery and improving quality of life.
Your Contribution to ACCP-PAC Can Help Advance Our Medicare Coverage Initiative
The decision in 2010 by the ACCP Board of Regents to establish a Political Action Committee (PAC) was made after an in-depth assessment of how a PAC could help support and advance our advocacy agenda as well as a comprehensive evaluation of any potential negative consequences that might arise. Careful analysis was undertaken to develop a PAC that would be member driven, nonpartisan, and fully compliant with all aspects of Federal Election Commission (FEC) law.
The decision was made in recognition of the opportunities to advance the profession that lie in the ongoing comprehensive overhaul of our health care delivery systems, and in anticipation of the launch of our Medicare Coverage Initiative to recognize the direct patient care services of qualified clinical pharmacists as a covered benefit under the Medicare program. The Board of Regents agreed that a PAC was an essential addition to our advocacy program and that it would play a key role in supporting the investment the College continues to make in its advocacy program.
The PAC, according to its bylaws and governance structure, is member driven and, according to federal law, can only solicit contributions from ACCP members. Therefore, the success of the PAC in raising money to support candidates for political office is, on a certain level, a reflection of the extent to which ACCP members prioritize achieving the College’s goal of establishing comprehensive medication management services delivered by qualified clinical pharmacists as a covered Medicare benefit.
By becoming active in grassroots advocacy and supporting ACCP-PAC, ACCP members can send a powerful message to Capitol Hill, showing their commitment to the Medicare initiative. Equally, a lethargic grassroots effort and a weak PAC may suggest to lawmakers that ACCP members are not truly invested in the advocacy initiative.
With more than 13,000 ACCP members eligible to contribute to the PAC, ACCP is in a position to become one of the most prominent pharmacy PACs in Washington. To do this, we need the widespread support of our membership.
If each ACCP member were to contribute just $25, ACCP-PAC would raise $300,000. All ACCP members should consider making a donation of at least $25 to ACCP-PAC. CLICK HERE to support your PAC today!
Understanding PACs—Dispelling Three Myths About Money and the Political Process
1. There Is Too Much Money in Politics
It is estimated that, in total, more than $6 billion was spent during the 2012 election cycle.1 This staggering sum, which includes all expenditures by both political parties and outside groups on presidential and congressional races, will inevitably stimulate legitimate discussion about the role of money in politics and raise concerns that too much money is invested in the process.
However, considering the sheer size of the United States and the strategic importance of control of the executive and legislative branches of the largest economy and the mightiest military power on the planet, this figure does not necessarily seem so remarkable. After all, $6 billion represents just $19 per American. Or, by comparison, consider that Americans spent twice that sum ($12 billion, in total2) on energy drinks in 2012. Some might argue that the problem is not that there is too much money in politics, but rather, that we invest twice as much in trying to stay caffeinated for up to 5 hours than we do to influence the process that will determine the economic, social, and foreign policy of our nation.
2. PACs Are Not Transparent or Accountable
One of the main developments of the 2012 campaign process was the rise of “super PACs,” ostensibly independent organizations that, after the landmark Supreme Court ruling known as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, gained the ability to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on “electioneering communications” under First Amendment protections.
The arrival of the super PACs does, however, prompt valid concerns about the future of campaign finance and the direction that the process of electing public leaders may take in the future. But perhaps surprisingly, super PACs accounted for just one-sixth of the total expenditures on the 2012 election.3 The $1 billion that super PACs are estimated to have collected in undisclosed donations from anonymous sources was far outweighed by the $5 billion that was raised from traditional sources—fully available for public scrutiny and closely regulated by the FEC.
Even though the massive coverage surrounding these organizations has often been described as “shadowy,” the influence of super PACs was vastly outweighed by the millions of Americans who directly or indirectly contributed financially to candidates for office who aligned with their goals, values, and vision for the future of our country.
3. Super PACs Render Traditional PACs Meaningless
Eyebrows are invariably raised about the suggestion that super PACs operate completely independently from the candidates they support. This is not without good reason. Restore Our Future, a super PAC founded to support Mitt Romney’s bid for the White House, was chaired by Romney’s former general counsel3 and managed by several of Romney’s former campaign staff. Yet despite wide skepticism about the genuine independence of these entities, one of the main criticisms of Governor Romney’s 2012 campaign and a significant factor contributing to his defeat was a lack of control around his campaign message.4 Thirty-seven different Republican sponsors5 ran television commercials in support of Romney’s presidential bid, compared with 21 Democratic sponsors supporting President Obama. Romney’s inability to coordinate the media focus of his campaign, largely because of the various independent entities that funded much of the media effort, led to the conclusion that the Obama campaign “won” the media war and ultimately the White House.1,4 Although the influence of super PACs should not be discounted, candidates for public office, particularly at the congressional level, overwhelmingly rely on traditional sources of campaign finance—including contributions from PACs and individuals—to fund their election campaigns.
Political contributions are an essential component of our grassroots advocacy toolkit, helping to raise our profile on Capitol Hill and showing our support for members of Congress who share our vision for clinical pharmacists in an evolving Medicare program. Although there are many PACs representing various segments of the pharmacy profession, ACCP has the only PAC dedicated to advancing the practice of clinical pharmacy. Support ACCP-PAC Today!
For more information on any of ACCP’s advocacy efforts, please contact:
John K. McGlew
Associate Director, Government Affairs
American College of Clinical Pharmacy
1455 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20004-1017
Telephone: (202) 621-1820
E-mail: [email protected]
References
- Open Secrets Article. 2012 Election Spending Will Reach $6 Billion, Center for Responsive Politics Predicts. October 31, 2012. Available here. Accessed April 2, 2013.
- PR Newswire Article. Energy Drinks and Shots: U.S. Market Trends. February 11, 2013. Available here. Accessed April 2, 2013.
- Official FEC Document, Statement of Organization. Restore Our Future, Inc. Filed October 8, 2010. Available here. Accessed April 2, 2013.
- Atlantic Wire Article. How Romney and His Super PAC Blew the Great TV War of 2012, Revealed. December 12, 2012. Available here. Accessed April 2, 2013.