Health Care Lobbying, Political Action Committees, and Spine Surgery

Abstract

Study Design. Retrospective review. Objective. The aim of this study was to analyze the political contributions and strategies of the Political Action Committee (PACs) lobbying for the political interests of spine surgeons. Summary of Background Data. In 2016, a presidential election year, $514,224,628 was spent on health care lobbying. Only 16% ($85,061,148) was on behalf of health professionals providing care. Below we chronicle the overlapping contributions between the three different physician-based Political Action Committee (PAC) lobbying entities as it relates specifically to spine surgery. Methods. Data were abstracted for the PACs of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS), American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), and the North American Spine Society (NASS). These data were obtained using OpenSecrets (opensecrets.org), and the Federal Election Commission (fec.gov) website. All data points were collected biannually from 2006 to 2018 and statistically analyzed as appropriate. Results. In 2016, the AAOS PAC contributed $2,648,218, the AANS PAC $348,091, and the NASS PAC $183,612. After accounting for respective group size, the AAOS spent >2.34 times that of the AANS. Orthopedists were 3.84 times (95% confidence interval 3.42–4.3) more likely to donate to their PAC than neurosurgeons (P < 0.001) during the 2016 election. The majority of contributions among the three different lobbyist organizations were to federal candidates, followed by fundraising committees, and finally to the national party. Eighty-eight percent of AANS donations went to Republican candidates, whereas AAOS and NASS were 63% and 67%, respectively. From 2008 to 2016, the AAOS PAC had a highest political contributions spend per active member of parent organization ($126.39) as compared to AANS ($80.52) and NASS ($17.81). The AAOS had five surgeons for every donor to the AAOS PAC, whereas the AANS had 14 surgeons and NASS 38 members per each donor. The AANS had a higher percentage of Republican donations with 78.9% of donations going to Republicans as compared to 61.8% of AAOS contributions and 67.9% of NASS contributions. Conclusion. Spine surgery is unique in that three different physician-based lobbyist organizations seek to influence legislative priorities with the AAOS having the most substantial fiscal impact and greatest participation. Choreography of donation strategies is essential to maximize physician voice at the policy level. Level of Evidence: 5

A Longitudinal, Geographical, and Descriptive Analysis of Political Contributions of Plastic Surgeons

“…In particular, the plastic surgery PAC (PlastyPAC) allows plastic surgeons to form a community, and serves as the largest voice for advocacy and political change in reconstructive and cosmetic surgery [6]. Although numerous studies have previously characterized political engagement in various specialties and subspecialties [7][8][9][10], there has been no such study done for plastic and reconstructive surgeons. To achieve this, we characterized political contributions from US self-reported plastic surgeons to analyze the temporal and geographical trends of plastic surgery political engagement in USA.…”

An Exploratory Data Analysis of Breast Cancer Features in South of Libya

“…The 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles are used to summarize sample data in the boxplot. These percentiles are also referred to as the lower, middle, and higher quartiles [26].  Swarm plot: It's a form of scatter plot that can represent both continuous and categorical values.…”