Ethical Issues and Recommendations in Grateful Patient Fundraising and Philanthropy

Data-Driven Fundraising: Strategic Plan for Medical Education

Unlabelled

Higher education institutions, including medical schools, increasingly rely on fundraising to bridge funding gaps and support their missions. This paper presents a viewpoint on data-driven strategies in fundraising, outlining a 4-step approach for effective planning while considering ethical implications. It outlines a 4-step approach to creating an effective, end-to-end, data-driven fundraising plan, emphasizing the crucial stages of data collection, data analysis, goal establishment, and targeted strategy formulation. By leveraging internal and external data, schools can create tailored outreach initiatives that resonate with potential donors. However, the fundraising process must be grounded in ethical considerations. Ethical challenges, particularly in fundraising with grateful medical patients, necessitate transparent and honest practices prioritizing donors' and beneficiaries' rights and safeguarding public trust. This paper presents a viewpoint on the critical role of data-driven strategies in fundraising for medical education. It emphasizes integrating comprehensive data analysis with ethical considerations to enhance fundraising efforts in medical schools. By integrating data analytics with fundraising best practices and ensuring ethical practice, medical institutions can ensure financial support and foster enduring, trust-based relationships with their donor communities.

Research Initiative Supporting Excellence at the University of Cincinnati (RISE-UC): A Program to Develop and Support Research-Active Faculty Members

A combination of forces have markedly increased challenges to research-active faculty achieving sustained success. This article describes how one department at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine (UCCOM) implemented a strategic plan, the Research Initiative Supporting Excellence at the University of Cincinnati (RISE-UC), to promote the research activity of its research-active faculty, fiscal year (FY) 2011-FY 2021. RISE-UC was implemented and regularly updated to address evolving needs. RISE-UC supported faculty members pursuing research via fiscal and administrative services to grow a critical mass of investigators; establish a shared governance model; create pathways for developing physician-scientists; develop discrete and targeted internal research funding; establish an Academic Research Service (ARS) unit (as infrastructure to support research); enhance faculty member mentorship; and recognize, celebrate, and reward research success. RISE-UC was informed by shared governance and resulted in substantial increases in total size of the faculty and external funding. More than 50% of Physician-Scientist Training Program graduates are active researchers at UCCOM. The internal awards program realized a return on investment of ~16.4-fold, and total external direct cost research funds increased from ~$55,400,000 (FY 2015) to ~$114,500,000 (FY 2021). The ARS assisted in the submission of 57 grant proposals and provided services faculty members generally found very helpful or helpful. The peer-mentoring group for early-career faculty members resulted in 12 of 23 participants receiving major grant funding (≥ $100,000; spring 2017-spring 2021) from sources including National Institutes of Health awards, Department of Defense funding, Veterans Affairs funding, and foundation awards. Research recognition included ~$77,000/year in incentive payments to faculty members for grant submissions and grants awarded. RISE-UC is an example of a comprehensive approach to promote research faculty member success and may serve as a model for other institutions with similar aspirations.

Skipping the Line: Inequality in Access to Developmental-Behavioral Care

CASE

The mother of an 18-month-old boy contacted the developmental and behavioral pediatrics clinic to request an evaluation because of concerns that her son is not using any words and only recently began walking. The child's mother became upset when she was notified that the clinic policy requires receipt of a formal request for evaluation from the primary care physician and that the first available appointment was in 9 months. Later that day, the child's grandmother contacted the clinic and reported that she is a member of the Donor Society affiliated with the university/medical system. Membership in the Donor Society is granted to individuals who have met specific philanthropic thresholds benefiting the university. One benefit to members of the Donor Society is the ability to access subspecialty medical services for themselves and their family members, across all disciplines, within 5 business days of their request.After confirming the details of the Donor Society promise with the philanthropic department of the hospital, a small committee of professionals within the clinic gathered to discuss the implications of this promised benefit to Donor Society members. This clinic is the only source for specialized, multidisciplinary developmental-behavioral health care that accepts public insurance within a 200-mile radius. The current waitlist for evaluation is 9 to 15 months depending on the reason for referral, and approximately 75% of patients on the waitlist receive some form of public assistance and/or live in a rural or underserved area. During the discussion, it was noted that there are 2 developmental-behavioral pediatric clinicians who practice within a cash-based private practice setting in the community. The waitlist for that practice was recently reported to be 3 to 6 months depending on the reason for evaluation, but that practice also requires a referral from the primary care physician before scheduling an initial evaluation.How would you recommend that the clinicians in the developmental and behavioral pediatrics clinic respond to the request to fulfill the promises made by the university to members of the Donor Society? How does a promise such as this one made to the Donor Society affect structural inequalities within the health care system and what strategies could be used to mitigate further inequalities that may result?

Use of Patients’ Protected Health Information to Solicit Hospital Funds: How did This Practice Come About?

Modifications to Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) have allowed for the disclosure of patient protected health information (PHI) for the purpose of hospital fundraising. The public has recently raised ethical concerns regarding these practices. We examined the forces that brought about these HIPAA modifications. We first examined 304 comments submitted to the proposed rule for the HIPPA regulation modifications. We additionally queried the OpenSecrets repository for lobbying activity by these commenters. We found that 57 out of the 304 comments pertained specifically to fundraising practices. The majority of comments were from hospital developmental (fundraising) offices (51%, 29 of 57 comments), and the majority (96%, 24 of 25 hospital comments; 83%, 34 of 41 total comments discussing PHI disclosure) supported additional PHI disclosure. There was a paucity of comments from physician organizations (1 of 57) and patient advocates (2 of 57). The majority of lobbying dollars (95% of over $81 million) were from commenters who favored the modifications. The lack of physician and patient representation in the rule-making process likely contributed to the creation of regulations that elicit ethical concerns in physicians, and potential harm for patients.

Gender, Productivity, and Philanthropic Fundraising in Academic Oncology

BACKGROUND

Philanthropic donations are important funding sources in academic oncology but may be vulnerable to implicit or explicit biases toward women. However, the influence of gender on donations has not been assessed quantitatively.

METHODS

We queried a large academic cancer center's development database for donations over 10 years to the sundry funds of medical and radiation oncologists. Types of donations and total amounts for medical oncologists and radiation oncologists hired prior to April 1, 2018 (allowing ≥2 years on faculty prior to query), were obtained. We also obtained publicly available data on physician/academic rank, gender, specialty, disease site, and Hirsch-index (h-index), a metric of productivity.

RESULTS

We identified 127 physicians: 64% men and 36% women. Median h-index was higher for men (31; range, 1-100) than women (17; range, 3-77; P=.003). Men were also more likely to have spent more time at the institution (median, 15 years; range, 2-43 years) than women (median, 12.5 years; range, 3-22 years; P=.025). Those receiving donations were significantly more likely to be men (70% vs 30%; P=.034). Men received significantly higher median amounts ($259,474; range, $0-$29,507,784) versus women ($37,485; range, $0-$7,483,726; P=.019). On multivariable analysis, only h-index and senior academic rank were associated with donation receipt, and only h-index with donation amount.

CONCLUSIONS

We found significant gender disparities in receipt of philanthropic donations on unadjusted analyses. However, on multivariable analyses, only productivity and rank were significantly associated with donations, suggesting gender disparities in productivity and promotions may contribute to these differences.

Philanthropy in Plastic Surgery: Best Practices and Measuring Impact

BACKGROUND

Philanthropy in plastic surgery supports research, clinical care, academic infrastructure, and education in the United States and internationally. Plastic surgeons have opportunities to innovatively address unmet needs in their local and global communities by forming philanthropic nonprofit organizations.

METHODS

The authors queried three national philanthropic databases (Charity Navigator, Guidestar, and ProPublica) for Internal Revenue Service 990 form tax return information related to philanthropic plastic surgery organizations. The authors analyzed the financial information publicly available about current plastic surgery philanthropic organizations and their funding sources.

RESULTS

Seventy-three federally tax-exempt groups identified plastic surgery as their primary area of work to the Internal Revenue Service in 2019, and 52 of those organizations said they engaged in clinical and/or educational philanthropy.3 In 2017, a total of $158.5 million was donated to these groups in cash and noncash donations including equipment and time. Analyses of 6 years (2013 to 2018) of tax records from groups that provide plastic surgery clinical, research, or educational philanthropy reveal that government grants provide very little funding for this work. Eighty-six percent of money raised for these groups in 2017 was collected by means of direct donations. Money obtained from fundraising events contributed 2 percent to their total monies raised in 2017 on average and 8 percent came from noncash gifts.

CONCLUSIONS

A broad body of academic research is reviewed here that guides best practices and measuring a group's impact and outcomes. The details of a philanthropic group's organization and finances directly influence the impact of their work and, as such, are worthy of our sustained attention.

Public Attitudes Regarding Hospitals and Physicians Encouraging Donations From Grateful Patients

IMPORTANCE

Philanthropy is an increasingly important source of support for health care institutions. There is little empirical evidence to inform ethical guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To assess public attitudes regarding specific practices used by health care institutions to encourage philanthropic donations from grateful patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Using the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a probability-based sample representative of the US population, a survey solicited opinions from a primary cohort representing the general population and 3 supplemental cohorts (with high income, cancer, and with heart disease, respectively).

EXPOSURES

Web-based questionnaire.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Descriptive analyses (with percentages weighted to make the sample demographically representative of the US population) evaluated respondents' attitudes regarding the acceptability of strategies hospitals may use to identify, solicit, and thank donors; perceptions of the effect of physicians discussing donations with their patients; and opinions regarding gift use and stewardship.

RESULTS

Of 831 individuals targeted for the general population sample, 513 (62%) completed surveys, of whom 246 (48.0%) were women and 345 (67.3%) non-Hispanic white. In the weighted sample, 47.0% (95% CI, 42.3%-51.7%) responded that physicians giving patient names to hospital fundraising staff after asking patients' permission was definitely or probably acceptable; 8.5% (95% CI, 5.7%-11.2%) endorsed referring without asking permission. Of the participants, 79.5% (95% CI, 75.6%-83.4%) reported it acceptable for physicians to talk to patients about donating if patients have brought it up; 14.2% (95% CI, 10.9%-17.6%) reported it acceptable when patients have not brought it up; 9.9% (95% CI, 7.1%-12.8%) accepted hospital development staff performing wealth screening using publicly available data to identify patients capable of large donations. Of the participants, 83.2% (95% CI, 79.5%-86.9%) agreed that physicians talking with their patients about donating may interfere with the patient-physician relationship. For a hypothetical patient who donated $1 million, 50.1% (95% CI, 45.4%-54.7%) indicated it would be acceptable for the hospital to show thanks by providing nicer hospital rooms, 26.0% (95% CI, 21.9%-30.1%) by providing expedited appointments, and 19.8% (95% CI, 16.1%-23.5%) by providing physicians' cell phone numbers.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this survey study of participants drawn from the general US population, a substantial proportion did not endorse legally allowable approaches for identifying, engaging, and thanking patient-donors.

Grateful Client Philanthropy and Veterinary Medicine: Experiences at North Carolina State University

The historical reliance of state and federal funds as a sole source of veterinary educational activities has created a funding gap at many academic institutions. Due to declining resources, philanthropy has become an important source of financial support for veterinary colleges in the United States. In particular, for academic institutions with veterinary hospitals, grateful client philanthropy has been an increasingly important area of resource growth. Philanthropic gifts support innovative research, scholarship and capital, and programmatic initiatives. Areas of giving are often geared towards major infrastructure gifts and naming opportunities, faculty endowment, student scholarships, and other gift opportunities. This review provides an overview of grateful client philanthropy at North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine and explores the various giving opportunities and challenges of donor giving in veterinary medicine. (129/200).