January 22, 2021
Leaders of the political action committee of the American College of Cardiology (HeartPAC) met last night to discuss whether a change is needed in how it donates money to politicians, amidst a nationwide reckoning following the violent storming of the US Capitol on January 6.
Moving forward, the group “is temporarily pausing all individual and leadership contributions. We will take this time to reassess and strengthen the scorecard used to evaluate potential HeartPAC recipients,” according to a statement released Friday by Sandra Lewis, MD, and Andrew Miller, MD, HeartPAC’s chair and vice chair, respectively.
“No contributions have been made in 2021, and none will be made until the committee completes this careful process,” they continue. “However, the HeartPAC will continue to support larger Democratic and Republican party committees as part of our ongoing commitment to working with members of Congress, regardless of party affiliation, to advance qual
December 17, 2020
When the 5-year results from the controversial EXCEL trial were published earlier this year, it revived an old and divisive stent-versus-surgery debate but it also rekindled questions about how clinical trials are funded. In addition to concerns over trial endpoints and reporting, some physicians complained that EXCEL and other device trials like it can’t be trusted because of the role of the manufacturer in funding the research.
This story is part of
Envision Change
, an end-of-2020 series imagining a different future for cardiology, medicine, research, and health. SEE ALSO: Transforming Clinical Research, Remaking Medicine, Heroes to Human.
The pros and cons of commercial funding in clinical research are well documented, and endless ink has been spent examining the ties between investigators and sponsors and the impact on clinical trials. But what’s the alternative? In a year when so many other aspects of cardiology practice and research have been upe