麻豆果冻传媒影音

WASHINGTON -- The American College of Emergency Physicians' political action committee donated more to the campaigns of incumbents who opposed firearm background check legislation than to supporters' campaigns during the 2016 federal election cycle, according to an analysis presented here.

This, despite ACEP policy that favors universal checks for firearm transactions -- and despite emergency physicians often being tasked with tending to gun violence victims.

Researchers led by Hannah Decker, a medical student at Emory University in Atlanta, reported that the National Emergency Medicine Political Action Committee (NEMPAC) donated $83,000 to senatorial incumbents against the checks versus $44,500 to supporters; and $625,385 to opposing House incumbents versus $227,955 to supporters.

NEMPAC gave $1,390 more ($2,755-$1,365) per U.S. House incumbent who opposed the checks than those who favored them, a statistically significant difference. The average NEMPAC donation to Senate incumbents supporting background checks was $1,883 greater than the average for those opposing, but that difference was not statistically significant.

"Organized emergency medicine's political contributions to 2016 congressional races were not aligned with ACEP's policy on background checks," Decker and colleagues wrote in the for their presentation at .

The researchers examined how candidates voted in 2015-2016 on , which called for universal checks, and whether they co-sponsored , which called for an additional three years of program funding to improve "the criminal history record system" to address handgun violence. (The bill never received a House vote, so the researchers examined co-sponsorship.) Then Decker and colleagues looked up how much NEMPAC gave the candidates on and .

NEMPAC gave $1,124,900 to candidates overall during the 2016 cycle, according to Open Secrets, with $678,400 going to Republican candidates (71%) and $264,500 to Democrats (29%).

The incumbents voted mostly along party lines concerning the firearm check legislations, with Democrats largely supporting both. Of the 188 co-sponsors of the House resolution, 183 were Democrats. The Senate voted 56-44 against the checks, defeating a measure whose six co-sponsors were all Democrats.

Researchers also compared NEMPAC contributions with seven other organized medicine political action committees regarding support of the two firearm legislations. Besides NEMPAC, only the American Medical Association and American College of Radiology gave more per opposing candidate in the House, they found, and only the AMA gave more in sum to opposing House candidates. Six of the eight groups (including NEMPAC) gave more in sum to opposing Senate candidates.

The researchers did not find statistically significant correlations between the other PAC contributions and candidates' support for firearm checks.

Their analysis was limited by only examining one issue and not studying motives, they noted, adding: "there are many reasons PACs may support a candidate."

The researchers collected the data over the final quarter of 2016, limiting their study to incumbents because only they had a congressional record on the bills.

The researchers have begun analyzing NEMPAC contributions from the 2012 and 2014 election cycles, as well.

Decker was motivated to conduct the analysis after the Orlando, Florida, shooting last year, she told MedPage Today.

ACEP's policy indeed supports the universal checks, NEMPAC director Jeanne Slade confirmed in an interview with MedPage Today. ACEP "abhors the current level of intentional and accidental firearm injuries and finds that it poses a threat to the health and safety of the public," according to its .

It was "not at all" intentional for NEMPAC to donate in favor of candidates who opposed its policy on firearms, Slade said. "We don't make decisions based on one issue," she said. It's possible background check support "may not have affected at all whether we gave to a candidate."

NEMPAC's 15 members feature physicians from hospitals, academic centers and other settings, Slade said, including one resident, to represent ACEP's "full membership." That's challenging, she said, alluding to the diversity of emergency medicine physicians.

Before making a donation, NEMPAC thoroughly studies "the whole picture" of potential congressional recipients, she said, often asking if they have ever visited an ED. "Nobody will be with us on everything," she said.

NEMPAC recently adjusted its practices, encouraging more individual member contributions directly to candidates -- as opposed to working through lobbyists.

Responding to the comparison with other organized medicine PAC's, she said: "I don't think that was a fair assessment." Citing the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons as an example, she added: "We're missing some bigger players."

NEMPAC is not the only facet of emergency medicine perhaps not taking gun violence seriously enough. presented at the ACEP annual meeting found that emergency medicine physicians documented access to firearms for only 3% of suicidal patients reporting to an ED -- versus 78% in the psychiatry department.

"We may have asked," said lead author Sonya Naganathan, MD, of the Division of Emergency Medicine at Washington University in St. Louis. But: "If we didn't document it, it didn't happen."

Her concluding slide cited a pro-gun control : "WE CAN DO BETTER."

Naganathan's team reviewed 100 patient charts after applying a retrospective chart review of "consecutive patients who presented to the (urban, academic) ED with a chief complaint or diagnosis of SI (suicidal ideation) during July 2014."

Comment