The New Kids on the Board...Hedge Fund Philanthropists

A recent Wall Street Journal piece, titled "Hedge Funds Roil Charity Fundraising," describes how hedge fund managers on charity boards have shaken up the old guard with their encouragement of risk and debt, hosting of flashy galas, and emphasis on fundraising at what some see as at the expense of service. A charity's mission is always paramount, but the bottom line is that these unorthodox fundraising methods are drastically improving the bottom line for groups like Big Brothers Big Sisters. (Says Judith Vredenburgh, Big Brothers chief executive: "If we want to serve more kids, we've got to invest in fundraising, not only service." Under Vredenburgh's tenure, revenue has risen 61%.) A few weeks ago I spoke of how the hedge fund industry is missing a major mega-philanthropist. (Where's the Buffett?) It is pleasing that hedge fund managers have made their grand entrance into the charity world. It's a start. They may frighten people by using the same approach they use in their day jobs, but that approach has made them insanely rich. Short of unethical activities (and the hedge fund industry is notorious for such, so this is something to watch for), how could a charity complain?

Memorial Mess

I've written previously about the importance of supporting veterans' charities in the wake of the Walter Reed scandal. But caveat donor. This Palm Beach Post article, in which I'm quoted, is about The Disabled Veterans LIFE Memorial Foundation, which is charged with building a monument in Washington DC for the nation's 30 million veterans, is up to its eyeballs in debt and mired in an ugly family squabble. 88 cents on the dollar is spent on fundraising.
As I told the reporter, "The numbers tell the story, and that's not an acceptable number for a nonprofit."

Heart Health: A Cause for Alarm

"Medical research has revealed enough about the causes and prevention of heart attacks that they could be nearly eliminated." So why do nearly half a million people die from a heart attack each year? Today's New York Times explores this in a sobering article. Here are some reasons:

• The single biggest delay in treatment is from the onset of symptoms and calling 911. People don't want to be seen as alarmist or don't want to get the ambulance bill.
  
• Most people have a misconception of what a heart attack is from the classic Hollywood portrayal of "a man clutching his chest, grimacing in pain, and going down," when it's often just pressure, heaviness, and shortness of breath, or even discomfort elsewhere in the upper body, including arms, back, neck, and stomach.
  
• Up to 40% of heart attack patients are getting the wrong dose of blood-thinning prescription drugs, usually too high.
• Patients' primary doctors don't get enough information to know they have to fill a prescription.
• Patients stop taking their medication because taking a lot of pills lowers their self-image.

The article and its accompanying sidebars fail to fully explore the ramifications of calling an ambulance every time you feel discomfort in your upper body (say, your arm or your stomach). After all, sometimes a stomachache is just a stomachache. Is the piece saying that one should call an ambulance every time one feels upper body discomfort? There needs to be a sharper criterion for gauging heart attack symptoms, or that gap between heart attack onset and 911 will not narrow.

However, this is an important article. Awareness needs to continue to be raised about heart disease and prevention, or all the technological advances in the world will not lessen its casualty numbers.

Cancer Research at a Crossroads

Cancer seems to be on every cover this week, due to the unfortunate recurrences of the illness for two brave people in the political arena, Elizabeth Edwards and Tony Snow. If there is any good that will come out of this, it is that people are stepping back and evaluating where billions of dollars of cancer research has gotten us. Many salient questions are being asked. Here's just a sample from the Sunday Times:

"Why does [recurrence] still happen?"
"Has the profit motive gotten in the way of finding a cure for cancer or better treatment?"
"What if the best treatments are the cheapest?"
"Why don't we have more to show for this generous effort?"

One of the most interesting questions is asked by Susan Love, president and medical director of the Susan Love Research Foundation: "Why do we lack new approaches?" The answer is not pretty. She says that experienced clinicians are shut out of research because "it is difficult to obtain a grant to do research if you haven't spent your career in the laboratory." She also criticizes a peer review system that stifles innovation. According to Love, "wild hunches" that might lead to a breakthrough if pursued are ignored because no one wants to make a poor investment.

The budget of the National Cancer Institute has increased to $4.8 billion, and private donations have likewise increased. Bravo, but it's time to rethink our approach, not just to cancer research, but to cancer research funding. If risk-averse strategies are not getting us results, it's time for us to invest in innovative strategies. In the fight against cancer, results cannot come soon enough.