Is Your Organization a True Advocacy Organization?
A frank, evidence-based assessment designed for healthcare advocacy organizations, patient groups, and disease foundations. Answer honestly. The results may be uncomfortable. That is the point.
This assessment measures structural independence, not intention. Good intentions are not a substitute for structural integrity.
The advocacy landscape in chronic illness and transplant medicine is dominated by organizations that receive substantial funding from the pharmaceutical companies, dialysis corporations, and insurance carriers whose practices they are supposed to hold accountable. This is not a conspiracy — it is a documented structural reality.
This assessment asks the questions that most patient advocacy organizations never ask themselves. Each question is drawn from peer-reviewed literature, federal oversight reports, and documented conflicts of interest in the advocacy sector. There are no "right answers" if your organization is structurally compromised. There are only honest ones.
Answer all 20 questions to receive your full Advocacy Integrity Score and a personalized analysis. Your responses are confidential. Results are sent directly to you via email. Jeff Parke, Co-Founder of the Cold Ischemia Foundation, reviews all submissions personally.
Assessment Progress0 of 20 answered
Section I — Funding Sources & Independence (Q1–5)
01
Your organization's annual report lists pharmaceutical companies among your top-five donors. When one of those companies is named in a federal investigation for off-label marketing of a drug used by your patient constituency, your response is:
Scenario: A Senate Finance Committee report identifies that three of your top sponsors collectively paid $4.1 billion in federal settlements for off-label promotion and data suppression over the past decade — including drugs prescribed to your patient community.
✓ Only True Advocacy Response
C is the only structurally defensible answer. Responses A, B, and D all prioritize donor relationship preservation over patient constituency protection. Response A actively validates a documented wrongdoer. Response B treats the patient community's safety as secondary to organizational revenue. Response D is structural theater — an ethics committee with industry ties cannot produce independent ethical judgments.
The documented pattern in major patient advocacy organizations is overwhelmingly Response A or B. The National Kidney Foundation, American Kidney Fund, and others have issued statements defending pharmaceutical partners facing federal scrutiny rather than protecting their patient constituency.
The CIF Standard
Cold Ischemia Foundation accepts zero pharmaceutical funding as a founding constitutional constraint — not a policy that can be reversed by a future board. This is the only position that eliminates the conflict entirely. Suspending funding after an investigation has already occurred is not advocacy independence. It is crisis management.
02
A major dialysis corporation that funds your organization controls approximately 37% of the U.S. dialysis market. New CMS data shows their patient mortality rates exceed the national average in 6 of their 8 largest regional markets. Your advocacy position on dialysis quality accountability is:
Scenario: You are invited to testify before the Senate HELP Committee on patient safety in dialysis. Your largest donor is the corporation whose outcomes data is the subject of the hearing.
✗ Industry-Captured Responses: A, B, D
C is the only response consistent with patient-first advocacy. Response A is capitulation. Response B is industry advocacy wearing a patient advocacy mask — this is precisely what NEJM analyses of patient organization conflicts of interest document as the most common form of captured advocacy. Response D is designed to appear critical while protecting the donor relationship through deliberate vagueness.
The Senate Finance Committee's 2021 report on patient advocacy organizations specifically documented that organizations receiving >15% of their funding from a single industry source demonstrated statistically significant moderation of their public advocacy positions on that industry's practices.
The CIF Standard
CIF has no dialysis corporation funding. This is why CIF can publish analyses of dialysis corporate outcome data, call out specific failures, and testify without a financial conflict to disclose or manage. The absence of funding is not a weakness — it is the precondition for credibility.
03
Your organization's most recent Form 990 shows that corporate donations from pharmaceutical and medical device companies represent 62% of your total operating revenue. A researcher requests your donor list under your published transparency policy. You:
Scenario: The requesting researcher is affiliated with a peer-reviewed journal conducting a meta-analysis of patient advocacy organization independence. Your full donor list would reveal that four of your top donors have active federal investigations or settlements related to your patient community.
✓ Only True Advocacy Response: A
Only Response A reflects structural transparency. Responses B, C, and D are progressive degrees of institutional self-protection that place organizational revenue security above the patient community's right to know who is funding the organization that claims to represent them.
A 2020 JAMA Internal Medicine analysis found that 83% of patient advocacy organizations that publicly committed to transparency policies had significant undisclosed industry relationships when cross-referenced with SEC and IRS filings. Transparency policies that exist only when disclosure is convenient are not transparency policies — they are reputation management instruments.
The CIF Standard
CIF's zero-industry-funding constraint eliminates this scenario entirely. When there are no industry donors to protect, there is no donor list to redact, no legal review to delay, and no governance document to quietly amend. Structural independence produces structural transparency — not as a policy choice but as an operational reality.
04
Your organization receives unrestricted grants from three pharmaceutical companies whose drugs are the subject of a major cost-transparency campaign by patient groups. A congressional office asks your CEO to co-sign a letter supporting drug pricing reform legislation that would directly reduce revenue for your top donors. Your CEO:
Scenario: The legislation in question has been shown by CBO analysis to reduce out-of-pocket drug costs for patients in your constituency by an average of $3,200 annually. It would also reduce your top three donor corporations' combined revenue by approximately $18 billion annually.
✗ Only 1 of 4 responses represents patient advocacy
Response A is the only answer consistent with patient advocacy. Response B allows donors to modify advocacy positions through "technical input" — a documented industry influence mechanism identified in Public Citizen's 2019 report on pharmaceutical capture of patient advocacy. Responses C and D are institutional euphemisms for protecting donor revenue at patient expense.
This scenario describes a real documented dynamic. In 2017, multiple patient advocacy organizations opposing drug pricing reform legislation received combined pharmaceutical funding exceeding $116 million in the preceding three years (National Academies of Sciences analysis, 2019).
The CIF Standard
CIF's legislative advocacy is structurally unconstrained by industry relationships because none exist. CIF co-authored Marie's Lifeline Compensation Act — draft legislation directly challenging the economics of the home dialysis system. No donor consultation was required because no donors have a financial interest in the status quo.
05
Your annual gala's presenting sponsor is a pharmaceutical company currently marketing an immunosuppressant used by kidney transplant patients. A patient advisory member proposes the organization formally demand that this company publish the full dataset from a suppressed clinical trial showing increased rejection rates in specific patient populations. Your board's response is:
Scenario: The suppressed trial data was disclosed in a whistleblower complaint currently under FDA review. Publication of the data could affect transplant center prescribing patterns and reduce the company's market share in immunosuppressants by an estimated 15–20%. The company's gala sponsorship represents $175,000 of your operating budget.
✓ True Advocacy: A Only
Only Response A protects patients. A suppressed clinical trial showing increased rejection rates is not a governance matter, a "stakeholder consultation" issue, or a relationship management challenge. It is a patient safety emergency. The other three responses place $175,000 in organizational revenue above documented patient safety risk.
Response C — the "vague solidarity statement" — is one of the most common and most cynically deployed tools of captured advocacy. It allows organizations to claim principled positions while protecting specific donor relationships through deliberate non-identification.
The CIF Standard
CIF's 40 Documented Federal Violations audit names specific corporations, specific violations, and specific regulatory failures — by name, with citations. This is only possible without a sponsorship relationship to protect. Vague solidarity statements are not advocacy. They are brand management.
Section II — Governance, Leadership & Constituency Representation (Q6–10)
06
Your organization's board of directors includes two former pharmaceutical executives, three current health system administrators, and one patient representative — who was appointed by the board rather than elected by the patient constituency. The executive director's compensation is set by this board. This governance structure:
Scenario: The board is voting on whether to publicly oppose a proposed CMS rule that would reduce payments to health systems for outpatient procedures your patient community depends on. Three board members are employed by institutions that would be financially affected by the rule.
✗ B is the only accurate structural assessment
Response B correctly identifies the structural compromise. Conflict-of-interest disclosures (Response C) do not eliminate conflicts — they acknowledge them while allowing compromised votes to proceed. An industry executive who discloses their conflict and then votes in the industry's favor has disclosed but not resolved their conflict. Appointed patient representatives (Response D) serve at the pleasure of the appointing body — they cannot represent constituency interests that conflict with those of their appointing board without risking removal.
A 2022 analysis of 100 major patient advocacy organizations found that fewer than 12% had majority-patient governance structures with independently elected patient representatives.
The CIF Standard
CIF's Care Partner Advisory Council is drawn from the constituency being served — not appointed by an industry-adjacent board. Structural representation is not performative: it means care partners have a vote, not a seat.
07
Your organization claims to represent patients with chronic kidney disease. Your last three annual conferences were co-sponsored exclusively by pharmaceutical companies manufacturing drugs used in CKD treatment. All keynote speakers were either pharmaceutical executives or paid consultants to those companies. Not a single patient's first-person testimony appeared in the main programming. This conference structure reflects:
Scenario: A journalist covering the conference asks your communications director: "Which patients did this conference serve — the ones with CKD, or the ones selling drugs to them?"
✓ Honest Answer: C — though rarely given
Response C is the only honest answer. Response A is a rhetorical deflection — educating professionals through industry-funded speakers is industry marketing with a patient advocacy wrapper. Response B is an admission without accountability. Response D uses the patient advisory board as a legitimacy shield for programming decisions it did not meaningfully control.
The documented pattern in pharmaceutical-funded patient organization conferences is that educational content systematically emphasizes pharmacological interventions over lifestyle, systemic, or structural solutions — consistent with sponsor marketing priorities (NEJM, 2018; Health Affairs, 2020).
The CIF Standard
The CIF Annual Care Partner Summit is designed around care partner testimony and structural policy advocacy — not pharmaceutical education. When there are no pharmaceutical sponsors, there is no pharmaceutical agenda to accommodate in the programming.
08
Your organization has published clinical guidelines for kidney disease management that are cited in transplant center protocols nationally. Three of the five clinicians who authored those guidelines received more than $50,000 in speaking fees or consulting payments from pharmaceutical companies manufacturing drugs recommended in those guidelines. Your organization's response when this is identified by a public health researcher is:
Scenario: The researcher's analysis shows that guideline recommendations for the highest-cost pharmacological interventions were adopted in 94% of cases where the authoring clinician had a financial relationship with the manufacturer — compared to 61% in cases without such relationships.
✓ True Advocacy Response: A
Only Response A takes the patient community's interests seriously. Response B uses process compliance (disclosure) as a substantive defense against documented outcome bias — these are not equivalent. A disclosed conflict that demonstrably affected guideline recommendations is still a conflict that affected patient care. Response C attacks the researcher rather than addressing the finding. Response D is institutional damage control that protects current guidelines while appearing to address the problem.
The Institute of Medicine's 2011 report on clinical practice guidelines documented that industry-funded guideline development produced systematically different recommendations than independent guideline development — even when financial disclosures were made.
The CIF Standard
CIF's resources and research are produced without industry funding specifically because clinical guidance that affects patient care must be free of financial relationships to the manufacturers of the products it recommends. This is not a procedural nicety. It is the minimum condition for credible clinical guidance.
09
Your organization's executive director earns $385,000 annually and sits on the board of a health technology company that has a service contract with your organization. The executive director negotiated both their own compensation and the technology contract. When this is surfaced by a patient advisory member, your board's response is:
Scenario: The technology contract totals $220,000 annually for a software platform that a nonprofit technology consultant assessed could be replaced by open-source alternatives at approximately $18,000 per year. The executive director holds equity in the technology company.
✓ Structural Accountability: A
Response A is the only governance response proportionate to documented self-dealing. Response B allows self-dealing to continue while appearing to address it. Response C uses disclosure as a legitimacy shield for ongoing financial harm to the organization. Response D creates a future compliance requirement without addressing the existing financial harm already done to the organization.
This scenario reflects documented patterns in nonprofit executive self-dealing identified in multiple IRS Form 990 enforcement actions. The patient community served by this organization is effectively subsidizing executive enrichment rather than advocacy.
The CIF Standard
CIF's lean, asset-light operational model and Jeff Parke's below-market founding compensation reflect the principle that organizational resources belong to the mission, not to the organization's leadership. Structural integrity in governance is not a compliance exercise — it is a daily operational commitment.
10
A care partner of a dialysis patient contacts your organization reporting that their transplant center told them their loved one could not be listed because "adequate caregiver support was unavailable" — despite the care partner being available full-time. The care partner believes this is a discriminatory listing decision. Your organization's response is:
Scenario: The transplant center in question generates $2.3 million annually in conference sponsorship revenue for your organization's largest event. The care partner has documented their availability in writing and been refused twice without written explanation from the center.
✓ Only Patient-First Response: A
Response A deploys the full organizational capacity of an advocacy organization on behalf of the constituent it exists to serve. Responses B, C, and D are progressive degrees of institutional disengagement driven by the $2.3 million sponsorship relationship. Response C is particularly damaging — "complex clinical considerations" is the language of institutional deference to the very centers whose listing practices are being challenged.
Arbitrary and discriminatory caregiver sufficiency determinations in transplant listing are a documented systemic failure (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data, 2023). An advocacy organization that cannot name and challenge this failure because of a financial relationship with the institution perpetuating it is not an advocacy organization.
The CIF Standard
The CIF Complaint Letter Machine generates nine-letter federal complaint packets — to CMS, HRSA, HHS OIG, OPTN, and OCR — precisely for situations like this one. It exists because the organizations that should have built this tool have financial relationships with the institutions their patients are filing complaints against.
Section III — Evidence Standards, Research Independence & Data Integrity (Q11–14)
11
Your organization regularly produces "patient-reported outcome" data that is funded by a pharmaceutical company and used in FDA submissions for that company's drug. Your data consistently supports the drug's effectiveness profile. An independent meta-analysis finds that patient-reported outcomes for this drug class are significantly more positive in industry-funded studies than in independent studies. Your research methodology:
Scenario: The meta-analysis is published in NEJM and directly references your organization's data as an example of potential industry-funding bias. Your pharmaceutical funder requests a joint response disputing the meta-analysis findings.
△ A and D both reflect advocacy integrity; D is stronger
Both A and D represent genuine structural responses. D goes further by committing to prospective independence, not just retrospective review. Response B is co-advocacy with an industry funder against peer-reviewed science — this is pharmaceutical capture made visible. Response C maintains the appearance of independence while protecting the funding relationship through separate-but-aligned messaging.
Industry-funded patient-reported outcome research is a documented systematic concern in FDA drug approval processes. A 2020 Health Affairs analysis found that patient advocacy organizations that received pharmaceutical funding were significantly more likely to file pro-approval comments in FDA public comment periods for that funder's drugs.
The CIF Standard
CIF's research is funded without industry participation. Every data point CIF publishes can be reproduced, challenged, and cited without a funder's interests to protect. This is what makes it credible evidence rather than sponsored content.
12
Your organization tracks patient outcomes through a registry. The registry's data collection instrument was designed by a pharmaceutical company's medical affairs department. Key variables that would identify treatment-related adverse events in your patient population were excluded from the instrument during design. When a clinical researcher asks why these variables are absent, your response is:
Scenario: The excluded variables include immunosuppressant-related metabolic complications, care partner burden scores, and medication non-adherence events — all of which are directly relevant to transplant patient outcomes and all of which appear negatively in the pharmaceutical company's own clinical trial data for their flagship product.
✓ Only Honest Answer: C
Response C is the only answer that acknowledges the structural problem and commits to remediation. Responses A and D are content-free deflections. Response B uses the medical advisory board as a legitimacy proxy for what is documented funder influence — if the medical advisory board approved a funder-designed instrument without independently evaluating variable inclusion, the advisory board itself is not functioning independently.
Registry instrument design that systematically excludes adverse event variables beneficial to a funder is a form of research infrastructure capture. The data produced by such a registry is not a neutral dataset — it is a curated dataset that serves the funder's interests while wearing the credibility of patient-generated evidence.
The CIF Standard
CIF's care partner registry and data collection instruments are designed to capture what matters to care partners — including burden, financial damage, employment impact, and mental health outcomes. These variables appear unfavorably for every institution in the transplant system. That is precisely why they must be measured by an organization with no financial relationship to those institutions.
13
Less than 3% of NIH-funded transplant research addresses caregiver outcomes. Your organization, which claims to represent both patients and caregivers, has not submitted a formal public comment to NIH on this research gap in the past five years. Meanwhile, your organization has submitted three public comments supporting NIH funding priorities that align with your pharmaceutical funders' pipeline interests. This pattern reflects:
Scenario: A care partner whose spouse died following transplant complications related to documented care partner burnout asks your organization: "What have you done to ensure NIH studies what kills my family members?" Your answer to this care partner is:
✓ Only Honest Answer: B
Response B is the only answer that acknowledges organizational failure to the person most harmed by it. Responses A, C, and D are institutional language designed to sound responsive while committing to nothing. They are the verbal equivalent of a form letter to a grieving family member.
The documented gap in NIH caregiver research funding is not an oversight — it reflects the absence of organized constituency pressure from organizations with the standing to demand it. Organizations that receive pharmaceutical funding have a structural incentive to direct NIH funding advocacy toward pharmacological research over caregiver support research. This is documented allocation bias, not neutral scientific judgment.
The CIF Standard
CIF formally demands that NIH allocate dedicated caregiver outcome research funding in every legislative and regulatory advocacy submission. Naming the gap is not symbolic — it is the precondition for closing it. The care partner who lost a spouse deserves an organization that says "we failed you" and then does something about it.
14
Your organization measures its impact using metrics such as: website visits, social media followers, event attendance, guide downloads, and press mentions. When a foundation funder asks for evidence that your work has produced measurable changes in patient outcomes — hospitalizations, mental health scores, employment retention, caregiver burden — you respond:
Scenario: The foundation is considering a $500,000 grant and requires outcome data aligned with their evaluation framework, which specifically requires pre/post clinical measures rather than activity metrics.
△ A is honest; D partially honest but instrumentalized
Response A is structurally honest. Response D uses the grant to justify a capability gap rather than treating the gap as an accountability problem. Responses B and C are impact measurement fraud — substituting activity metrics and satisfaction surveys for outcome data is not measurement, it is reporting theater.
The overwhelming majority of patient advocacy organizations cannot demonstrate outcome impact because they are measuring the wrong things. Website visits and newsletter opens measure organizational awareness, not patient outcomes. An organization that has been operating for ten years and cannot demonstrate measurable improvement in the outcomes of the people it serves has a measurement problem or a results problem — neither is resolved by changing the reporting framework.
The CIF Standard
CIF's DMAIC outcome framework explicitly targets clinical metrics: care partner burden scores (ZARIT-22), recipient depression screening (PHQ-9), medication adherence (tacrolimus trough variability index), and 30-day unplanned utilization rates. Activity metrics are internal operational measures. Outcome metrics are the accountability standard.
Section IV — Conflicts of Interest, Industry Relationships & Independence Tests (Q15–17)
15
Your organization's communications director previously worked as a regional marketing manager for a pharmaceutical company that is now a major donor. Your digital content strategy heavily promotes the company's patient support programs. When a reporter asks whether there is a conflict of interest in this arrangement, your response is:
Scenario: An analysis of your last 18 months of social media content shows that 34% of all posts reference or link to programs run by the communications director's former employer — significantly more than any other organization or resource mentioned in your content.
✓ Accountable Response: B
Response B is the only answer that treats the reporter's question as a legitimate accountability inquiry. Response A uses the disclosure of prior employment as a defense against the documented content pattern — but disclosure does not eliminate bias, it only acknowledges the condition that could produce it. Responses C and D are rhetorical deflection: C attributes a documented pattern to patient preference without evidence; D uses process (editorial committee review) as a defense without addressing whether the committee knew about the prior employment relationship.
The CIF Standard
CIF has no pharmaceutical employer alumni on staff. Content recommendations come from peer-reviewed literature, federal data, and care partner testimony — not from prior employer relationships. This is not a personnel policy; it is a structural consequence of having no pharmaceutical donor relationships to staff around.
16
The "revolving door" between your organization and the pharmaceutical industry has resulted in your last three executive directors subsequently joining pharmaceutical companies as government affairs or patient advocacy directors within 18 months of leaving your organization. Your board views this pattern as:
Scenario: The most recent executive director, who left to join a pharmaceutical company at a 240% salary increase, had during their tenure negotiated a multi-year unrestricted grant from the company they subsequently joined. The grant totaled $1.8 million.
✗ Only B reflects structural clarity
Response B is the only characterization that accurately names what is happening. Response A reframes systematic industry capture of organizational leadership as a talent management success story. Response C treats organizational complicity as an economic inevitability. Response D recommends a procedural fix (cooling-off periods) for what is a structural problem — an executive who negotiates a $1.8 million grant from a company they subsequently join at 240% salary increase has a conflict that a 6-month cooling-off period does not address.
This scenario describes documented behavior in the patient advocacy sector. When organizational leadership has a post-tenure career incentive to maintain warm donor relationships, every major organizational decision is made under the shadow of that incentive.
The CIF Standard
CIF's founding documents embed zero-pharmaceutical-funding as a non-amendable operating constraint precisely because organizational culture can shift when leadership changes. Structural constraints that cannot be reversed by a future board are the only reliable protection against the revolving door dynamic.
17
A patient has been asking your organization for help navigating a prior authorization denial for a medication their transplant physician considers medically necessary. Your organization has a "patient navigator" program, but the navigator assigned to this patient is a contractor employed by the pharmaceutical company that manufactures the denied medication's primary competitor. The navigator consistently steers patients toward the competitor product. You become aware of this arrangement because:
Scenario: The patient's transplant coordinator contacts your organization directly because the patient told them that your navigator "seemed more interested in suggesting alternatives than actually appealing the denial." The patient has now been without their medication for 47 days.
✓ Only Proportionate Response: A
Response A is the only response proportionate to a patient who has been harmed for 47 days. Response B allows harm to continue during an investigation — prioritizing organizational legal exposure over a patient's unmet medical need. Response C partially addresses the immediate situation without addressing the systemic failure or the other patients who may have been similarly affected. Response D consults the party with the conflict before taking action on behalf of the patient being harmed — this is an inversion of organizational priorities that no patient advocacy organization should have to be told is wrong.
The CIF Standard
CIF's tools — including the Complaint Letter Machine and Advocacy Letter Builder — are designed to give care partners and patients direct access to federal complaint mechanisms without requiring them to trust an intermediary navigator whose independence cannot be verified. Structural tools are more reliable than interpersonal relationships when those relationships are susceptible to industry capture.
Section V — Systemic Accountability, Policy, & Institutional Courage (Q18–20)
18
UNOS has zero care partner representatives on its Board of Directors. Your organization has been a formal stakeholder in UNOS governance discussions for eleven years. In that eleven years, the number of care partner board seats has increased from zero to zero. When asked by a care partner why this has not changed, your most honest answer is:
Scenario: UNOS's board includes representatives from transplant centers, organ procurement organizations, and patient advocacy organizations — but the only patient advocacy organization representatives on the board received more than $4.5 million combined from pharmaceutical and medical device companies in the preceding fiscal year.
✓ Structural Honesty: C — rarely said aloud
Response C is the structurally accurate answer. Response A is the language of institutional patience — "working through established channels" that have produced zero change in eleven years is not a strategy, it is an alibi. Response B is honest about organizational failure but stops short of naming the structural reason for that failure. Response D describes activity without outcomes and treats advocacy statements as equivalent to advocacy results.
Care partner exclusion from UNOS governance is not an oversight. It is a structural feature of a governance system designed by and for the clinical and commercial institutions whose interests are most protected by care partner invisibility.
The CIF Standard
CIF formally demands care partner board seats at UNOS as a non-negotiable advocacy position — not as a long-term aspiration but as an immediate demand with a documented enforcement pathway through HRSA's OPTN contract oversight authority. "Working through established channels" that serve institutional interests is not advocacy. It is institutional participation.
19
Medicare Part B does not cover caregiver training, respite care, or mental health services for transplant care partners — despite CBO data showing a $4.8 billion net fiscal benefit from extending this coverage. Your organization has listed "Medicare expansion for caregivers" as a priority in your last six annual advocacy reports. You have not testified before Congress on this issue, not filed a formal Medicare rulemaking comment, and not organized constituent contact campaigns targeting specific committee members. This gap between stated priority and executed advocacy reflects:
Scenario: Your organization's board chair asks you to prepare a slide deck on "care partner advocacy accomplishments" for an upcoming funder presentation. You must characterize six years of Medicare expansion advocacy that produced no legislative or regulatory outcomes.
✓ Only Accountable Answer: B
Response B is the only answer that acknowledges six years of priority advocacy that produced no measurable outcomes. Responses A, C, and D are the language of institutional self-protection in the face of documented advocacy failure. "Stakeholder awareness," "momentum," and "long-term investment" are metrics invented by advocacy organizations to make inaction sound like strategy.
The $4.8 billion net fiscal benefit of Medicare caregiver coverage extension has been documented. The bipartisan constituent base exists in every congressional district. The legislative vehicle (FAMILY Act) is drafted. What is missing is an organization willing to organize its constituency, identify specific committee members, deploy constituent contacts, and testify on the record. Six years of listing an issue as a priority without executing these steps is not advocacy — it is issue appropriation.
The CIF Standard
CIF's 36-month roadmap includes specific congressional meeting targets (15 in Year 1, 50 in Year 2, 100 in Year 3), specific legislative bills with CIF testimony in the Congressional Record, and specific rulemaking comment periods with measurable regulatory language outcomes. Priority listings without execution timelines are aspirational theater.
20
A care partner coalition approaches your organization requesting formal co-sponsorship of legislation that would require pharmaceutical companies to disclose all payments to patient advocacy organizations above $5,000 annually — creating a public registry similar to the Physician Payments Sunshine Act. This legislation would require your organization to publicly disclose all pharmaceutical funding relationships. Your board's response is:
Scenario: Your organization received $2.3 million from pharmaceutical companies in the preceding year. The legislation has bipartisan support and has been endorsed by three former FDA commissioners. A public poll shows 84% of Americans believe patient advocacy organizations should disclose pharmaceutical funding. Your largest donor has privately indicated they would "reconsider the relationship" if you co-sponsor the bill.
✓ The Only Patient-First Answer: A
Response A is the only answer consistent with genuine transparency commitment. If your organization would not co-sponsor legislation requiring you to disclose your own funding relationships, you have answered the central question of this entire assessment: your organizational interests supersede your patient constituency's right to know who is funding you.
Response B is the "principle without practice" move — claiming to support transparency while opposing the mechanism that produces it. Response C is institutional self-protection disguised as administrative concern. Raising the threshold to $50,000 would exempt 90% of pharmaceutical donations to patient advocacy organizations from disclosure, which is precisely its function. Response D is the most honest of the three false answers — it explicitly names organizational self-interest while refusing to defend it.
The CIF Standard
CIF formally supports the Patient Advocacy Organization Transparency Act and equivalent disclosure legislation. CIF has nothing to disclose under such legislation because no pharmaceutical payments exist. Organizations that oppose transparency requirements for patient advocacy funding are telling you exactly what they are protecting — and it is not their patients.
Answer all 20 questions to unlock your results
Receive Your Full Assessment Results
Your Advocacy Integrity Score and personalized analysis will be sent directly to your email. Jeff Parke, Co-Founder of the Cold Ischemia Foundation, reviews all submissions personally. Your responses are confidential.
Cold Ischemia Foundation exists because this assessment describes the landscape most patient advocacy organizations operate in — and because someone had to build the model that doesn't. Zero pharmaceutical funding. Zero institutional conflicts. Zero equivocation on patient interests. If your assessment revealed gaps in your own organization's structural integrity, we invite the conversation.