The American Hospital Association's
political action committee is spending large sums on TV commercials that back congressional Republican incumbents who have been friendly to the hospital industry, in hopes of fending off more-conservative challengers who take a harder line on government healthcare spending.
The AHA's approach contrasts with the PACs of other major healthcare lobbying groups such as America's Health Insurance Plans
and the Federation of American Hospitals, which have chosen to make financial contributions to candidates rather than speak directly to voters through media ads. The ads typically steer clear of specific policy details but praise candidates for opposing onerous regulations or opposing Medicare cuts.
The AHA's PAC has spent nearly $1 million on TV ads supporting candidates so far this election season. That's roughly as much as the association spent on radio and TV advertising during the entire 2012 election cycle, according to the PAC's filings with the Federal Election Commission. And Election Day is still more than three months away.
Tom Nickels, the AHA's senior vice president for federal relations, said the increase in independent expenditures reflects the changing dynamics of campaign finance. In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling striking down spending restrictions by corporations, associations and unions, the so-called super-PACs—which typically are supported by multiple donors—have grown to create an outsized influence on political expenditures. That's made it more difficult for traditional PACs like the AHA's to break through the noise, he said.
“PACs like us need to participate far more aggressively in races that are really in play,” Nickels said. “It's a relatively finite number of races that are in play.”
Among hospitals' biggest priorities is persuading states that have been Medicaid-expansion holdouts to extend coverage to adults earning less than 138% of the federal poverty level. In those holdout states, hospitals face the prospect of shouldering additional charity care costs. Congressional Republicans generally have opposed Medicaid expansion. But Nickels said the AHA doesn't take that into consideration in determining which federal candidates to support, because those decisions are made by state officials.
The AHA PAC's early presence on the airwaves has been predominantly aimed at supporting congressional Republican incumbents facing more conservative, Tea Party-aligned primary challengers. The AHA spent just over $100,000 each on ads supporting congressmen David Joyce of Ohio and Mike Simpson of Idaho. Both triumphed in May primaries by comfortable margins.
The AHA also poured $200,000 into supporting Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), who barely survived a runoff election last month against Tea Party-backed challenger Chris McDaniel. Cochran “is a candidate who has been very, very supportive of hospitals in the state,” Nickels said, noting that he will be a prohibitive favorite
in the general election, owing to Mississippi's heavily Republican bent. “Getting him to that point was really important,” Nickels said.
The AHA is also targeting the Senate Republican primary contest in Kansas. The association is spending $200,000 in the state to bolster Sen. Pat Roberts, who faces a challenge on his right flank from Dr. Milton Wolf
, a radiologist. The AHA ads praise Roberts for being a leader on rural healthcare issues.
Nickels said the AHA learned the importance of weighing in on such races from the 2010 and 2012 election cycles, which saw moderate Republicans such as Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana and Rep. Michael Castle of Delaware lose to conservative primary challengers. “We want to be helpful to mainstream candidates who listen to their hospital constituents,” he said.
The hospital association also is providing early support to a pair of Senate Democrats who face difficult general election contests. The AHA has spent roughly $180,000 each on ads supporting Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mark Begich of Alaska. Both of their races are rated toss-ups by the Cook Political Report, and are among roughly a dozen election contests that likely will determine whether Republicans can pick up six seats and take control of the Senate.
The Federation of American Hospitals, which represents for-profit hospitals, doesn't expect to make any independent political expenditures this election cycle, according to a spokesman. Its PAC focuses solely on financial support to candidates and causes. As of the end of June, it had contributed roughly $450,000 to campaigns and political committees. That included $7,500 in contributions to Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, whose stunning defeat
in a primary contest last month led to a shakeup in the leadership of the GOP-controlled House.
Other major healthcare lobbying groups also typically stay away from independent political expenditures. The PACs funded by America's Health Insurance Plans and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America have stuck to political contributions in the last three election cycles.
But Nickels indicated that the AHA thinks it can have an influence on competitive contests by communicating directly with voters. He expects that tactic to continue in the months leading up to Election Day. “For the races that are really being watched, PACs like ours want to get involved in a big way,” he said.
Democratic-sponsored legislation in the Senate designed to overturn the Supreme Court's Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores ruling, which determined that closely held companies can opt out of providing birth-control coverage to their employees, failed to garner enough support Wednesday to come up for a floor vote. The procedural measure was backed by 56 senators, but required 60 to avoid a Republican-led filibuster. Democrats are expected to bring up the measure again. No action is expected on a companion bill in the GOP-controlled House.
Reps. Tom Price (R-Ga.) and Greg Walden (R-Ore.) have introduced legislation that would repeal Medicare rebasing cuts that were part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The pending cuts reduce Medicare payments to home healthcare services by 14% over four years. The legislation was praised by the Partnership for Quality Home Healthcare. “By repealing the rebasing cuts beginning January 1, 2015, this legislation will help millions of seniors, family members, and professional caregivers,” said the partnership's CEO, Eric Berger
, in a written statement. Follow Paul Demko on Twitter: @MHpdemko