Attention: Restrictions on use of AUA, AUAER, and UCF content in third party applications, including artificial intelligence technologies, such as large language models and generative AI.
You are prohibited from using or uploading content you accessed through this website into external applications, bots, software, or websites, including those using artificial intelligence technologies and infrastructure, including deep learning, machine learning and large language models and generative AI.
UPJ INSIGHT An Analysis of Political Contributions by Urologists in the United States: 2003-2022
By: Nicolas Seranio, MD, Stanford University School of Medicine, California; Wade Muncey, MD, Stanford University School of Medicine, California; Michael L. Eisenberg, MD, Stanford University School of Medicine, California | Posted on: 30 Aug 2023
Seranio N, Muncey W, Eisenberg ML. An analysis of political contributions by urologists in the United States: 2003-2022. Urol Pract. 2023;10(4):335-341.
Study Need and Importance
The role of physician engagement in US politics has long been an area of interest. Recent studies examining physician political participation suggest that physicians are becoming increasingly polarized based on their party registrations and contributions. While several medical specialties have published longitudinal analyses of their political contributions, no such study exists within urology. We sought to analyze trends in political contributions by urologists over time using data from the Federal Election Commission.
What We Found
From 2003 to 2022, there were a total of 26,441 unique contributions made by urologists totaling $9,943,205 (see Table). Since 2003, the frequency and amount of political contributions increased significantly over time, with higher numbers seen during presidential election years. The Republican party received the highest proportion of donations, at 69.1%. Importantly, women urologists and urologists working in academic centers were significantly more likely to contribute to Democratic committees. Overall contributions to urology-specific political action committees (PACs) have steadily decreased since 2011, while contributions to nonurology PACs have increased.
Table. Campaign Contributions From Self-identified Urologists (2003-2022)
| Democratic | Independent | Republican | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total contribution amount, $ | 1,465,424 | 2,374,862 | 6,102,919 | 9,943,205 |
| Total unique contributions, No. (%) | 4,338 (16.4) | 3,820 (14.4) | 18,283 (69.1) | 26,441 |
| Average contribution amount, $ | 338 | 622 | 334 | 376 |
| Maximum contribution amount, $ | 40,002 | 6,702 | 28,261 | 40,002 |
| Minimum contribution amount, $ | 1 | 13 | 1 | 1 |
| Adjusted to 2022 US dollars. | ||||
Limitations
This study is limited by the self-reported nature of Federal Election Commission data. Urologists who identified themselves with titles such as “physician,” “surgeon,” or “doctor” may have been excluded from the analysis. Additionally, errors in the data such as zeros or even negative contributions were found, although these cases were relatively infrequent. Lastly, gender was crudely approximated by using publicly available information regarding each physician.
Interpretation for Patient Care
Political polarization among urologists may be partly responsible for decreased support of nonpartisan urology PACs. This polarization also appears to vary with gender and practice setting. Future research evaluating how growing political engagement by urologists affects the development of new health care policy will be important as a new generation of urologists begins to enter practice.
advertisement
advertisement