English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

To compare the lobbying expenditures and political action committee (PAC) campaign finance activities of the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO), American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS), and American Optometric Association (AOA) from 2015 to 2022. Financial data were collected from the Federal Election Commission and OpenSecrets database. Analysis was performed to characterize and compare financial activity among the organizations.  P &lt;  0.05 was considered significant and all analyses were two-sided. From 2015 to 2022, the AAO, ASCRS, and AOA spent $6,745,000, $5,354,406, and $13,335,000 on lobbying, respectively. The AOA’s annual lobbying expenditure (median, $1,725,000) was significantly greater than AAO’s ($842,500,  P  = 0.03) and ASCRS’s ($694,289,  P  &lt; 0.001). In PAC donations, OPHTHPAC, affiliated with AAO, received $3,221,737 from 2079 donors (median, $900); eyePAC, affiliated with ASCRS, received $506,255 from 349 donors ($500); and AOA-PAC received $6,642,588 from 3641 donors ($825). Compared to eyePAC, median donations to OPHTHPAC ( P  = 0.01) and AOA-PAC ( P  = 0.04) were significantly higher. In campaign spending, OPHTHPAC contributed $2,728,500 to 326 campaigns (median, $5000), eyePAC contributed $293,500 to 58 campaigns ($3000), and AOA-PAC contributed $5,128,673 to 617 campaigns ($5500). eyePAC’s median campaign contribution was significantly lower than the AOA’s ( P  &lt; 0.001) and AAO’s ( P  = 0.007). Every PAC directed most of its contributions toward Republican campaigns; eyePAC donated the highest proportion (64.9%). AOA was more assertive in shaping policy by increasing lobbying expenditures, fundraising, and donating to a greater number of election campaigns.

Healthcare lobbying and campaign finance activities of vision-related professional societies, 2015 to 2022