Ad Hoc Committee on 501(c)6-53D24C13
Home
/
Publication
Evaluate whether the profession of medical physics (and AAPM) requires a 501 c(6) tax structure to effectively achieve our goals. Provide preliminary report to the AAPM BOD in July 2009.Maryellen Giger, then chair of the board, wrote a summary of the outcome of the ad hoc in her May/June 2010 newsletter column on pages 5-6. See excerpt below:
Ad hoc Committee on 501(c)6
The ad hoc committee on 501(c)6 [chaired by Michael Herman] was the last ad hoc I created, and this grew out of my visit to the Professional Council’s retreat. The ad hoc was asked “to evaluate whether the profession of medical physics (and AAPM) requires a 501(c)6 tax structure to effectively achieve our goals.” From discussions with the chair of the ad hoc an update can be given. As a 501(c) (3) AAPM can commit up to ~$500,000 per year on direct lobbying efforts. To date, our annual lobbying costs have been well under $100,000, and in most years, much less. There is one activity we cannot do as a 501(c)(3) that can be done with a 501(c)(6) and that is to form a political action committee (PAC). Some of our sister societies have a PAC, for example the ACR (~$1M PAC contributions per year) and ASTRO (nearly as much as ACR) and these PACs are very small when it comes to health care lobbying. Forming a PAC does allow you to interact with other much larger players in the lobbying arena, to whom you might not otherwise be exposed. The tax status difference is very small and not considered significant. If one does form or become a 501(c)(6), the AAPM would not have to worry about our charter being challenged as to our lobbying scope. However, at the current time, both a 501(c)(3) (AAPM) and a 501(c)(6) (ACMP) exist that are dedicated to medical physics. The AAPM has almost 7000 members and the ACMP less than 400. In the past, at this time and at no time in the foreseeable future will the specific tax status of a 501(c)(6) be required for medical physics associations to achieve the goals that we have established. We can continue as we do now, including talking to lawmakers, regulators, and working together with other associations to affect positive change. In some respects the AAPM is seen as a more objective and scientific organization because it is a 501(c)(3). In our recent and ongoing interactions with the United States Congress, while we state our position directly, it is done with the interest of improved medical care. Many of our interactions with state and federal government entities are done from this objective position. It will be in our best interest to continue to develop mechanisms that further the goals of the AAPM, and those of the scientific, educational and professional interests of medical physics.
Thus, the ad hoc committee on on 501(c)6 has completed its tasks and will end.
I thank all the AAPM members who have contributed to these various ad hoc committees. Your dedication to moving the AAPM forward is very much appreciated. I welcome feedback from our members on these ad hoc committees
The ad hoc committee on 501(c)6 [chaired by Michael Herman] was the last ad hoc I created, and this grew out of my visit to the Professional Council’s retreat. The ad hoc was asked “to evaluate whether the profession of medical physics (and AAPM) requires a 501(c)6 tax structure to effectively achieve our goals.” From discussions with the chair of the ad hoc an update can be given. As a 501(c) (3) AAPM can commit up to ~$500,000 per year on direct lobbying efforts. To date, our annual lobbying costs have been well under $100,000, and in most years, much less. There is one activity we cannot do as a 501(c)(3) that can be done with a 501(c)(6) and that is to form a political action committee (PAC). Some of our sister societies have a PAC, for example the ACR (~$1M PAC contributions per year) and ASTRO (nearly as much as ACR) and these PACs are very small when it comes to health care lobbying. Forming a PAC does allow you to interact with other much larger players in the lobbying arena, to whom you might not otherwise be exposed. The tax status difference is very small and not considered significant. If one does form or become a 501(c)(6), the AAPM would not have to worry about our charter being challenged as to our lobbying scope. However, at the current time, both a 501(c)(3) (AAPM) and a 501(c)(6) (ACMP) exist that are dedicated to medical physics. The AAPM has almost 7000 members and the ACMP less than 400. In the past, at this time and at no time in the foreseeable future will the specific tax status of a 501(c)(6) be required for medical physics associations to achieve the goals that we have established. We can continue as we do now, including talking to lawmakers, regulators, and working together with other associations to affect positive change. In some respects the AAPM is seen as a more objective and scientific organization because it is a 501(c)(3). In our recent and ongoing interactions with the United States Congress, while we state our position directly, it is done with the interest of improved medical care. Many of our interactions with state and federal government entities are done from this objective position. It will be in our best interest to continue to develop mechanisms that further the goals of the AAPM, and those of the scientific, educational and professional interests of medical physics.
Thus, the ad hoc committee on on 501(c)6 has completed its tasks and will end.
I thank all the AAPM members who have contributed to these various ad hoc committees. Your dedication to moving the AAPM forward is very much appreciated. I welcome feedback from our members on these ad hoc committees