Dr. Seth Eidemiller: When Philanthropy Becomes Performative in Healthcare

Philanthropy in healthcare plays a crucial role in expanding access, funding, and strengthening infrastructure. Yet not all donations carry the same weight. As Dr. Seth Eidemiller notes, a growing concern lies in performative philanthropy donations made more for attention than impact. While these gestures may appear generous, they can divert resources away from pressing needs and the communities most in need.

Performance Philanthropy in Healthcare

Philanthropy in healthcare usually involves charitable donations, sponsorships, or funding programs aimed at improving access to care, supporting research, or building medical infrastructure. These contributions often come from private individuals, corporations, or foundations, and they play a major role in supplementing public health funding.

Performative philanthropy, by contrast, centers more on visibility than on measurable outcomes. A hospital wing named after a donor may draw attention, but the actual impact on patient care isn't always clear. The long-term needs of communities become neglected when organizations make their reputation the primary goal. The approach creates initial excitement, but it typically fails to deliver actual changes that reach beyond individual projects.

Some health organizations have accepted large donations tied to marketing campaigns or public image strategies. The resources in these cases will be directed toward projects that receive public attention, instead of those that crucial community health clinics and preventive care programs need. The result creates an unbalanced distribution of aid because the most vulnerable populations stay neglected while organizations show progress.

Recognizing the Signs of Performative Actions

Large donations are sometimes paired with press conferences, bold signage, or social media campaigns that highlight the donor more than the initiative itself. A new hospital wing might carry a prominent name, yet the services inside remain understaffed or under-resourced.

In some situations, funding is channeled into one-time projects that lack long-term planning or sustainability. A mobile health clinic may be unveiled with great fanfare, but without consistent staffing or follow-up services, its value to the community fades quickly. The absence of continuity turns what could be a life-changing initiative into a fleeting spectacle.

There are also cases where the donation is tied to branding objectives. Corporate sponsors may fund wellness centers or vaccination drives in exchange for prominent logo placement, even when the broader healthcare system is struggling to meet basic needs. These arrangements often benefit marketing departments more than at-risk patients and can obscure the true priorities of public health.

Consequences for Healthcare Access and Equity

Dr. Seth Eidemiller explains that when philanthropy is more concerned with optics than outcomes, it can distort public understanding of healthcare priorities. A flashy donation might signal progress, but behind the scenes, critical services like mental health support or rural outreach remain underfunded.

Communities already facing disparities often feel the effects most. Funds are drawn toward urban hospitals or high-profile projects, while clinics in underserved areas continue to struggle. This imbalance reinforces existing inequities, leaving vulnerable populations without sufficient care.

Short-term visibility can overshadow long-term plans. While a photo-worthy donation might generate headlines, the real measure of philanthropic value lies in its ability to strengthen systems, not just stories. When sustainability is sacrificed for spectacle, the result is a healthcare system that looks good on paper but fails to deliver where it matters most.

Why Performative Philanthropy Happens

Donors give their support because they expect to receive public recognition of their contributions. When someone makes a public donation, their corporate or personal brand becomes more valuable because the media covers their donation, and their name gets associated with the project. Organizations use philanthropic gestures to create a positive public impression during important corporate events and times of public crisis. The organization uses the method for its own benefit instead of showing actual empathy toward others.

Tax incentives work to motivate people to make short-term donations, which provide donors instant financial advantages but fail to solve fundamental health problems. People prefer to receive awards instead of pursuing activities that create substantial positive changes in their lives. The system measures generous acts through media coverage, which fails to show actual improvements in health.

What Genuine Impact Looks Like

The most significant charitable giving efforts proceed through methods that develop silently. The organization starts its work by listening to local leaders and public health experts to determine actual requirements. The distribution of resources to community partnerships and long-term staffing and preventive care results in sustainable outcomes that develop over time because immediate impacts do not occur.

The most genuine form of charitable giving demonstrates itself through financial transparency. Donors who remain involved beyond the initial check tracking outcomes, adjusting funding, and engaging with feedback tend to support efforts that evolve and grow over time rather than fade after a press cycle. Their participation demonstrates their commitment to progress because they want more than just to achieve public recognition.

Effective contributions may never make headlines, yet they shape the backbone of accessible care. Renovating aging facilities in rural areas, funding mental health programs with multi-year commitments, or supporting training initiatives for local healthcare workers can leave a lasting imprint.

Rather than measuring impact by visibility or branding, donors and institutions can focus on outcomes: healthier communities, improved access, and resilient systems. This requires patience, accountability, and a willingness to collaborate. The most transformative efforts often start with listening rather than announcing.

Dr. Seth Eidemiller suggests that some healthcare organizations have adopted third-party evaluations and community advisory boards to ensure donations align with actual needs. These practices not only improve trust but also make philanthropy more effective. When communities are part of the decision-making process, the solutions become more relevant and impactful. Real progress is often measured not in ribbon cuttings but in the lives improved and systems strengthened.