IBJNews

Vera Bradley gives another $10M to IU cancer center

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Vera Bradley Foundation for Breast Cancer has pledged $10 million to fund breast cancer research at the Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center.

The latest gift continues funding from the Fort Wayne based charity, which is an arm of the Vera Bradley handbag company. Three previous gifts from the foundation, dating back to 1998, also totaled $10 million.

“Generosity and commitment like that from the Vera Bradley Foundation are what will make the difference in this disease,” said Dr. Craig Brater, dean of the IU School of Medicine, in a prepared statement. “These gifts touch women every day, not just in Indiana, but all over the world.”

Money from Vera Bradley has helped IU's cancer center hire 10 researchers, increasing its total team to 34. Those 34 researchers have secured other grant funding that brings in more than $10 million every year.

To recognize of the foundation’s past gifts, IU recently named medical research laboratories in its new Walther Hall building after the Vera Bradley Foundation for Breast Cancer.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Tax write off
    I am truly disgusted with Vera Bradley. First they lay off all their employees so they can claim stimulus money on the pretense of hiring more employees, providing more jobs. Instead they hire contract workers so they donâ??t have to provide any benefits. NOW theyâ??re giving money in the name of charityâ?¦I donâ??t think so. There is nothing charitable about a ruthless company that lays off employees with no intention of rehiring just so they can get fat on stimulus money. This must be a tax shelter for them. I wouldn't own their bags if they gave them to me.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. You are correct that Obamacare requires health insurance policies to include richer benefits and protects patients who get sick. That's what I was getting at when I wrote above, "That’s because Obamacare required insurers to take all customers, regardless of their health status, and also established a floor on how skimpy the benefits paid for by health plans could be." I think it's vital to know exactly how much the essential health benefits are costing over previous policies. Unless we know the cost of the law, we can't do a cost-benefit analysis. Taxes were raised in order to offset a 31% rise in health insurance premiums, an increase that paid for richer benefits. Are those richer benefits worth that much or not? That's the question we need to answer. This study at least gets us started on doing so.

  2. *5 employees per floor. Either way its ridiculous.

  3. Jim, thanks for always ready my stuff and providing thoughtful comments. I am sure that someone more familiar with research design and methods could take issue with Kowalski's study. I thought it was of considerable value, however, because so far we have been crediting Obamacare for all the gains in coverage and all price increases, neither of which is entirely fair. This is at least a rigorous attempt to sort things out. Maybe a quixotic attempt, but it's one of the first ones I've seen try to do it in a sophisticated way.

  4. In addition to rewriting history, the paper (or at least your summary of it) ignores that Obamacare policies now must provide "essential health benefits". Maybe Mr Wall has always been insured in a group plan but even group plans had holes you could drive a truck through, like the Colts defensive line last night. Individual plans were even worse. So, when you come up with a study that factors that in, let me know, otherwise the numbers are garbage.

  5. You guys are absolutely right: Cummins should build a massive 80-story high rise, and give each employee 5 floors. Or, I suppose they could always rent out the top floors if they wanted, since downtown office space is bursting at the seams (http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=49481).

ADVERTISEMENT