Historical examples (polio and TB) that fit your #2 criteria don't seem to have the conflicts that you mention - because the organizations can change focus. Disease research isn't predictable enough to be able to make financial or organizational planning like you propose. Hence, I don't think your worry #2 is realistic. Here's my reasoning.

The March of Dimes started in 1938 as the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis. They started the serious fundraising and research projects for polio, and provided about $233 million on patient care over 20 years, as well as funding research into a cure. They recruited Salk to work on it, which lead to the successful polio vaccine.

The National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis therefore no longer had a reason to exist. Quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_of_Dimes#Criticism :

> In his book Essentials of Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach, sociologist Professor James M. Henslin describes March of Dimes as a bureaucracy that has taken on a life of its own through a classic example of a process called goal displacement. Faced with redundancy after Jonas Salk discovered the polio vaccine, it adopted a new mission, "fighting birth defects", which was recently changed to a vaguer goal of "breakthrough for babies", rather than disbanding.

You'll note that that they strongly pushed for a true cure. It was only afterwards where they had organization problems. You'll also note that those affected by polio still needed care, so the organization was still useful even after the vaccine.

Similarly, there were a large number of tuberculosis organization. They too changed mission after effective treatments were found. The Saranac Laboratory for the Study of Tuberculosis, for example, became the Trudeau Sanatorium, which then closed when an effective TB treatment was discovered. More famously, the National Association for the Study and Prevention of Tuberculosis, after the TB treatment discovery, became the American Lung Association.

Can you point to real-world examples where was a "true cure" but where organizations pushing for the cure ended up delaying the result, due likely to a conflict of interest with major sponsors? Because the historical record suggests that the organizations are more likely to continue to exist be changing focus, then by suppressing or delaying a cure.

Regarding another aspect of #2, no one knows what a diabetes treatment might be. It could be an expensive treatment. It could take several years for a cure to take effect. It could be a preventative, which only helps those without diabetes but not those who currently have it. It could help one type of diabetes but not another. Some of these are very financially rewarding.

Since members of the ADA almost certainly have friends or relatives who have diabetes, they have a strong emotional reason to want success, independent of money. Since it's impossible to know beforehand if a certain treatment path will be successful, much less the financial possibilities of a successful treatment, it's hard to really game the system that way. Since multiple organizations are working on a cure, it's hard also to game all of the researchers.

Mind you, there's no promise that there is a true cure for diabetes. But there are ways to manage it, hence the terminology.

BTW, I don't know what you mean by "new word." The phrase "diabetes management" dates back to at least the 1970s. Eg, http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/21/Supplement_2... is a 1972 article titled "Current Unsolved Problems in Diabetes Management", and a literature search finds many other references from that era.

An n-gram search [1] suggests that the preferred phrase was "control of diabetes" until the early 1980s, with "diabetes management" overshadowing it by the mid-1990s.

[1] The n-gram search URL is https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=diabetes+manag...