Senator Ted Kennedy's death from brain cancer underscores the urgent need for more funding of basic cancer research. Despite the best efforts of a team of top doctors, Kennedy died 15 months after the diagnosis of a malignant brain tumor called glioblastoma. Over the past ten years, some progress has been made against this deadly illness and the silhouettes of some promising new approaches are becoming visible. But our treatment options remain woefully inadequate.
The annual budget of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) is just under $5 billion. With over 560,000 cancer deaths each year, that comes to less than $10,000 in research spent for every cancer death. That simply is not enough money spent on a problem that strikes almost 1.5 million Americans each year and causes nearly one of four deaths.
Research for certain cancers is especially under funded. Earlier this year, I helplessly watched a dear friend and patient die from esophageal cancer, both of us knowing that only 22 million dollars each year -- about $1,500 per death -- was being spent by the NCI on the disease annually. One reason is that patients with esophageal cancer don't have a strong advocacy group to push for their fair share of the funding pie. Lung cancer, which tops the list of cancer killers in America, only gets about $1,500 per death. At the top of the list based on research spending per death are cervical cancer (about $19,000), breast cancer (about $14,000) and brain cancer (about $12,000). Click here for a chart that I compiled with the help of statisticians at the NCI that breaks down government spending on the top cancers.
Of course, there shouldn't have to be a competition among cancer advocacy groups. There should be adequate funding of basic medical research to help discover the underlying cellular mechanisms that many cancers share and that hold the key to prevention, early diagnosis and effective treatment. But there's not enough money for our young researchers. In 1980, almost 25 percent of first independent government grants went to scientists under age 35; that figure has plummeted to only 4 percent as the first-grant age rose from 34 to 42. Faced with increasing competition for shrinking dollars, many of our best and brightest are considering other careers.
My cancer patients desperately need a bailout. The best way to increase our spending on cancer research responsibly is through health care reform. The Institute of Medicine has estimated that about 20 percent of the annual $2.5 trillion in health care costs is unnecessary. That's $500 billion annually or 100 times the current budget of the National Cancer Institute. There could be no better tribute to Senator Kennedy or wiser investment in our own futures than to fix a broken system that threatens to bankrupt us while inadequately addressing one of our most devastating health problems.
For this week's CBS Doc Dot Com, I take you behind the scenes to an edit bay at the CBS Broadcast Center in New York. I talk to Dr. Henry Friedman, an expert on brain cancer. He is co-deputy director of the Preston Robert Tisch Brain Tumor Center at Duke University Medical Center. In addition to hearing about the latest treatments for the disease, you'll see the secret behind how we do long-distance interviews for the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric.
HR676 (http://hr676.org) Single Payer system that is proven, pro-business and pro-people:
* Slashes at least 30% of costs off the top by removing private insurance overhead.
* Companies take health care expenses off their books. Stock value increases. Better able to compete internationally.
* Small companies could have access to higher skilled workers because previously they couldn't compete in the labor market by offering similar benefits.
* More entrepreneurial ventures will launch since they have more money and less unrelated risk.
* Dramatic drop in bankruptcies.
* Dramatic drop in lawsuits. Most of these lawsuits are simply to obtain money to cover health care if something interrupts their coverage.
* Reduced system complexity. Greater efficiency due to fewer regulations.
* Savings from employees not having to fight with their insurers during work hours.
* HSA and MSA dollars redirected back into the economy for goods and services.
* Additional money to spend from not having to carry "uninsured motorist coverage" on your auto policy.
* Contract employment is more viable for workers since they are guaranteed access to health care.
* People are covered when unemployed. No chance of being wiped out financially if you lose your job.
* Health care providers (doctors, hospitals, therapists...) see increase in business with much less administrative expense.
As the big labs soak up the money, there are fewer and fewer crumbs left over for the budding scientists at the bottom of the food chain.
In health care there is a trend where hospitals are hiring more and more nurses to reduce the cost of hiring more doctors. The same dynamic applies in research. More and more "career post docs", many with limited English skills, are being recruited from abroad while new positions for independent scientists become fewer and fewer, and so hyper competitive that most do not have a reasonable opportunity to achieve it. And if a person tries and fails, the pay for "career post docs" is so pitiful in comparison to their training, education, and skill level that many would rather leave science altogether and be done with it.
Complaining about funding is easy. Taking an honest and critical view of the failures brought on by the scientific establishment itself is not.
What happened with the banking industry? Rather than repairing the core issues that led to this catastrophe, throw more money at them and hope it serves as a buoyant enough apparatus to stop them from sinking.
http://www.bccmeteorites.com/misconduct-planetary.html
I suggest that anyone with a diagnosis of cancer (particularly brain cancer) that is considering treatment by conventional oncology methods (chemo/radiation) immediately bailout, and instead contact the Burzynski Clinic in Texas. See:
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/
Stanislaw Burzynski, MD, PhD, developed the antineoplaston treatment for cancer and, in my opinion, has cured more people of cancer than all of the oncologists in this country combined. Never heard of him? Both the FDA and the oncology industry tried to put him out of business, but those of us in the alternative health field came to his defense. Finally, even the FDA had to admit his procedure works, and they are presently running supervised clinical trials.
Unfortunately, you first have to qualify for these trials to get the antineoplaston treatments. In other words, the FDA is using the clinical trial approach to choke off widespread access to this amazing therapy, in some cases insisting that you first go through the horrors of chemo/radiation, which unfortunately lowers chances of success. The rest of the oncologists are ignoring him.
Very, very sad. We do not need more spending on cancer treatment - we need honesty in the medical industry.
For a list of Burzynski's more than 250 peer-reviewed research papers on cancer treatment:
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/ph/media-corner-publications.html
Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com
I have stage IV cancer and I'm on my fourth line of treatment so you could say that I have a dog in this fight. Fortunately, have good insurance. One of the chemo drugs I've taken is billed to my Insurance at $17,000 for 10 ml. The negotiated reimbursement (amount paid out by insurer) is $12,000. For that item alone, the insurer has paid out $204,000. There needs to be some way to get the focus on cancer research for the purpose of finding a cure. Until there's a financial incentive it's not going to happen.
Which begs the question, do we really want politicians involved in medicine? Be very careful what you wish for.
"The State portions of the great Tobacco settlement WERE not..." rather than "The state portions of the great Tobacco settlement WAS not..."
Please learn the correct meaning of "begs the question." It's not how you and others use it.
For example.
Why do I need to listen to PHARMA ads? why do i need to ask my doctor if the medicine would be good for my ailment? Seems to me the cure is worse than the problem....
Cut top heavy admin costs - stop PHARMA ads - and put these funds into research.. then i may be willing to listen to the need for additional funding. Doctors should do their job and provide the answers to health problems - not the other way around.
The dollar amounts presented here are only part of the overall money used for research, and therefore are misleading.
Pediatric cancer funds are signifcantly lacking. Currenlty only THREE PERCENT of the NCI budget currently goes to fund pediatric cancer research. 12,000 children a year are given the horrible diagnosis of cancer each year in the US, and 75% will be dead with in five years. The adverse affects of harsh treatment last a life time. 2/3 of survivors can expect a chronic or serious illness by the time they arre 45. Acutelymphoblastic leukemia, the most common form of childhood cancer, requires a harsh 2-3 year treatment protocol. Because childhood cancers are rare, most drug companies will not invest in research/ medicines for them, since they yield little chance of gagnering a profit. . Because of this, federal funding for pediatric cancer research is very important. Plus, research into pediatric cancer often help adult cancers. The anti-folates were first used to treat children with ALL in the 1940's, and retinoblastoma has helped researchers understand other kinds of cancer including breast.
Why is that we can afford billions of dollars for banks, and yet nothing for our children???
IN 2008, the Carolyn Walker Pryce Childhood Canacer act was passed. It alloacted 150 million dollars over five years for pediatric cancer research? THis year, only 10 million will be spent of what was supposed to be thirty million!
Also - if we passed legislation to forbid denial of coveege for presisting conditions and allow for competition across states and also allow group purchasinf outside of business -
the problems with private care would be solved - it's pretty simple unless you goal is not to cover the uninsured and fix private healthcare
Medicare is subsidized by private insurers. Medicare patient services are discounted because the costs are absorbed elsewhere in the health care system - by privately covered patients - which raises the costs of THEIR services.
Putting everyone on medicare would NOT lower costs.... putting MORE people onto such a system would RAISE costs for those not in the system even more, creating an even larger problem.
The private insurance system is not private care or anything close to it. All it is is a way for private companies to make a lot of money. They routinely deny care to those who are ill, they impose huge out of network fees even when they do not have a doctor to treat the illness in network. We have had our insurance costs double in the last three years with no claims. What would there be to keep them from doubling again andf then doubling again? Nothing at all. All competition across state lines would do would be to allow insurers to have a bigger pool, there is no way it will reduce costs. Also group purchasing wouldn't lower costs. Never has in the past. My ex-employer paid exactly what we pay for the same coverage by the same company and my ex- employer has over 6,000 employees.
125% of poverty could be eligible for medicaid.? Our insurance premiums are more than 125% of poverty level for 2 people. We can affordit but people who make 125% of poverty couldn't afford to eat, live indoors, or any of the other extras we take for granted. They also could not afford prescription drugs because our policy does not cover them.
But then Bush wouldn't be able to fly onto an aircraft carrier (as if he won the war singlehandedly) and proclaim victory if he spent the money on cancer research.
Where are our priorities?????
http://www.house.gov
http://www.senate.gov