While the congressional super committee meets in Washington in the hopes of lowering spending by about $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years, here's one of the sobering realities they must face: In that same decade, the nation will spend an additional $2 trillion caring for Americans with Alzheimer's.
The cost of this care -- primarily in Medicare and Medicaid payments -- will negate virtually all of the gains made from the Budget Control Act of 2011. For the health of our nation's economy and seniors, we cannot accept this two-steps-forward, two-steps-back approach.
To achieve real and lasting savings, the super committee must recommend more funding for Alzheimer's research for the new treatments that will produce massive savings to the Federal government in the next 10 years.
Despite the overwhelming evidence of a growing health crisis and price tag, the National Institutes of Health only invests about $450 million per year researching cures and treatments of Alzheimer's. By contrast, it annually invests $5.8 billion on cancer and $3.1 billion on HIV. Cancer and HIV/AIDS death rates are declining and Alzheimer's death rates are up dramatically. This lack of urgency explains why, among the nation's 10 leading causes of death, Alzheimer's is the only disease with no known treatment or cure.
As we gear up for the 17th World Alzheimer's Day next week, 5.4 million Americans suffer from Alzheimer's disease. Last year alone, Alzheimer's cost taxpayers $183 billion.
As baby boomers turn 65 this year at the rate of 10,000 per day, one in eight of them will have Alzheimer's and 10 million of them will die with this disease. This baby boomer class includes notably spry Americans like Dolly Parton, Steven Spielberg and both Presidents George W Bush and Bill Clinton.
Perhaps the reason curing Alzheimer's is not a top-of-mind issue is because it's not pleasant to think about. For many of us, there is no greater fear than losing a lifetime of memories.
Another reason some aren't as concerned about Alzheimer's is because they see the effects of the disease as a normal function of aging. But from personal experience, I can say there is nothing normal about Alzheimer's.
Twenty years ago, my wife's mother called at 3 a.m. to complain about a strange man in her house. We rushed over, only to find that the "strange man" was my father. By the end of her life, my wife's mother could no longer speak, move or recognize her daughter. This lioness of a woman disappeared into the unforgiving chasm of Alzheimer's.
We can change this devastating fate for other Americans and for the future of our heavy economy.
The research community believes a cure for Alzheimer's is possible within 10 years with the right plan adequately funded. Ten years may seem challenging -- and it is -- but let's not forget President John Kennedy's challenge in 1961 to land a man on the moon before the decade was out. Apollo 11 touched down on the moon just eight years later. It's time for another giant leap for mankind.
As Jonas Salk said before discovering a vaccine for polio, "We don't need more iron lungs, we need a cure." Today, we don't need more nursing homes, we need a cure. Alzheimer's is bankrupting our nation. In this era of budget austerity, we cannot afford anything less than a cure.
Steven East, CEO and President
Caring People Home Healthcare Agency Servicing New York, New Jersey and Florida
http://www.caringpeopleinc.com
and bromide and fluoride are not completely outlawed, then
all research is just another corporate funded lie.
GET SERIOUS!!!
Do you realize how many people go bankrupt in the US because of medical costs? More than t 700,000 a year and that doesn't count the 45,000 people who die yearly because of lack of insurance.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/health/bankruptcy.medical.bills_1_medical-bills-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH
compromised to the point that 10 years is a pipe dream and 30 a reality.
Which becomes an even bigger tragedy because of the higher number of persons affected and the
costs involved.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-530252/Scientists-claim-cannabis-offer-hope-Alzheimers-sufferers.html
As long as there is more money to be made in treating diseases like AIDS and Alzheimers, there will be no cures. Big Pharma is one of the major controlling corporate arms of this government, and that is not likely to change. Unless perhaps some of the tools at the top actually get the diseases - hey, I can dream.
Remember it's not an infectious disease like smallpox or AIDS- there is no hope of it being eradicated. So being able to treat it or halt its progression would be plenty profitable to the pharmaceutical companies, especially as the population of developed nations grows older. There's a chance that discoveries of lifestyle factors contributing to the onset of the disease would reduce the number of people who develop it, but that usually has a minor impact on the numbers, unless it was something as simple as washing hands or taking a supplement.
I do agree with you on the cost of medicine in the US. I have no objection to subsidizing the cost for third world countries, but it's ridiculous that we're paying 5-10x as much as other industrialized countries. It's largely due to a "let the insurance companies pay for it" attitude, but they stick it right back to us with $1000 monthly premiums. We make up less than 5% of the world population and pay ½ of the total pharmaceutical cost. The EU, UK, Canada and Japan (just to name a few) should be paying a little more to help offset the burden on the US.
None of the above even scratches the surface of the cost of the OTC meds, medical supplies and medical equipment... which keeps the entire medical industry going.
And Alzheimer's can show signs as far out as 20 years before death, however usually it's "caught" about 10 years out. Still 10 years of thousands and thousands of dollars on meds a year... Cure be damned! The longer we go without a cure the more millions Big Pharma makes.
A drug that would "stop" the progression, on the other hand, would clearly be a one shot inflow of revenue, and that would never satisfy the greedy corporate slugs who own the drug companies.
Also, when you say, "cure," I'm thinking you mean expensive medication daily until end of life, thereby controlling chronic symptoms.
The people who can afford these medications can afford expensive nursing homes. The poor people won't be able to afford the medications, so they'll still end up on Medicaid in the cra*py nursing homes, draining federal funds, imo.
I'm sorry about your loss.
As long as AD exists with no effective treatments, we'll still be spending trillions of dollars to care for sufferers. That means too little funding for many other needs. I don't know what diseases you're thinking of that specifically affect younger people. There are very few of those. Diseases such as cancer and heart disease are rare in the youngest people, and there are extensive research programs already working on those diseases.
Medicad doesn't relegate one to living in a crappy nursing home. There are many outstanding not-for-profit nursing homes that take Medicaid funding, particularly homes sponsored by a religious group. Yet those religious groups don't proselytize, so residents of any religion are welcome there and not made uncomfortable.
Make it happen Cap'n...
Oh, that's right, the nursing homes donate to the Tea-Publicans....
Well, maybe some other time.
Congress has clearly demonstrated that logic and sense don't matter at all when there's a big political donor.
It's all about what money you can donate to the venal, corrupt congress.
Just because it would save money and improve lives - who cares?