An American Center for Cures?

This election campaign, there has been a lot of talk of change, and one area that has received its fair share of attention is health care reform. Unfortunately in my point of view, much of the reform rhetoric continues to be about how and whether we pay for health care - as opposed to how we do it.

Writing in Thursday's Commercial Appeal of Memphis, Harold Ford Jr. and Al From break that mold with some out-of-the-box thinking - which is always how real change starts. While giving a nod to the reform plans of their party's presidential candidates, the two leaders propose an "American Center for Cures" as a critical element in speeding the development of cures for human illness and injury.

Their well-taken point is that finding cures is in and of itself an equally valuable, people-focused kind of reform - because it can not only improve quality of life but save the costs that are burdening our system.

That's why this focus on driving therapeutic advances, and ultimately a cure to Parkinson's - not just passing on dollars to researchers - is the same approach we've been taking for the last seven years at The Michael J. Fox Foundation.

At the core of this approach is the lesson we have absorbed about the difference between basic and translational research. We've learned that basic research is hypothesis-driven and discovery-focused. Although the findings it yields are absolutely critical to making progress toward cures over the long haul, it is generally oriented toward answering interesting and elegant questions of science - not making a real difference in patients' lives.

We also discovered - when we looked at the landscape of other funders from NIH to private industry - a resource gap that has been aptly described as the "valley of death" for cures. NIH is designed to fund basic research. The biotech and pharmaceutical industry is inclined to fund late stage pre-clinical work and increasingly is even more focused on clinical trials. But surprisingly, no one is deliberately driving treatments through the development pipeline by closing the gap between basic and clinical research.

Translational research is entirely different. Rather than shed light on the basic molecules and processes of living organisms, translational research builds on discoveries already made - and focuses on funneling them through the critical stages of development that can turn them into new medicines or treatments for disease.

For this reason, our Foundation has relentlessly targeted our funds and our efforts to drive translational research for Parkinson's. We encourage early-stage researchers to focus on specific problems and challenges related to the disease. We get proactive about project management, help set priorities, and drive collaboration along the entire development pipeline from basic research to clinical trials.

That's what is so attractive to me about Messrs. Ford's and From's proposal - it takes the same patient-focused, disease-driven, collaborative approach and applies it to the federal government's healthcare efforts. It's an approach I see as complementary to that of NIH, which could continue to drive the basic research on which a separate, more translation-driven Center for Cures could build.

I would love to see the presidential candidates express their views on the concept of a Center for Cures and the potential for "progress-driven" reform of the health care system. After all, what good is it to tinker around the edges of the most expensive health care system in the world - or to fund the greatest discovery engine anywhere - if we're not converting all that investment into real improvements in human health?

Comments

[appleknocker]

A "Center for Cures"? Wonderful! Who can be against cures? But the involvement of Al "DLC" From makes me suspect that this is another of those "public/private partnerships" with public-borne costs and privatized profits.
I also suggest that those who believe that "everything can be cured" - and should be - examine their assumptions. The fact is that you're gonna die. Period. And the longer you live the the greater the probability of a lingering demeaning death. So you might want to be a little selective in deciding what to cure.
Personally, I'd prefer a Center for Palliative Care. With a Department of Voluntary Euthanasia.

[lclilly]

There are an increasing number of 20 somethings diagnosed with Parkinson's and the number keeps rising. The percentage of young onset is alarming.

There is a difference between not accepting death as a natural outcome and suffering for most of your life while you live it.

I am unfamiliar with any 'public cost private profit partnerships.' That doesn't sound fair.

I am familiar with the treatment development process. Big changes are needed - and the consumer is aware of it because of the Internet. But the internet is not used nearly enough- practically not at all - to solve this problem. Is the medical community worrried about the 'commonfolk ' knowing too much? Is it a social class thing? Pity.

I'm afraid it's too late. Common sense dictates online communication, not competition. A Center for Cures is an idea that only those who are completely devoted to their goals can understand.

lclilly

[lclilly]

HuffPost's Pick

It's profit over people. A company cannot spend 800 million dollars on a treatment, and then have the illness cured by someone else. The consequences of curing disease could be catastrophic to careers- even to society.

If the above statement is not how you feel as a medical researcher or pharma exec, please clearly communicate and prove this to people who are suffering with chronic illness along with being told to have hope and remain positive.

Unfortunately, the same thinking, perhaps subconsciously, is being applied to treatments as well. Information is changing too quickly to stop and treat with what is available. Relief of suffering is not the focus. And people wonder why the ill entertain thoughts like: "if I could just give them the illness for one day."

Embryonic stem cell research will no longer be a Federal issue following the election, no matter who wins. Does that mean promising research will be abandoned for a new stream-lined stem cell delivery?

I recently read that participants don't understand when they enroll in clinical trials, they are doing it for the next generation. I don't find that to be true. Wiith illnesses like Parkinson's, they are doing it with hopes of getting better because they are suffering.

Most people know little about treatment development- why should they? I'm guessing the Presidential candidates are lacking in knowledge as well. Thanks, Katie for bringing it to the public's attention.

lclilly

[usabroad]

And how about a center devoted to prevention? Many diseases (and nearly all according to some) are preventable with adequate education and a real commitment to helping people follow through in making the necessary changes. If even half the energy that is spent in looking for cures were channeled into prevention schemes, encouraging wellness education, all aspects of our lives would benefit. In 2002 the cost of Type II diabetes was estimated at $132 billion ($92 billion in treatment and the rest due to lost productivity), but Type II diabetes is one of the ailments most responsive to lifestyle habit changes.

Accident insurance should become universal and wellness insurance should be explored. There is much to be gained, financially, physically, emotionally, by addressing the health (via diet, exercise, environment, stress, etc.) of our society.

[SURRYMARK]

DECLARE WAR ON DISEASE? What an idea !! Use 25% of the Iraq war cost to fund it? What are the chances of that? But what a concept, given out love of declaring war on problems !

[mbaty]

Everything can be cured, and probably inexpensively. It certainly shouldn't cost billions to "research" a drug for a disease--focus on cures, not treatments. We must know and believe that everything can be cured and that it is well within our ability to do so.

[Geauterre]

I could not agree with you more.

[kdogg]

Its about time that we really start talking about this. The much of the current medical research carried out by the drug companies is geared towards treating diseases not curing them. Drug companies don't make as much money curing diseases as they do treating the symptoms of the a disease and have a customer that has to come back them for the rest of their life. Allowing large corporations to choose if and how I get treated based off the best way to make money is one the largest causes of our current FAILING health care system. If we do not make changes to stop this we will continue our slow and steady decline towards third world status.

[Sciguy]

Nonsense. *** ALL *** research, if it's any good, is hypothesis-driven and discovery-focused. If one has no hypothesis, one has no experiment. If one doesn't discover the answer to a question by experimental means, one discovers nothing at all.

Research that doesn't follow the basic tenets of experimental design gives us junk science like colored glasses for autism and ADHD (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-118955906.html). It gives us cancer treatments like drinking herbal tea by the gallon. It gives us chelation therapy. All absolute, utter nonsense, paid for by people desperate for anything at all that might help their conditions.

BTW, we already have a "Center for Cures." It's called the CDC (Centers for Disease Control).

[avicenna]

Aye, but it also gives the people for whom there exists no magic bullet that all powerful (and scientificall undeniable) placebo affect - which I've seen completely change both the focus of control, attitude, and life quality in people living with chronic disease. I consider this outcome (sans side effects of more potent pills) money well spent.

[Sciguy]

True - but many junk science "treatments" cause problems, too, as do "cures" that aren't really cures. Remember laetrile? To top it off, people who opt for fake treatments or placebo cures are actually harmed by not having more conventional treatments immediately. Then they get sicker, and often go for regular medicine, which they then blame for failing to cure them.

It's not really money well spent when one adds in those hidden costs. If one wants a placebo effect, one can still get it from regular medicine, since most conventional treatments for diseases offer the hope of recovery, too. Placebos are easy. Real treatments are hard.

[klmebane]

the CDC focuses on the mechanics of the disease and how to treat it and identifying new diseases, not curing diseases that already exist.

[Sciguy]

True, to an extent - but the NIH and NSF and other major funding groups do focus on diseases that already exist. Also, there is no gap between basic research and clinical research - it's a continuum, in the same way that there's no gap between the computer you're reading this on and the text itself. There is a bridge between each pair of steps. The CDC identifies and tracks diseases, which are then studied by researchers doing everything from studies of the basics of the molecules involved to administration of medicines to treat the problems. Results come from blending the knowledge of all parties involved.