ASCO Urges Congress to Increase NIH Funding by at Least 15%

Publication
Article
OncologyONCOLOGY Vol 13 No 6
Volume 13
Issue 6

Citing the unprecedented opportunity granted by last year’s 15% increase in biomedical research funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Joseph S. Bailes, MD, then president-elect of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO),

Citing the unprecedented opportunity granted by last year’s 15% increase in biomedical research funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Joseph S. Bailes, MD, then president-elect of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), urged Congress to allocate at least the same increase for fiscal year 2000. The increase would help reach the Clinton administration’s stated goal of doubling the nation’s commitment to biomedical research within 5 years. The administration, by contrast, has proposed a minor 2% increase in NIH funding for the coming year.

“Cancer research is a complex process that, to be successful, must be sustained over time. Increases in 1 year may be to no avail if they are followed by what is, in practical terms, a reduction in the next year,” said Dr. Bailes in his April 1999 testimony to the House appropriations subcommittee. “The subcommittee should at least seek to replicate the 15% increase of last year.”

“We now stand at the brink of a new era in which discoveries about genetics and basic cell biology have created unprecedented opportunities for preventive and therapeutic strategies against cancer,” said Bailes. “If our commitment to clinical research flags in the face of these opportunities, the loss will be great indeed.”

Lack of Access to Clinical Trials Threatens Biomedical Research

In his testimony, Dr. Bailes also cited lack of access to clinical trials as a threat to the national biomedical research effort. The Medicare Cancer Clinical Trials Coverage Act, recently introduced in the Senate, would guarantee Medicare beneficiaries coverage for the routine patient care costs associated with participating in clinical trials. Because clinical trials often represent the best possible care for people with cancer, they should not be considered “experimental” when it comes to insurance coverage.

Recent Videos
Breast cancer care providers make it a goal to manage the adverse effects that patients with breast cancer experience to minimize the burden of treatment.
Social workers and case managers may have access to institutional- or hospital-level grants that can reduce financial toxicity for patients undergoing cancer therapy.
Genetic backgrounds and ancestry may hold clues for better understanding pancreatic cancer, which may subsequently mitigate different disparities.
Factors like genetic mutations and smoking may represent red flags in pancreatic cancer detection, said Jose G. Trevino, II, MD, FACS.
Thomas Hope, MD, believes that an NRC initiative to update infiltration guidelines may organically address concerns that H.R. 2541 outlines.
Insurance and distance to a tertiary cancer center were 2 barriers to receiving high-quality breast cancer care, according to Rachel Greenup, MD, MPH.
4 experts are featured in this series.
4 experts are featured in this series.
Thomas Hope, MD, had not observed an adverse effect attributable to an infiltration across more than a decade of administering nuclear agents at UCSF.
Numerous clinical trials vindicating the addition of immunotherapy to first-line chemotherapy in SCLC have emerged over the last several years.
Related Content