USPSTF PC Testing- something you can do - 312 letters so far

SR 251 won't pass this year. All of the SR's at mid terms are a tough sell. When I went to DC during a Mid-Term year the only resolution to be passed was CDMRP funding. That's a more important deal anyway. Right now the CDMRP is looking like they may again suffer cuts. So far the PCRP has held steady but i fear that this year will be a threat to that program. Anyone wanting to write their representatives about SR 251, should also be mentioning that the CDMRP has been having funds reduced in recent years and the PCRP is a vital research program that led to such drugs as Xofigo and Zytiga. Losing funds here is a major set back for prostate cancer research.

Tony

The Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP) is the department of defense entity that controls medical research dollars from the US government. The PCRP is the Prostate Cancer Research Program within the CDMRP.

PCRP

CDMRP

Research Funding

Scroll that last one to page 2 to see how much funding is set aside for prostate cancer research every year.  I am a consumer reviewer and advisor to this group.  We will reconvene in July and start reviewing the next years grant applications.  This is far more important than anything the USPSTF says but it should be mentioned with the USPSTF Grade D recommendation.  It informs congressional members that if we don't keep this research program adequately funded then the Grade D recommendation can result in a terrible increase in mortality statistics.  The CDMRP was started in the early 90's to fund breast cancer research but the guys were able to lobby that this should include prostate cancer as well.  As mentioned some great treatment option are a direct result of this funding.  

The opportunity to meet with congress and interact with congress should have the big picture.  I know Sessions has been a proponent of this funding for PCa and he also has been a key fixture for PCa advocacy for quite a few years now.  I personally do have concern over politicians dictating these things to a panel like the USPSTF.  What we really need is a better test than the PSA test to get the USPSTF to act.  And if congress wants to act on that then these programs need more funding.  

Tony

Our UsTOO group is tomorrow. I'll rally up what I can.

Tony

I do know after speaking to a couple of the USPSTF panel members, Tim Wilt said that what's being requested that they do in this legislation they already did. That, he says, unless better paper is provided from the medical community from US doctors, the ERSPC was not good enough to warrant screening and the US physicians provided nothing when requested.

I disagree with the USPSTF on that point but I worry ~ if we legislate essentially forcing their hand you'll need to also legislate their decision for them in order to change the Grade D recommendation if there is still areas of lacking data. And at that point there is no legitimacy to the USPSTF effort. It becomes all politics with weak science.

Ha we should be used to that in the US. So Sessions may or, I predict, may not get this passed. But if he does what is supposed to change? They will argue that they are open to new trials. No one will prod e them and they will say that what they have today is not new since the Grade D was issued.

Tony

Jerry I took ten minutes to discuss with the UsTOO group tonight. I think most were against SR251 but there were others that wanted the links and I obliged.

The folks were against it for a few reasons. Some didn't like congress meddling into a physician task force and forcing them to change findings to a more popular position. Some didn't see the need to pass this kind of legislation while more pressing interests they felt existed. The folks that were for it echoed each and every line of the bill. There should have been oncologists, there should have been urologists, etc. Some wanted to disband the USPSTF entirely.

For my own thoughts I thought that last suggestion is exactly what should happen if SR251 passed. We don't need such a task force if we are going to legislate against their decisions. But realistically, I have to think SR251 is dead in it's tracks. If Sessions, a Republican, can even get this passed in the House there is no way it's passed in the Senate. One way it could be passed is as part of another bill in a compromise. I know Harry Reid's Legislative Assistant on Healthcare. Her name is Carolyn Gluck and she accepts my emails regularly. I will contact her. She'll let me know her thoughts on the bill. For what is being done here SR251 has not passed any floor votes so far and the USPSTF has not testified. And with 7 months to go before elections the campaigning will be hard fought this year. There is little time for the bill to be debated on either floor let alone both. When I was in Washington during the Mid-Terms there were 7 prostate bills or resolutions I discussed at the instruction of ZERO. With exception to continued funding for the CDMRP all of them died without a vote. We had more successes when a new congress was seated in other years but not many.

The problem there is once the elections are done so is the resolution. It will have to be re-introduced when the new congress is seated.

One bill I would like to see introduced next session is one that puts pressure on the medical community to find us a better test. And improve our accuracy in defining who needs treatment and who doesn't.

Tony

PS: We just discussed politics. Love it. I think I'll start a spirituality thread next...:-0