It is time for Trump, Congress to finally win the war on cancer

President Trump recently announced The White House Office of American Innovation (“OAI”), with a stated purpose of “overhauling the federal bureaucracy, eliminating stagnation, and infusing fresh thinking from business executives and thought leaders to improve life for Americans, both now and in the future.”  No project is more in need of the OAI, and is of greater importance to the American people, than the government’s role in the ongoing war against cancer.

Since January of 2017 when the new congress was sworn in and President Trump took office, close to 100,000 people in the U.S. have already been killed by cancer. Each day in the U.S., approximately 1,650 people are killed by cancer. While it may be unfair to blame those deaths on our new representatives in Washington, if reforms are not put in place to fix government impediments in the fight against cancer, another 2.3 million people will die from cancer during the remainder of President Trump’s four-year term.

{mosads}The problem is that in terms of government involvement, the current war on cancer is being fought with an outdated strategy and an aging infrastructure. In 1971 President Nixon signed the National Cancer Act. The act’s primary purpose was to replicate the early successes of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in Bethesda, Maryland. The early days at the NCI are a prime example of American government at its best.

At that time, with few effective treatments for most cancers, a diagnosis of cancer was often a death sentence. Out of a sense of urgency, an unconventional arrangement was set up at the NCI, where researchers and physicians worked side by side, with the additional benefit of onsite access to cancer patients as test subjects.  The premise was to bring potential cancer treatments directly from the laboratory to the patient wards, with physicians acting as intermediaries, administering treatments and gaining insight from immediate feedback.

If can match our hopes w/ willpower, we can make tremendous strides in addressing rising cancer rates in LatAm! https://t.co/2oK1Gbd1R8

— Nancy G. Brinker (@NancyGBrinker) May 2, 2017

Desperate times called for desperate measures as conventional medicine offered few answers. Researchers and doctors were given broad discretion to engage in practices that were considered unorthodox by most, and even unethical by others.  New treatment approaches and methodologies were often devised from scratch, through a process of trial and error.

Finally, based upon the initiative, creativity, and years of unwavering dedication from doctors and scientists, the first successful combinational chemotherapy treatments were developed, leading to cures for childhood leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease, and other cancers. To give you an idea of the latitude of experimentation taking place in those days, the first successful chemo therapies were derived from mustard gas, which is still in use today.

The scientists and doctors from the early days at the NCI were risk takers and are true American heroes. Few doctors at that time were willing to even engage in the practice of oncology, which was considered career suicide. With no professional upside and little reward, they put their reputations and careers on the line. That is precisely the type of entrepreneurial spirit that the OAI seeks to re-ignite.

Biden tells #SXSW he wanted to be the president to end cancer https://t.co/Q4cqNUdrNl pic.twitter.com/UU0O3WROSl

— The Hill (@thehill) March 13, 2017

Each administration successive to 1971 has continued to fund the NCI infrastructure, and additional cancer research initiatives both in the public and private sectors.  To date over $100 billion has been spent by the U.S. government on cancer research.  With so many years of high level government spending comes bureaucracy, including power struggles, favoritism, complacency, and a labyrinth of disjointed rules and regulations that have killed the entrepreneurial spirit, and have prevented the type of progress that the National Cancer Act was intended to promote.

The government’s current role in the fight against cancer is an example of the American government at its worst. Research studies used to take weeks or months to complete and were easily modified as they were conducted based upon patient feedback. Similar studies now take years, and are nearly impossible to modify due to strict government regulations.

Patients need insurance coverage for molecular profiling of #lungcancer. #tampa #insurance https://t.co/m8QNbt9pux

— Prelude to a Cure (@PreludetoaCure1) March 8, 2017

Government funded cancer centers are often forced to engage in research geared towards continued funding, as opposed to research that would best help cancer patients. Effectiveness of cancer drugs is determined by the Food and Drug Administration, rather than physicians that are administering the drugs to patients. And new advances in cancer diagnostics or cancer treatments take years to reach patients, as opposed to weeks or months.

These are just a few examples of the types of dysfunction that has developed in the years since the National Cancer Act was signed into law.  An entire ecosystem has been created based upon government largesse. Advances and breakthroughs now come despite the government’s involvement, rather than because of it.

In addition to saving American lives, reforming the government’s role in the ongoing cancer epidemic makes good economic sense.

In 2015, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, issued a report indicating the five most expensive medical conditions among the U.S. population. In terms of healthcare expenditures, those conditions are heart disease, trauma-related injuries, mental disorders, respiratory disease (e.g. COPD and Asthma), and cancer. The highest mean expenditures per person were for cancer, averaging $5,631 per person.

Schumer: New GOP ObamaCare proposal like giving “cough medicine” to cancer patient https://t.co/BHZdZkic21 pic.twitter.com/SCrox4jPmn

— The Hill (@thehill) May 3, 2017

Cancer is the world’s most expensive disease. In the U.S., we currently spend over $125 billion a year on cancer treatments and that number is expected to reach $200 billion by 2020. The largest share of cancer healthcare costs is paid for by the federal government.

Cancer is unlike any other disease. Broadly defined, cancer is the uncontrolled replication of abnormal cells, capable of quickly spreading to surrounding tissue and ultimately throughout the body.  Ironically, the world of cancer research now moves as if it is trapped in quicksand, weighted down by government rules and regulations that slow down the natural pace of technological advancement.

The purpose of this is to create a slow, controlled process to supposedly protect patients. In fact, the process is killing patients, as thousands of cancer patients die every week waiting for better treatment options.

Cancer research needs its own set of rules and regulations that move much faster to stop that from happening.  Terminally ill cancer patients can’t afford to wait and, with doctor supervision, should have faster access to treatments that may be effective. Often used excuses such as legal liability for drug companies and doctors, and potential damage to ongoing clinical trials, can all be addressed with new and improved rules and regulations.

No women among list of senators working on ObamaCare repeal bill https://t.co/2z759gLxCb pic.twitter.com/q7rVNp5rmA

— The Hill (@thehill) May 5, 2017

In 1999, a bipartisan commission of cancer experts and thought leaders was impaneled to put together a comprehensive plan for building a new infrastructure to complete the cancer work that was started in 1971, and to reinvigorate the war on cancer.  A comprehensive proposal was presented to then President George W. Bush on September 10, 2001, the day before the terrorist attacks. That report should serve as a starting point for the OAI action plan.  

Sweeping changes with respect to cancer are needed across many different government agencies, which will only happen with the direct involvement of the president. What better legacy for a president, than to implement the reforms necessary to finally win the war against cancer?

Cancer knows no political affiliations, and afflicts people of all races, income classes, educational backgrounds, and ideologies.  Much has been written that we are a nation divided. What better way to unite the country, than by defeating a common enemy that strikes right here at home, killing thousands of our loved ones every year?

Robert Berman is the President and CEO, and Dr. Amit Kumar is the Executive Chairman of ITUS Corporation, a Southern California based company which is developing blood based diagnostic for the early cancer detection. For more information on the history of the government’s role in the war on cancer, see The Death of Cancer by Vincent T. DeVita and Elizabeth DeDvita Raeburn.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.