Even amidst fiscal tightening, cancer research has managed to secure bipartisan support in Congress and has made significant advancements in fighting the disease thanks to funding from both the government and private sector. Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown University Law School, states that cancer research has transcended political boundaries. However, concerns have arisen this year as Democratic lawmakers and research advocates worry that the new debt ceiling deal could limit future spending growth for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The recently signed legislation maintains relatively flat nondefense discretionary spending for 2024 and only provides a 1 percent increase for 2025. As a result, health agencies might face cuts to keep the government’s non-defense budget under $652 billion.
Senator Tammy Baldwin, chair of the Senate appropriations subcommittee responsible for funding the Department of Health and Human Services, expresses apprehension about the budget constraints negatively impacting cancer research funding. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the appropriations committee in the House, also highlights that the cap on non-defense spending is approximately $9 billion lower than current levels, meaning that funding will have to be diverted from other areas to compensate. Republicans, however, downplay these concerns, assuring that cancer research will not be jeopardized.
President Biden has prioritized cancer research and aims to build upon the bipartisan progress in fighting the disease. The administration has relaunched the “cancer moonshot,” which was originally established in 2016 during the Obama administration when Biden served as vice president. The National Cancer Institute (NCI), responsible for overseeing the initiative, has already invested $1 billion in over 240 research projects. Efforts have been made to sustain funding specifically for the moonshot initiatives, ensuring collaboration across government departments and agencies.
While cancer research receives substantial funding, there are concerns regarding how the funding is allocated. High-profile cancers tend to receive more funding, while cancers with higher mortality rates often receive less. Gostin emphasizes the importance of funding being proportionate to the burden of the disease rather than influenced by political factors or emotional appeals. For instance, cervical, ovarian, and uterine cancers receive limited funding from the National Cancer Institute, resulting in fewer clinical trials and treatment options for patients.
Suneel Kamath, a GI medical oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic, suggests that the federal government, particularly through the cancer moonshot, can address the long-standing funding disparities and invest in difficult-to-treat diseases that require long-term research. While private entities may prioritize quicker returns on investment, federal agencies can focus on long-term goals. However, it is also essential to ensure that pharmaceutical companies do not exploit incentives provided by the government.
Research funding currently aligns well with disease incidence rates but poorly with mortality rates. Kamath emphasizes the need for a more significant allocation of resources towards lethal cancers in order to improve outcomes.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
