LYNN DURHAM: Opportunity to trike blow against cancer hinges on science, legislation

In Georgia, we do a lot of things right when it comes to cancer prevention and treatment. The percentage of our citizens who have recommended screenings performed continues to rise to the national average, and our percentage of cigarette smokers has consistently decreased each year. Cancer treatments are improving, and we have strengthened public awareness of the need for preventive health care and the importance of healthy lifestyles. In many respects, we have been moving in the right direction.

And, yet, based on projections from the American Cancer Society, nearly 18,000 people in Georgia will die of cancer this year. That remains an unacceptably high number. But if breakthroughs in medical science can merge with forward-looking congressional action over the next few months, we have an opportunity to significantly reduce the number of cancer deaths in our state and throughout the country. Georgia Congressman Drew Ferguson is co-sponsoring a bill that will be critical in making this happen.

One of the greatest obstacles we face in trying to reduce cancer-related mortality is our inability to detect enough cancer cases at a sufficiently early stage to make treatment successful. The numbers in this regard are startling. If cancer is detected early before it has had a chance to spread, the five-year survival rate is around 90 percent. If the cancer is allowed to metastasize and progress to a late stage before detection, that survival rate drops to the 20 percent range. We’re losing people because there are too many cancers that we’re catching too late.

The next few months may be critical in changing this dynamic. There are new cancer screening technologies that have been undergoing large-scale clinical trials throughout the United States and are drawing closer to possible Food and Drug Administration approval. They are blood tests that are capable of detecting dozens of deadly cancers with high accuracy and few false positives. It’s important to understand the extent to which this would expand our cancer screening infrastructure. Today, we only have the technologies available to screen for five types of cancer out of the dozens that exist. Consequently, approximately 70 percent of cancer deaths stem from types of the disease for which there are no screenings. These multicancer blood tests can change all of that.

Once these tools receive FDA approval, we must ensure that they are accessible to the public, especially for populations that are most at-risk for cancer. Older Americans have disproportionately high cancer rates and, therefore, it is critical that these new cancer screenings be covered by Medicare. That’s where the bill that Congressman Ferguson is co-sponsoring takes on great importance.

Medicare is not currently structured to allow early adoption of all new medical tools and treatments, particularly for those classified as preventive in nature. Under current law, FDA approval of these blood tests wouldn’t lead to quick coverage. Instead, the new innovation would have to be reviewed by a federal task force, a process that can take up to a decade or longer. The legislation introduced by Congressman Ferguson and a bipartisan group of his colleagues in the U.S. House would allow Medicare to cover multi-cancer early detection tests as soon as the FDA says they are safe and effective.

This would not be an unprecedented action by Congress. Previous Congresses worked to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries had access to mammograms and colonoscopies without having to endure long bureaucratic delays. More than 300 health care advocacy voices from throughout the country, including my organization, the Georgia Center for Oncology Research and Education, are urging this Congress to act now on Ferguson’s vital legislation.

Nearly 18,000 deaths per year from cancer in our state are far too many. We will soon have new tools available to dramatically increase early cancer detection in this country. The question is, will they be accessible? The cancer advocacy community will not accept “no” as an answer.