Jim: I have read the draft NIH plan, and I am also quite excited about the real commitment to PD research that the plan represents. I also agree that the strong positive and visionary leadership of Gerry Fischbach has been a godsend for PD research (he really believes that we can solve PD). The relationships we have developed in the past year with Gerry Fischbach, Ken Olden (NIEHS) and other agencies (e.g., NIA, NIMH, CDC) have been key to our accelerating success in obtaining research funding. Also important in our success has been the increased cooperation among PD organizations, which has also been reinforced by leadership from Dr. Fischbach. I do not think our work is done yet, however. Hang on to that baton, Jim. We still need you and all the "wonderful PD advocates" (as Gerry Fischbach described me when he introduced me to his wife) who speak out to their elected officials. The political support that you and I and every one of our increasingly powerful "grass roots" advocates provide is essential to assure continued Federal funding for PD. The ideas and concerns we provide are also critical to assure that the funding is directed toward new knowledge AND translating knowledge into delivery of effective treatments to the population. Jim, you have played a role at the Univ. of Pittsburgh to ask the question "what does this research do for PWP?" We need advocates to ask such questions at every research center as well as at the NIH and other public agencies For example, I have been particularly interested in promoting additional clinical research to test and implement new treatments for today's PWP, including surveillance of the problems of PD and the utilization of the most effective treatments. We do not know how many people have PD or how the incidence is changing over time. We do not know the proportions of PWP who are misdiagnosed or not diagnosed (some small studies show 25% to 40% undiagnosed). We do not know how many PWP see a PD specialist or whether that makes a difference. (for further information on the status of PD delivery in the US see: www.parkinsonscare.org/pdstatus.html). NINDS is the lead agency for PD research but it has traditionally been a basic science oriented agency with limited resources devoted to service delivery clinical research and population studies. Dr. Fischbach was not familiar with this area of research a year ago, but he has an open mind. I have met with government officials at Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to encourage work on PD and collaboration and I have raised delivery of care issues among PD advocates as well. I am pleased that outcomes research and quality of care issues are on the NIH agenda. PD advocacy is needed for other quality, access and healthcare delivery issues of concern to PWP. Two examples: -- Medicare caps on reimbursement for rehab services severely limit access to physical therapy, occupational therapy and other beneficial services. -- The increasing use of caps on perscription drug benefits by health insurers, for those lucky enough to have coverage, have a major impact on PWP (see www.parkinsonscare.org/washpost.htm). We have demonstrated the strength of the grass roots PD advocacy movement, and we have added to our strength by the increased cooperation and coordination among PD organizations. Jim, remember when the Udall bill passed, I told you, on a scale of 1 to 100 collaboration among PD organizations was about 35 (up from 5). Well, now after a dip down in 1998, I would say this past 6 months we are up to maybe 55 or 60. We are moving in the right direction but there is quite a ways to go. Vocal grass roots support for greater communication and collaboration among PD organizations, setting aside parochial interests, can help us enhance our strength further. So let's all hang on to that baton, we have lots of work to do. Even if the cure was found tomorrow, it is not a given that it will be accessible to all PWP. Let's keep service delivery issues on the table for our policy agenda. ------------ To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Passing the baton From: Jim Cordy <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 22:19:57 -0500 Importance: Normal Reply-To: "Parkinson's Information Exchange Network" <[log in to unmask]> Sender: "Parkinson's Information Exchange Network" <[log in to unmask]> Champagne for the ceremony. I wish we were altogether in one place to have an official passing of the baton from the advocates to the scientists. What kind of gibberish is Cordy talking now. I will fess up to being a little euphoric. But we have climbed the mountain and there before us lies the cure for Parkinson's disease. I believe this from the bottom of my heart, if we get the scientists the money they will cure to dam disease, and faster than anyone thought possible. What caused this burst of euphoria? I have just read the draft of the NIH report to Congress "Parkinson's Research Agenda, 2000 -- 2005" . It truly is a blueprint for curing Parkinson's. I'm going to buy a case of champagne so that every time I see one of my fellow advocates we can have a toast to our success. First we did the impossible in passing the Udall bill. Second we play a major role in obtaining NIH's record $2 billion increase each of the last two years. Third, we have developed a very positive relationship with NIH, and NINDS (and its Director Jerry Fischbach) We have only one thing left to do as we pass the baton to the scientists, and that's to make sure: "we have the best scientists doing the best research" That should be our motto in 2000 We need to keep fund-raising money and almost as importantly continue to raise awareness. In particular we have to target our research hospitals and universities. The pitch there should be "there is money in NIH for any valid Parkinson's research initiatives". I thought that the