 |
 |
At 09:47 AM 4/26/98 -0400, Greg Leeman wrote: > <<I simply ask are we doing or asking enough? This will bring their [Alzheimer's] funding level to approximately four times as much money as we have received in the past ten years. This is not imply that Parkinson's Disease is more important or has more urgency to expedite a cure. This is just the question that immediately came to mind as I was reading the article this morning.>> Dr. C. Northcote Parkinson might well have suggested a law to the effect that if you want money appropriated, you request some multiple of that amount. The people who appropriate the money will be so happy to get you off their backs for the small amount that you settle for that they will give it to you gladly, and you will receive the money you want without hassle. The case for funding Parkinson's research at $500 million a year for ten years is nearly as economically viable as funding it at $100 million a year for three years, given the magnitude of the savings that could be achieved. But our leadership made the decision to request a realistic amount of money - the amount which they felt would accomplish the job, an amount that they could explain in great detail. I don't fault them for that. But the fact that this is a reasonable amount and not a blue sky request has yet to be pounded home. Consider this: in the past year three new medicines have come onto the market, with a fourth in the wings, as well as the Activa device, all to minimize the symptoms of Parkinson's. We are told that each of these represents an expense of about $500 million dollars over a 15-year period from inception to approval by the FDA. These five efforts would then represent an expenditure of about $2,500 million. It makes the Udall bill's $100 million look sort of puny, doesn't it? Further, these five companies will now have the expense of promoting their products in competition with one another, and in each case there is a risk of not earning back their investment and not making a return on it. Thank you, all five companies, for putting your money where your mouth is. You will have brought substantial relief to many Parkinsonians. We can't forget the suffering that affects us, Parkinsonian and care partner and family alike. We cannot ignore the other negative effects on our lives. But if the profit motive has stirred private enterprise to work and to risk so many dollars, then why should not the government be taking a lesser risk to spend fewer dollars for an even better gain for itself? Arthur Hirsch <> [log in to unmask] <> Lewisville, TX - - - - - - - Always Remember This - - - - - - - - - Happiness Is Right, So Choose Happiness - -