 |
 |
Dear Representative Gingrich, We want immediate funding of the entire Udall Bill. Please help us. We have three major questions with which you must deal when you grapple with federal spending in the next few weeks. 1. Can't Congress move faster on this? Over a million suffering Americans and countless others worldwide, are waiting for a cure or significant therapy to be found for Parkinson's Disease (PD). Their object is to return from the ravages of PD to a more normal, comfortable, and productive life. PD is greatly misunderstood. Early treatment works very well. However, starting in a few short years, the disease grows from a minor inconvenience to a dreadful, uncomfortable, life-eating monster. The disease gradually produces weirdness and inactivity, the results of which make most patients appear reclusive and lazy. If you want to see what this disease is, don't look at Janet Reno, visit Mo Udall. 2. Is the use of "earmarked funds" really so terrible? Why are some Congressmen so rigid about this? Letting the NIH administration allocate funds has not worked over many years -including last year. Now that there are so many elegant research possibilities like the various growth factors, can we afford to continue these priorities? PD research funding has struggled along at less than $40.00 per patient for many years. As little as three years ago, this was $28. The existence of nerve growth factors has been known for at least five years but in early 1994 the NIH was still funding research into "drug holidays." If earmarking gets the job done what difference does it make? Why would the national health research hierarchy be against this? 3. Why does nobody acknowledge the waste inherent in not fully funding the Udall bill? Conservatively estimated at five billion dollars a year, the status quo wastes more than 13.5 million dollars daily. We should try to stop this hemorrhage of taxpayer money. Many Americans are fond of pointing to the cost of military hardware and asking: "Why couldn't that be diverted into medical research"? However, the real costs are such that one could more legitimately ask, "Why couldn't what we spend on chronic diseases like PD be used to buy something less expensive--like aircraft carriers and B-2s?" I believe this to be one approach that we should be taking. There are doubtless others. Michael, anybody else: Please help me out here. Is this a good idea? Are my facts straight? Would it be a good idea to bombard Mr. Gingrich and others with these three questions? Regards, WHH 54/18