According to the American Cancer Society: The financial costs of cancer are great both for the individual and for society as a whole. In the year 2002, the National Institutes of Health estimated overall annual costs for cancer as follows: Total Cost: $171.6 billion Direct Medical Costs: $ 60.9 billion (total of all health expenditures) Indirect Morbidity Costs: $ 15.5 billion (cost of lost productivity due to illness) Indirect Mortality Costs: $ 95.2 billion (cost of lost productivity due to premature death) Over one-half of the direct medical costs associated with cancer are for treatment of breast ($6 billion), lung ($5 billion), and prostate ($5 billion) cancers. These estimates are annual aggregate expenditures expressed in 1990 dollars. The cost of cancer screenings, including mammograms, Pap smears, and colorectal exams, adds another $3 to $4 billion to overall cancer costs.

According to the American Cancer Society: The financial costs of cancer are great both for the individual and for society as a whole. In the year 2002, the National Institutes of Health estimated overall annual costs for cancer as follows: Total Cost: $171.6 billion Direct Medical Costs: $ 60.9 billion (total of all health expenditures) Indirect Morbidity Costs: $ 15.5 billion (cost of lost productivity due to illness) Indirect Mortality Costs: $ 95.2 billion (cost of lost productivity due to premature death) Over one-half of the direct medical costs associated with cancer are for treatment of breast ($6 billion), lung ($5 billion), and prostate ($5 billion) cancers. These estimates are annual aggregate expenditures expressed in 1990 dollars. The cost of cancer screenings, including mammograms, Pap smears, and colorectal exams, adds another $3 to $4 billion to overall cancer costs.

Creation and strict enforcement of laws that require specific labeling of products containing chemicals cancer. Let the consumers be informed!

Legislation that commits our government to eliminating all known carcinogens from our food and water

In conjunction with the increase in government spending, we believe that researchers must be held to a higher standard for producing meaningful results. We do not consider more drugs that poison patients’ bodies and do not result in a substantial increase in life expectancy or cure to be meaningful results. The only ones winning the game the way it is currently being played is the drug companies whose CEOs will all tell you that their number one priority is to make profits for the shareholders. We need a much greater sense of urgency on the research side.

In conjunction with the increase in government spending, we believe that researchers must be held to a higher standard for producing meaningful results. We do not consider more drugs that poison patients’ bodies and do not result in a substantial increase in life expectancy or cure to be meaningful results. The only ones winning the game the way it is currently being played is the drug companies whose CEOs will all tell you that their number one priority is to make profits for the shareholders. We need a much greater sense of urgency on the research side.

While the proposed budget for cancer research is 5.5 billion in 2003, our government must get much more seriously aggressive if we are serious about ending cancer and not just managing the status quo. We proposing a doubling of that budget immediately with a commitment to double it every 2 years until it either matches the money spent on treatment or the cancer incidence rates are cut in half.

Estimated costs of cancer in the year 2000 are $180.2 billion: $60 billion for direct medical costs (total of all health expenditures); $15 billion for indirect morbidity costs (cost of lost productivity due to illness); and $105.2 billion for indirect mortality costs (cost of lost productivity due to premature death). (ACS)