Document text
SUNNY Temp: 69 °F Wind: WNW at 6 mph Monday, June 10, 2002 SECTIONS Home Page Local News Sports Business Obituaries Life Opinion - Politics AP News Weather Classified Archives Site Map EXTRA Cyberchef E The People Golf Job Network Headbone Zone Wellness Connection Movie Times Newspaper in Education Oregon CarZone Outdoor Journal Personals Prime Times Real Estate Tempo A & E TV Times W3 Magazine CLASSIFIEDS Find a Car Find a Home Find a Job Find Everything E SOUTHERN OREGON Destinations Automotive Communities Employment Entertainment Publications Real Estate Recreation Shopping Calendar ABOUT US FAQ What's New Advertise Home Delivery Classified Ad Contact Us Media Kit Jobs @ Mail Tribune Email Story to a Friend May 31, 2002 Smith touts anti-nicotine cancer bill National Cancer Act of 2002 would expand research, improve access to care and make tobacco a federally regulated drug By BILL KETTLER Mail Tribune Sen. Gordon Smith came to Medford Thursday to talk about the ongoing war. Not the war on terrorism — the war on cancer. Oregon’s Republican senator is a co-sponsor of the National Cancer Act of 2002, introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. The proposal would spend $14 billion over five years to expand cancer research, improve access to cancer care and augment cancer prevention programs. It would also give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco as a drug. Smith came to the Smullin Center at Rogue Valley Medical Center to hear ideas from health-care providers and cancer survivors about ways to improve the bill. He said cancer is the second leading cause of death in Oregon and will soon overtake heart disease as the number-one killer. "Fourteen thousand Oregonians will get a cancer diagnosis this year," said Smith, whose mother died of pancreatic cancer. "Nine Oregon women every day learn they have breast cancer. One Oregon woman dies every day of breast cancer." Among its many provisions the bill would: Authorize $100 million to encourage doctors and nurses to specialize in treating cancer. Increase the number of clinical trials — scientific tests that determine the efficacy of experimental cancer drugs. Require medical insurers to pay for cancer screenings and nutritional counseling recommended by a physician. Provide financial incentives for "orphan drugs" — drugs that show promise but help too few people to be profitable. Under the bill, the Food and Drug Administration would have authority to set standards for nicotine content in cigarettes and require more explicit warnings on cigarettes, such as: "Cigarettes are addictive," "Smoking can kill you" and "Cigarettes cause fatal lung disease." The bill also includes measures to encourage the tobacco industry to develop less harmful products and to impose financial surcharges on tobacco-product manufacturers if tobacco use by young people does not substantially decline. Smith said the provision to regulate tobacco "is potentially a huge hurdle to get over. Some people won’t support it, but if it doesn’t survive that doesn’t mean the rest (of the bill) dies with it." Smith said the bill would also finance a study to determine the costs of providing Medicare coverage for the 7 percent of all cancer patients who lack any other insurance. "If you’re told you have cancer, you shouldn’t be told how much it’ll cost to get cured." Jim Beers of Providence Medford Medical Center asked Smith if the bill would include funding for "complementary and alternative" medicine — treatments such as massage, herbs and acupuncture that have proven useful for many patients, even though their value has not been proved scientifically. Smith said it would be difficult to justify expenditures in that area precisely because their value has not been proved scientifically. Some people at the meeting suggested that combining the new tobacco regulations with increased cancer-research funding would be the death of the bill. "It needs to be two separate bills," said Kia Sanford of Ashland after the Smith’s formal presentation. In an interview, Smith said the bill’s provisions to regulate tobacco make sense in the context of fighting cancer. "If you’re serious about preventing cancer, then (regulating tobacco) is not such a radical idea. It’s a highly dangerous drug." Combining tobacco restrictions with a proposal to expand cancer research might actually make it easier to impose stricter controls over tobacco, Smith said, because senators who oppose the bill’s tobacco sections could be perceived as voting "for" cancer. "I want to see who’s going to vote for cancer," he said. "That’s why I think we can win this." Reach reporter Bill Kettler at 776-4492, or e-mail [email protected] Printer Friendly Version Email Story to a Friend Subscribe Archive: Click to Search Mail Tribune Home Local News | Sports | Business | Obituaries | Life Opinion - Politics | AP News | Archives | Site Map E Southern Oregon | Classified Copyright 1997-2002 Mail Tribune. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy web master feedback A D V E R T I S E R S