There was good news for New Hampshire out of Washington Wednesday, as U.S. Rep. Annie Kuster notes today on these pages.
Congress has approved the 21st Century Cures Act, a massive $6.3 billion bipartisan health care spending package that includes $1 billion to be shared over two years by states – like ours – fighting the tragic impact of opioid abuse.
The much-needed funds for recovery, treatment and prevention programs will be distributed to the states based on their experience with opioid overdoses, which means, regrettably, that New Hampshire, which has the third highest rate in the country, should be at the top of the list.
For all Americans, the 996-page Cures Act, now before President Obama, signals new hope for research into the prevention and treatment of deadly and debilitating diseases. Its progress seems to have flown under the radar during the cacophony of the presidential campaign, but the bipartisan bill has been called the biggest health care measure since Obamacare.
The Cures Act provides $4.8 billion to the National Institutes of Health for major research programs, including Vice President Biden’s Cancer Moonshot project, to speed up research; the BRAIN initiative, which focuses on understanding brain disorders, including Alzheimer’s; and an ambitious “Precision Medicine” project to collect data on genetics, lifestyle and environment to help doctors individualize treatments.
Three years in the making, the Cures Act not only holds promise for research but also makes changes that will bring new prescription drugs and medical devices to market faster for sick patients anxious for treatments. The Food and Drug Administration, which oversees drug approval, will receive $500 million to carry out the act’s provisions.
Here’s where we pause. No one wants to undermine a mission to cure devastating disease – like the brain cancer that took the life of the vice president’s son Beau, or Alzheimer’s, which has stolen too many of our friends and loved ones, including Rep. Kuster’s mother, Susan McLane. Obviously, funds for prevention and treatment of opioid abuse are essential to our state’s well being.
It is also true, however, that for all its very good provisions, the Cures Act has been the target of opposition from high-level critics, doctors, academics, influential public watchdog groups and most notably U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Too often, Warren’s hot rhetoric distracts from sound policy arguments. But in this case, what she and others have said warrants a careful review, because while the Cures Act is about to become law, the debate about health care reform is far from over.
Warren says what began as a good bill has been “hijacked” by the pharmaceutical industry, lowering standards for drug approval and medical devices, making it quicker to get them to market but risking patient safety and doing nothing to reduce prices. Critics say the bill reduces the degree of evidence drug makers need to show to gain FDA approval, undermining the agency’s credibility.
“This is all in the category of dumbing down the criteria for drug approval,” Dr. Jerry Avorn, a professor of medicine at Harvard told the New York Times. “It’s a lower bar and a shorter race.”
Funding for the bill comes from sales of strategic petroleum reserves but also by a 30 percent cut over seven years in prevention funds provided in Obamacare – a move that met considerable criticism. Objections from Warren and others did not go totally unaddressed – a provision exempting disclosure of payments to doctors from companies was withdrawn.
“You have to be willing to compromise to get what you want,” New Hampshire’s senior U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen told the Union Leader as the bill headed to the Senate. That’s what legislating is all about, she said. We agree. But with armies of drug company lobbyists on permanent duty on Capitol Hill, the opposition – delivered with a bullhorn or not – must be heard.