Category Archives: Uncategorized

The Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund (CFC #11967) at CFC Events

Federal employees can learn more about the Cancer
Prevention and Treatment Fund (CFC #11967) when we’re at CFC events:
IMG_6479

October 25, 2016
1322 Patterson Ave SE
Washington Navy Yard
10am – 12pm

October 19, 2016
Office of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
131 M Street NE
1pm – 3pm

September 13, 2016
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment (OASA IE&E) and the Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management (OACSIM)
The Pentagon
11am – 1pm

Missed us? You can download our handouts!

About Us

Our Latest Newsletter

Research Update on Cancer and Military Service

Is it safe for children and athletes of any age to play on rubber instead of grass?


December 9, 2015
Department of Defense – Washington Headquarters Service
10am – 2pm
The Pentagon, Arlington, VA

December 1, 2015
US Agency for International Development
Noon – 2pm
Washington, DC 24558

CFC 2015November 23, 2015
US Navy
11am-2pm
Falls Church, VA

November 19, 2015
Securities and Exchange Commission
10am-4pm
Washington DC

November 18, 2015
Department of Labor
10am – 1pm
Washington, DC

Nov. 10, 2015
Department of Defense – National Guard Bureau
9am-1pm
Arlington, VA

Nov. 6, 2015
Department of Defense – Air Force
1pm-4pm
Joint Base Andrews, MD

November 5, 2015
10:30am-12:30pm
US General Services Administration
Washington, DC

October 29, 2015
Department of Education
9-11am
Washington, DC

October 23, 2015
Department of Defense – Army
1-2pm
Pentagon, Arlington VA

Oct. 15, 2015
Department of Defense – Navy
1pm – 3pm
Falls Church, VA

Oct. 13, 2015
Department of Defense – Education Activity
10am-Noon
Arlington, VA

Oct. 8, 2015
US Patent Office
1:30-3pm
Alexandria, VA

Sept. 23, 2015
National Institute of Standards and Technology
9am-1pm
Gaithersburg, MD

 

 

House overwhelmingly passes bill to speed FDA drug approvals

By Carolyn Johnson, The Washington Post
July 10, 2015

 

A bipartisan bill that would make significant changes to the process for developing new drugs and medical devices overwhelmingly passed the House in a 344-77 vote Friday morning.

The bill, called 21st Century Cures, was cheered by rare across-the-aisle support from politicians, with 230 co-sponsors nearly evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. The pharmaceutical industry, patient advocacy groups, and medical organizations also support the bill, which calls for an additional $8.75 billion for the National Institutes of Health.

The bill tries to address the impatience that stems from a major societal problem: despite billions of dollars of research into diseases that range from common cancers to the rarest genetic diseases, we still lack treatments for thousands of conditions. Many of its provisions seek to make the drug approval process less burdensome.

But its laundry list of provisions that tweak the process for approving new drugs or devices have raised significant concern from industry watchdogs and physicians who say the legislation is aimed more at helping drug and device companies than patients. Critics say the bill’s regulatory alterations do not address the real problem with the development of new therapies and could lead to the approval of treatments that don’t work and could even harm vulnerable sick people.

“The bill unfortunately offers a horse trade,” said Vijay Das, a healthcare policy advocate at Public Citizen, a patient advocacy organization. “It increases funding for the world-renowned NIH in exchange for providing perks for the pharmaceutical and medical device industries.” […]

“We share Congress’ desire to increase funding for NIH, but there are dangerous parts of this bill that many members of Congress did not fully understand,” Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, a nonprofit think tank, said in a statement. “As often happens, well-funded pharma lobbying was more effective than experts’ concerns about patient safety.”

Read the full story here.

Statement of Dr Diana Zuckerman, NCHR President: Regarding the House of Representatives Passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, July 10, 2015

Dr. Diana Zuckerman, PhD
July 20, 2015

We are greatly disappointed by the passage of the 21st Century Cures Act by the House of Representatives.  We share Congress’ desire to increase funding for NIH, but there are dangerous provisions in this bill that undermine scientific evidence used to approve medical products.  However, this was a very technical 350+ page bill, and many Members of Congress did not have the time to fully evaluate the public health implications of the scientific wording.

Cancer patients deserve better!  As often happens, millions of dollars spent on pharmaceutical and device company lobbying were more effective than the efforts of health experts to explain their concerns about patient safety. When campaign contributions and lobbying overwhelmingly support industry wish lists and mislead many patient advocates, as happened here, industry will win. If this bill becomes law, rat and test tube studies will be used to approve medications instead of studies of patients’ health and survival, and cancer patients will be harmed as a result.

Startling link between pregnant mother’s exposure to DDT and daughter’s risk of breast cancer

by Ariana Eunjung Cha, Washington Post
June 17, 2015

Banned by the United States in 1972, the insecticide DDT is best known as the impetus for the modern environmental movement. Since Rachel Carson’s bestseller “Silent Spring” sounded the alarm about the poisonous effects of the chemical on wildlife, the environment and human health, numerous studies have linked it to birth defects, miscarriage and reduced fertility.

Its role in cancer has been less clear. The Environmental Protection Agency classifies DDT as a “probable” carcinogen. Roughly three dozen studies have been published about DDT and breast cancer risk for women who lived during its peak use in the 1950s, but a 2014 meta-analysis of that research found that there was no significant association between exposure and breast cancer risk.

They may have been looking at the wrong generation of women.

A new study published Tuesday in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism found a startling link between pregnant women exposed to DDT and the breast cancer risk to their daughters.

The study tracked the daughters of women who were part of a study at the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan from 1959 to 1967 near the city of Oakland, Calif. During that time DDT was widely used and accumulated in the fat of animals that we eat and was found in milk, butter, cheese and other products in the food supply. It was also in a number of consumer products, including some wallpaper.

During that period the participants gave birth to 9,300 daughters. Every mother had some measurable level of DDT in her blood. Researchers determined the level of exposure to DDT in utero by analyzing stored blood samples that were taken from the mothers during pregnancy or shortly after they delivered their babies. By using state records and surveying the daughters, who are now in their late 40s and early 50s, they were able to figure out which ones developed breast cancer.

The researchers found that elevated levels of DDT in the mother’s blood were associated with almost a four-fold increase in her daughter’s risk of breast cancer and that this was independent of the mother’s history of breast cancer. They also determined that those with higher levels of exposure were diagnosed with more advanced breast cancer.

About 83 percent of those who got breast cancer had estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer and were more likely to develop HER2-positive breast cancer in which a genetic mutation produces an excess of a protein. In previous studies, DDT has been found to interfere with the function of estrogen and, separately, to activate the HER2 protein, which may explain the link.

Barbara A. Cohn, one of the study’s authors and the director of Child Health and Development Studies at the Public Health Institute in Berkeley, Calif., said the 54-year study is “the first to provide direct evidence that chemical exposures for pregnant women may have lifelong consequences for their daughters’ breast cancer risk.”

Elizabeth Ward, senior vice president of intramural research for the American Cancer Society, said the group of mothers and daughters the researchers are studying is a “unique resource” for studying potential associations between maternal blood levels of chemicals and risk to their children.

“What makes this study interesting is its analysis of in-utero exposure,” she said. However, she said that the number of breast cancer cases was small — 103 — so “the results should be interpreted cautiously.”

In an interview, Cohn said the paper is part of a series of studies on chemicals and their effects on hormones or  development during gestation. Earlier studies she led have looked at the effects of DDT on the time of pregnancy of the daughters of women exposed (they found it could slow their ability to become pregnant or shorten it depending on level of exposure) and on incidence of testicular cancer among the male children (those exposed to the highest levels had an almost three-fold risk  compared with those with lower exposure). She is also studying the effect of other chemicals used for stain control on carpeting and waterproofing for food containers.

“We are looking at a vulnerable period in utero,” she said. “In some ways it is not surprising that early in life is a time when some of these chemicals can have a strong effect.”

Earlier work by Cohn also supports the idea that timing of the exposure matters. In a 2007 paper, she found that DDT affected breast cancer only for women who were exposed before age 14.  The meta-analysis that didn’t find any association between DDT and exposure looked at studies of women who were exposed later in life.

DDT is still widely used in other parts of the world, including regions of Africa and Asia, where it is used to control the spread of malaria.

“Our findings don’t change the perception of benefits, but they do change the perception of risks,” Cohn said. “We are hoping that policymakers will use this information as they continue to debate the use of DDT around the world.”

 

See original article here.

Diversity in clinical trials

We Need Better Clinical Trials

Our president explained to reporters why drugs have to be tested on all kinds of people to know who they work for and who can be harmed by them. Cancer patients deserve studies that include women and men, people under and over 65, and all major racial/ethnic groups.

 

FDA is Chastised Over its ‘Action Plan’ to Diversify Clinical Trial Participation

By Ed Silverman, The Wall Street Journal
August 28, 2014

In response to a law passed two years ago, the FDA was directed to assess the extent to which women and minorities are represented in clinical trials and also devise a plan to bolster their participation. The requirement was made in response to concerns that drugs and devices may often be used by subsets of the population on whom the products were not actually tested.

Well, the FDA released its plan the other day and it was met with what could best be described as faint praise. In particular, a pair of consumer advocacy groups says the biggest issue is that the so-called Action Plan lacks the sort of teeth needed to generate real change. They also complain the plan fails to require drug and device makers to contain specific demographic information in product labeling.

They acknowledged the plan does contain several constructive steps, such as working with drug and device makers to revise product applications with enhanced information on “demographic subgroups;” strengthening FDA reviewer training so the need for demographic data is communicated; improving FDA systems for collecting and analyzing such data; and updating or finalizing guidance for industry.

“The action plan has a lot of good things,” Diana Zuckerman, the president of the National Center for Health Research, tells us. “The problem is there is no incentive for industry to recruit more diverse groups of patients. As long as they continue to test mostly on white men under 65 [years old] and get drugs and devices approved, then they have no incentives” to diversify the pool of trial participants.

What does she suggest? The FDA ought to consider not approving drugs and devices for use in people on whom these products were not tested. As an example, if a drug is tested predominantly on men, then the agency should not endorse widespread use for women. “They need to put some muscle behind their actions. I think if FDA did this,” she says, “then the companies would find they’re able to miraculously find they can recruit all those groups.”

Read the original article here.

Surgery Studies Rarely Use Females

An analysis of papers published in several surgical journals reveals an overwhelming reliance on male subjects and male-derived cells.

By Kerry Grens, The Scientist

August 28, 2014

Sex biases are evidenced in many areas of science—from clinical trials in humans to basic neuroscience studies on animals. Often, male subjects are overrepresented, compromising the generalizability of findings. In a study published in the September issue of Surgery, researchers from Northwestern University analyzed more than 2,300 papers from five surgical journals, finding an overwhelming skew toward investigations involving male-only subjects and cells derived from males.

“Women make up half the population, but in surgical literature, 80 percent of the studies only use males,” Northwestern Medicine vascular surgeon Melina Kibbe, who led the study, said in a press release.

The studies Kibbe and her colleagues reviewed were published in the Annals of Surgery, the American Journal of SurgeryJAMA Surgery, the Journal of Surgical Research, and Surgery from 2011 to 2012. About a quarter of the studies involved animals or cells. Just 3 percent of the total reported using both male and female subjects or cells, while another 22 percent did not state the sex.

According to the release, “editors of the five major surgical journals reviewed in this study have responded to this finding and will now require authors to state the sex of animals and cells used in their studies. If they use only one sex in their studies, they will be asked to justify why.”

Although sex disparities in clinical trials have received considerable attention, such human studies still suffer from unsatisfactory diversity. Last week, for instance, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released an action plan to address the need for more women and minorities in clinical trials. The Wall Street Journal’s Pharmalot blog pointed out that the plan was met with “faint praise,” lacking “the sort of teeth needed to generate real change.”

Speaking with MedPage Today, Diana Zuckerman, the president of the National Center for Health Research, said: “As long as the FDA is going to approve these products for everyone, when they haven’t been studied on everyone, then the [pharmaceutical] companies really have no incentive to improve.”

Read the original article here.

Free patient booklet on ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)

To view, download, or printfree copy of our patient booklet, here is a PDF of DCIS: What You Need to Know.

The Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund has developed a free, easy-to-read 32-page color booklet for women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). It explains DCIS and commonly used medical terms in plain language and helps women make informed decisions about their treatment.

If a woman has a particularly low-risk type of DCIS, she may choose “active surveillance” instead of surgery and other treatment. Active surveillance consists of closely watching the patient’s DCIS to make sure it does not develop into breast cancer. The patient can choose surgery and other treatments if the DCIS develops into breast cancer, or if she decides she wants surgery for any other reason. Another option for women with particularly low-risk types of DCIS is to take the hormone pills tamoxifen to prevent breast cancer, rather than surgery.

Experts estimate that at least half of all women diagnosed with DCIS would never develop breast cancer even if they never received any treatment for their DCIS. Since no one knows for sure which women with DCIS will develop breast cancer and which won’t, most women with DCIS choose to get some form of surgery. This booklet focuses on helping women decide what kind of surgery to get and what other kinds of treatment they might want or need.  Patients should keep in mind that if their physician tells them that they have a particularly low-risk type of DCIS, they may want to consider active surveillance or tamoxifen only, rather than surgery in addition to other treatments.

The current booklet was approved and funded by a grant from the D.C. Cancer Consortium through the Department of Health, Government of the District of Columbia, and a grant from the Jacob and Hilda Blaustein Foundation.  To request copies of the free patient booklet, write  info@stopcancerfund.org   or call    202-223-4000.

We are currently updating the booklet to include information about active surveillance. 

Testimony of Dr. Anna E. Mazzucco to FDA advisory committee on olaparib

June 25, 2014

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund. My name is Dr. Anna Mazzucco, and after completing my Ph.D. in Cell and Developmental Biology from Harvard Medical School I conducted research at the National Cancer Institute. I speak from those perspectives today.

Our nonprofit organization conducts research, scrutinizes data in the research literature, and then explains the evidence of risks and benefits to patients and providers.  Our president is on the Board of Directors of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA, which is a nonprofit dedicated to increasing the resources that the FDA needs to do its job.  Our organization does not accept funding from pharmaceutical companies, and therefore I have no conflicts of interest.

Maintenance therapy for ovarian cancer patients is vital to extending the recovery time between chemotherapeutic regimens and preserving the efficacy of those agents.  Under consideration today is whether there is sufficient evidence at this time to approve olaparib for a maintenance therapy indication for platinum-sensitive high-grade relapsed serous ovarian cancer.

The goal of maintenance therapy is to extend the time between therapeutic intervals with an optimal risk-benefit ratio.  Otherwise, these patients would not be taking any medication during this time and need this period to recover before additional chemotherapy is needed.  Therefore safety, efficacy, and quality-of-life measures are defining features of maintenance therapy.

Afterreviewing the study evidence, we have three major concerns about olaparib, which were also raised by the FDA.

Firstly, we are concerned about the reliability of the progression-free survival benefit of olaparib, especially since there was no improvement in overall survival during Study 19.

Secondly, we are concerned about the safety profile of olaparib in the context of maintenance therapy. Olaparib-treated patients were almost twice as likely to experience a serious adverse event, in addition to the potentially elevated occurrence of myelodysplastic syndrome orAML.

Lastly, we are concerned that there is not enough evidence of efficacy and low toxicity to ensure that use of olaparib will not compromise patient response to subsequent therapy, which is critical to successful maintenance therapy.

Previous studies of first-line therapy for ovarian cancer suggested that progression-free survival can be predictive of overall survival.  However, a recent paper by the Society of Gynecologic Oncology cautioned against extrapolation of progression-free survival to presumed overall survival benefit in the context of prolonged post-progression survival and multiple lines of treatment.

I’m sure we all agree with the FDA that overall survival is clearly the most significant efficacy measure.  Progression-free survival may only be an acceptable efficacy endpoint when certain criteria are met.  These criteria include low toxicity and efficacy which is both truly predictive of clinically significant benefit and is of robust magnitude, in this particular case, an extension of progression-free survival by six months or more.

Given these stipulations, the seven month extension of progression-free survival in gBRCAm patients may meet a minimal efficacy threshold, but there are strong concerns about the reliability of this observed effect.  In the exploratory analysis conducted by the FDA within the placebo arm, the gBRCAwt/vus population unexpectedly had a superior progression-free survival outcome when compared to the gBRCAm population.  This suggests that the placebo-treated gBRCAm population may have “underperformed”, meaning that the progression-free survival improvement observed in the gBRCAm population may be overestimated.  The SOLO-2 trial currently underway is powered to precisely detect changes in the hazard ratio.  That data is critical to clarifying the potential progression-free survival benefit of olaparib due to this uncertainty.

While the patient-reported FACT-O quality-of-life measures did not indicate detriment, there were significantly increased adverse events with olaparib treatment, including a 2-fold increase in nausea, a 4-fold increase in anemia, a 2-fold increased incidence of various infections, and a near 2-fold increase in gastrointestinal disorders.

As the FDA stated, the patient-reported measures may not capture all possible negative effects of olaparib treatment, and any reported improvements could also reflect cessation of previous platinum treatments.

In addition, approximately four times as many patients in the olaparib-treated arm versus the placebo-treated arm underwent dose reductions, and about six times as many underwent dose interruptions due to adverse events.  Many adverse events also lasted longer in the olaparib-treated arm. There were ten adverse event categories which lasted more than a month longer for olaparib-treated patients, including abdominal, joint, musculoskeletal pain and nausea.  For these reasons, we are concerned that olaparib does not meet the low toxicity and quality-of-life parameters that are essential in the maintenance therapy setting.

The ongoing phase III SOLO-2 trial has the potential to clarify the potential progression-free survival benefit of olaparib, in addition to providing an additional analysis of overall survival and quality-of-life measures.

The results of SOLO-2 are needed In order to be able to guarantee patients an effective maintenance therapy that is not likely to jeopardize their quality-of-life and overall prognosis.  Therefore, we urge the committee to delay approval of olaparib until sufficient evidence has been provided.

Letter to The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius on comprehensive cessation benefit

To view letter, click here.

February 19, 2014

The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Hubert H. Humphrey Building
200 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 120F
Washington, DC 20201

Dear Secretary Sebelius:

We are writing to ask your Department to clearly define a comprehensive tobacco cessation benefit in the Affordable Care Act regulations or, at the very least, in corresponding guidance documents.

Recently, your Department released the 50th anniversary Surgeon General’s report, The Health Consequences of Smoking – 50 Years of Progress, which found that smoking is even more hazardous and takes an even greater toll on the nation’s health than previously reported. We appreciate the work that went into producing this historic report and applaud your commitment to reducing tobacco use.

Noting that the “current rate of progress in tobacco control is not fast enough. More needs to be done,” the report calls for a number of specific actions, including: “Fulfilling the opportunity of the Affordable Care Act to provide access to barrier-free proven tobacco use cessation treatment including counseling and medication to all smokers”. As you noted during the release of the report, and on previous occasions, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) “requires insurance companies to provide tobacco cessation services to their customers.” But we are concerned that tobacco users who are ready to quit do not have access to free cessation services under the ACA.

The Surgeon General report notes that the implementation of tobacco cessation treatment coverage mandated by the ACA varies significantly across private health insurance contracts. In fact, evidence indicates that many health plans are not covering services that have been proven to help tobacco users to quit. A 2012 study by Georgetown University’s Health Policy Institute found that many health insurance plans are failing to provide the coverage mandated by the ACA for treatments to help smokers and other tobacco users quit. Specifically, researchers found that only four of the 39 private plans analyzed clearly covered a full-range of evidence-based tobacco cessation services (i.e., individual, group and phone counseling and both prescription and over-the-counter tobacco cessation medications). Contract language for these plans often contained vague or conflicting language that made it impossible to determine which, if any, tobacco cessation services were covered. When the extent of coverage could be determined, many of these plans excluded coverage of prescription and/or OTC medications for tobacco cessation and excluded certain types of counseling. Also troubling, some of the plans analyzed impose cost-sharing requirements for tobacco cessation treatments.

We believe that this study makes clear that many insurance issuers are not in compliance with the ACA. As a result, many tobacco users’ access to tobacco cessation treatment may be limited. This information has been shared with your Department, yet HHS has not taken any action to make clear to insurers what is required under the ACA.

Tobacco cessation treatments have received an ‘A’ rating by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which means there is a high certainty that tobacco users will benefit substantially from receiving these services. As an ‘A’ rated service non-grandfathered group plans and insurance issuers must cover these evidence-based tobacco cessation services with no cost-sharing.

The Interim Final Rule implementing Section 2713 of the PHS Act did not attempt to translate the clinical recommendations of the USPSTF into an insurance coverage benefit. The only description in the Interim Final Rule of the tobacco cessation services that must be covered is the following: “The USPSTF recommends that clinicians ask all adults about tobacco use and provide tobacco cessation interventions for those who use tobacco products.” This statement is only the summary of the USPSTF recommendation. The full USPSTF recommendation clearly indicates that counseling and medications are both effective and a combination of counseling and medications “is more effective at increasing cessation rates than either component alone.” USPSTF references the United States Public Health Service Clinical Practice Guideline, Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: A 2008 Update (the “PHS Guideline”), as the source for a detailed description of effective evidence-based tobacco dependence treatments. Without further guidance from HHS, group plans and health insurance issuers have been able to decide for themselves how to translate the USPSTF clinical recommendation for tobacco cessation services into a covered benefit. Based on the results of the Georgetown University study, many insurers are interpreting the coverage requirement too narrowly, failing to cover tobacco cessation services that the USPSTF has specifically found to be effective.

We are aware that the implementing regulations for section 2713 of the PHS Act permit issuers to “use reasonable medical management techniques to determine the frequency, method, treatment, or setting for an item or service to the extent such frequency, method, treatment or setting are not specified in the recommendation or guideline.” We do not believe that reasonable medical management should allow plans and issuers to ignore the full USPSTF recommendation that specifically lists both the types of medications and counseling that have proven to be effective. All tobacco cessation services that the USPSTF has found to be effective should be covered, not merely some of them. HHS has been provided evidence that many insurance issuers are ignoring the USPSTF recommendations, and without guidance from the Department, group plans and issuers will continue to not provide tobacco users with the effective set of cessation services that Congress intended.

We strongly recommend that the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Labor, and Department of the Treasury issue guidance to industry clarifying that “tobacco cessation interventions” include coverage of both counseling sessions and FDA-approved medications and that these interventions will be covered whether or not they are delivered during an office visit. As you know, tobacco users need to be encouraged to use cessation services, and lack of clarity about cessation coverage will result in confusion among both health care providers and consumers, leading to fewer successful quit attempts.

Evidence suggests that providing comprehensive tobacco cessation benefits is cost-effective. In 2006, Massachusetts’ Medicaid program (MassHealth) initiated a program to provide tobacco cessation treatments (tobacco cessation medications and counseling) to smokers. A 2012 study published in PloS One shows that Massachusetts saved more than $3 for every $1 it spent on services to help beneficiaries in the state’s Medicaid program quit smoking. These savings are conservative as they do not include long-term savings, savings that may occur outside the Medicaid program, or savings beyond cardiovascular-related hospital admissions. An earlier study found that after Massachusetts implemented this program for all Medicaid beneficiaries, the smoking rate among beneficiaries declined by 26 percent in the first 2.5 years.

There is precedent for HHS to provide guidance beyond the Interim Final Rule on how plans and issuers should comply with the required coverage of USPSTF-recommended services, such as through the FAQs released by the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services. The failure to clearly define a comprehensive tobacco cessation benefit in regulations or in supplemental information will allow insurers to continue to provide inadequate coverage and impose cost-sharing requirements, contrary to the ACA.

As noted in the recent Surgeon General report, the tobacco cessation benefits contained in the ACA hold great promise but in order to ensure access to cessation services and coverage that reflects the full USPSTF recommendation, we urge you to provide additional guidance on the requirement for coverage of tobacco cessation treatment. With additional guidance, we believe you can make tremendous progress toward accomplishing the specific recommendation laid out in the Surgeon General report and fully maximize the public health benefit of CDC’s Tips from Former Smokers media campaign and other HHS efforts to reduce tobacco use.

The following groups stand ready to help in any way in these efforts, which will save lives and money.

Sincerely,

American Academy of Family Physicians
American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery
American Association for Cancer Research
American Association for Respiratory Care
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
American College of Cardiology
American College of Chest Physicians
American College of Physicians
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
American Dental Association
American Heart Association
American Lung Association
American Psychological Association
American Public Health Association
American Society of Clinical Oncology
American Thoracic Society
Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs
Association of State and Territorial Health Officials
Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund
Legacy
Lung Cancer Alliance
National Association of City and County Health Officials
National Physicians Alliance
North American Quitline Consortium
Oncology Nursing Society
Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions
Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco

cc:
Marilyn Tavenner, Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

Gary Cohen, Deputy Administrator and Director, Center for Consumer Information and Insurance
Oversight, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

2014 Foremother and Health Policy Hero Awards Luncheon

To view invitation as PDF, click here.

flowers

 

The National Research Center for Women & Families

Cordially Invites You to Our

2014 Foremother Awards and Health Policy Hero Luncheon 

Friday, May 9, 2014 at Noon 

The Mayflower Hotel

1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 

Join ABC7/WJLA’s Maureen Bunyan, our Mistress of Ceremonies, on May 9th, the Friday before Mother’s Day, at the elegant Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. as we celebrate our 15th anniversary as a national charity and honor our 2014 Foremothers.

  •  Irene Pollin has dedicated her life to improving the lives of others, as a psychiatric social worker, writer advocate, and philanthropist. She is the founder and chairperson of Sister to Sister: The Women’s Heart Health Foundation, the first organization to address the public health crisis that heart disease is the #1 killer of women. Sister to Sister has provided more than 100,000 free heart health screenings and counseling nationwide.  With her late husband, Abe, the Pollins co-owned the Washington Wizards and the Washington Capitals, and together helped revitalize Washington, DC through philanthropy, public service, and an unwavering commitment to the community.
  • Phyllis Reynolds Naylor is one of our nation’s most beloved authors of children’s and young adult fiction, best known for her trilogy Shiloh (a 1992 Newbery Medal book about a young boy and an abused dog) and for her Alice books, about a motherless girl looking for a role model while fumbling through adolescence, with the final book highlighting her life from ages 18-60. The Alice books have been praised and criticized for their realistic portrayal of the life of a teenage girl.  Naylor has written more than 135 books, many receiving awards as well as special recognition by the American Library Association and the International Reading Association, and as selections for the Junior Literary Guild.
  •  The Honorable Louise Slaughter is a powerful and unique Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Serving her 14th term, Rep. Slaughter takes on the fights no one else will.  She co-authored the historic Violence Against Women Act and is now on the forefront of fighting sexual assault in the military.   As the only Member of Congress with a degree in microbiology, she has played a central role in the major health and science issues of our time, achieving landmark legislation such as federal funding for research on DES, the inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials, and increased federal funding for breast cancer.  She is the original author of the Genetic Information and Non-Discrimination Act (GINA), which became law in 2008, and the  Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, which would drastically reduce the epidemic of antibiotic resistance.

Our two health policy heroes are ProPublica’s Charles Ornstein and Tracy Weber, whose investigative series of articles delineating Medicare’s reimbursement for doctors prescribing massive quantities of inappropriate medications, and wasting billions on needlessly expensive drugs has resulted in Medicare broadening its powers to reduce fraud, waste abuse, and harmful prescriptions.

We hope you will take advantage of this great opportunity to meet these inspiring individuals, previous Foremother and health policy here honorees, and many of D.C.’s other movers and shakers.   Lunch is from noon to 1:30, preceded by a champagne reception for honorees and patron guests.

Seats are limited and tickets are not available at the door.

Regular lunch tickets are available for a donation of $100 each. Patron Tickets ($175 per ticket) include a champagne reception with honorees at 11:30, priority seating, and a listing in the program.  A table for 10 is $1600. Sponsorships are available, from $1,000-$5,000.

The National Research Center for Women & Families is the leading national organization dedicated to improving the health and safety of all adults and children. Donations for this event support our Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund hotline.

To reserve a ticket, you may donate online at center4research.org and click “Make a Donation” (write “Awards Luncheon” in the comments box and be sure to provide contact information). Or, send a check payable to “NRC,” to 1001 Connecticut Ave, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20036. For more info, contact Maura Duffy at md@center4research.org or (202) 223-4000.

 

For photos and information about previous Foremother and Health Policy Hero Awards Luncheons, click here.

June 13th, 2014 Conference "Evidence for New Medical Products: Implications for Patients and Health Policy"

Co-hosted with Harvard Medical School and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, our conference “Evidence for New Medical Products: Implications for Patients and Health Policy” broke new ground in understanding the public health implications of FDA criteria for approval.  A video is available here. 

harvard_medical

AAAS logo

Rosa
Keynote speaker Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro delivers her welcoming address.