Focus on Bowel Cancer
Increased funding and an implementation plan for the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program are the sole focus of Cancer Council Australia’s pre-budget submission to Treasury for 2011-12.
...as the screening program winds down towards an uncertain future after New Year’s Eve.
Cancer Council Australia Chief Executive Officer, Professor Ian Olver, said between New Year’s Eve and the end of 2011 around 15,000 Australians would be diagnosed with bowel cancer – with the proportion picked up at an early stage depending on whether the Australian Government expanded its screening program.
“We have never before focused on just one initiative in a pre-budget submission, but Australia has never before been at the crossroads of such a vital cancer program,” Professor Olver said.
“After 4½ years the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program still only offers a one-off test for people turning 50, 55 and 65, with no new participants invited after 31 December, yet everyone aged 50 and over should be screened every two years.
“With the program due for renewal in next year’s budget, and long overdue for expansion and an implementation plan, the Australian Government is uniquely placed to guarantee the future of the most important cancer program in a generation – and the first cancer screening program for men.”
Professor Olver said recent activity in Federal Parliament reflected growing multi-partisan support for the program – including a joint Greens and Liberal Senate motion, comments and questions from independent MP Tony Windsor, an encouraging response from the Minister for Health and Ageing and speeches from individual lower house MPs from the Labor and Liberal parties.
“Everyone seems to support the program in-principle, so the only thing missing is the financial commitment,” he said.
“We estimate a full program would cost around $140 million per annum to run. That’s about 23c a week for each taxpayer – or fewer than 1c a week for each of the 30 lives that could be saved.
“Reductions in public hospital expenditure, PBS and Medicare costs would substantially reduce the program’s overall cost, making it cost-effective as well as being able to save so many lives.”