NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
SPONSOR: |
Altamirano |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
|
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Prostate Cancer Awareness & Education |
SB |
553 |
||||
|
ANALYST: |
|
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
$100.0 |
|
|
Recurring |
GF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Relates to: HB144, SB133, and SB 534
Responses
Received From
Department
of Health (DOH)
Health
Policy Commission (HPC)
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
Senate Bill 553 appropriates $100,000
from the general fund to the Department of Health (DOH) to develop and
implement a program to increase awareness and education about prostate cancer,
increase early diagnosis and treatment, and provide support services.
Significant
Issues
Prostate
cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among all race/ethnic groups in
Last year, Senate
Joint Memorial 8 of the 45th New Mexico Legislative Session directed
the DOH to convene a Task Force of healthcare professionals to develop a report
providing legislators with information on the burden of prostate cancer in New
Mexico; the status of prevention and early detection for prostate cancer; the
controversy over screening and treatment of prostate cancer; and survivorship
issues.
Based on
extensive research of the issues described in this analysis under substantive
issues, The Task Force made the following recommendations to the legislature in
November 2002:
“Education, both public and professional, is
needed in
Proposed
Performance Measures: Number of men
receiving evidence-based education on: a) prostrate cancer; b) the risks and
benefits of prostate cancer screening; and c) the risks and benefits of
prostate cancer treatment.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The appropriation of
$100.0 contained in this bill is a recurring expense to the general fund. Any
unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of FY 04 shall revert
to the general fund.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
The
Comprehensive Cancer Program within the Chronic Disease Bureau of the Public
Health Division could incorporate oversight of the new contracts created as a
result of SB 553 with existing staff.
RELATIONSHIP
HB144/SB133,
Tobacco Fund Settlement Appropriations, makes appropriations from the Tobacco
Settlement Fund for a variety of projects including a $100,000 appropriation to
the Department of Health for public education on prostate cancer.
SB534,
also Tobacco Fund Settlement Appropriations, makes a $100,000 appropriation
from the Tobacco Settlement Fund for a variety of projects to the Department of
Health for public education on prostate cancer. It does differ from HB144 and
SB133 regarding the specific amounts for different projects.
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Prostate
cancer is the most commonly diagnosed form of cancer, other than skin cancer,
in the
Age, race, ethnicity, and family history are factors that affect the risk for prostate cancer. About 80% of men with clinically diagnosed prostate cancer are aged 65 years or older.
Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in American men. By age 50, up to
one in four men have some cancerous cells in the prostate gland. By age 80, the
ratio increases to one in two. The risk of prostate cancer increases with age.
In the
Prostate cancer
is the leading cause of cancer death among American Indian men and the second
leading cause, after lung cancer, among White, Hispanic, and African American
men (Source: NM Department of Health).
Currently, there are no effective
measures for preventing prostate cancer because the major risk factors (age,
race, family history) cannot be modified.
Screening methods, such as digital rectal examination (DRE) and prostate
specific antigen (PSA), are commonly used by clinicians for early
detection. In
DOH reports
that Digital rectal examination (DRE) has been used for years as a screening
test, but its ability to detect prostate cancer is limited. Tumors often form in areas of the prostate
that cannot be reached by a DRE.
Clinicians also can have difficulty distinguishing between benign
abnormalities and prostate cancer.
The
prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurement is a blood test that many
clinicians use to screen for prostate cancer.
PSA is an enzyme measured in the blood that can rise naturally as men
age or if prostate abnormalities are present.
However, DOH notes, that the PSA test cannot distinguish prostate cancer
from benign growth or other conditions, such as prostatitis
(inflammation of the prostate).
Public communication
campaigns need to be developed to inform men of the importance of consulting
with their health care provider about prostate cancer, the risks and benefits
of screening and treatment for prostate cancer, and availability of resources
for men diagnosed with prostate cancer.
Education on treatment options is crucial as the choices are
complex. Men and their family members
should be thoroughly educated on the pros and cons of their options. Since all
treatments carry some risk for negative long-term side effects such as
incontinence and impotence, men need to be aware that the risks may outweigh
the benefits.
BD/sb