Download TEMPLATE LETTER - DOCTOR DATE TITLE MEMBER FOR X

TEMPLATE LETTER - DOCTOR
DATE
TITLE
MEMBER FOR X
ADDRESS
Via email: XXX
CUTS TO CANCER CARE
Dear XXX,
I write as a radiation oncologist who [lives/works] in your local area.
I am very concerned about the reduction in funding that the Commonwealth
Government is making to the Radiation Oncology Health Program Grants (ROHPG)
Scheme and would like to update you on how this will affect my patients.
The proposed changes – which are a significant reduction in the Commonwealth’s
investment in radiation therapy – will threaten access to modern radiation therapy
equipment and have a profound impact on the delivery of cancer care.
Radiation oncology is an essential treatment for a significant number of cancers. It is
estimated to be involved in 40% of all cancer cures and is used in palliative care to
relieve symptoms such as pain.
I treat XXX patients. However, radiation therapy is used to cure many of Australia’s
most common cancers (prostate, head and neck, bladder, lung, cervix and skin) and
is an important part of the treatment of breast cancer.
[CAN INCLUDE A PATIENT STORY IF YOU WANT]
Radiation oncology uses a number of highly expensive pieces of equipment. The
ROHPG Scheme was designed to help cover the cost of this equipment and ensure
that this equipment is replaced when needed. Due to the high cost involved in
replacing this equipment, without support from the Government, it is likely that
hospitals and practices will delay replacement resulting in equipment becoming aged
and out of date. Prior to the introduction of the scheme, radiation therapy equipment
replacement occurred rarely, compromising patient outcomes.
The effects of these changes will not be immediately felt. Short term budget saving
decisions now will have a far reaching effect for patients needing cancer treatment
into the future. In 10 years’ time it is likely that health facilities may struggle to
replace equipment even though it has reached its useful life, potentially returning to
the problems of the past where patients were receiving unreliable treatment from
sub-standard equipment.
[REGIONAL PATIENTS IF RELEVANT]
As a regional facility, NAME will be harshly affected as smaller centres like ours do
not have the financial resources of metropolitan centres and have less ability to
cross-subsidise within the health facility to replace equipment.
I would appreciate the opportunity to brief you in person on this important
issue.
I am available on [XXX].
Yours sincerely,
[PARAS ON BRACHY IF YOU WANT TO INCLUDE]
In particular, I am concerned about the cuts to the funding for brachytherapy
equipment. As a radiation oncologist who treats patients using brachytherapy I know,
first hand, the impact these cuts will have.
Pelvic brachytherapy is an essential component of the treatment of gynaecological
malignancies (especially cervical and endometrial cancer – often in young patients),
as well as prostate cancer in men. A recent scientific study from the US revealed a
decline in brachytherapy utilisation and associated worse outcomes for cervical
cancer patients.
Cervical cancer is a common cancer for women, often affecting younger women. In
2016, it was estimated that 903 new cases of cervical cancer would be diagnosed in
Australia, around 250 women would die from the disease, and the risk of a female
being diagnosed with cervical cancer by her 85th birthday was 1 in 1601. The
incidence of cervical cancer is highest in the elderly (75-85 years of age) who are
often too frail or unwell to travel for treatment, followed by those aged 35-39 years2
– i.e. working aged women who often have young families.
Access to modern brachytherapy equipment is therefore vital to ensure optimal care
for cervical cancer patients.
It cannot be assumed that radiation therapy facilities will be able to invest in essential
brachytherapy capital equipment in the absence of ROHPG support, particularly
given the relatively high maintenance costs to facilities.
It is more likely that brachytherapy equipment will become aged and access to this
effective treatment technique would diminish, which would adversely affect patient
access, result in suboptimal care and poor outcomes for patients.
1
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2016 Australian Cancer Incidence and Mortality (ACIM) book for Cervical cancer.
Canberra: AIHW. Accessed 22 December 2016
2 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2016 Australian Cancer Incidence and Mortality (ACIM) book for Cervical cancer.
Canberra: AIHW. Accessed 22 December 2016