Date: Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 3:36 PM
To: Meghan Ashford-Grooms <
mashford79@gmail.com>
I used the base data from the 2001 report, and after looking
at the relationship between the incidence of cancer then and in
2007, I found a fairly constant relationship with population
growth. I thought about limiting this to age cohorts above, say,
35, but the incidence is spread, unevenly, over various age
brackets. Thus, I projected a part of the rise in cost as a
simple function of rising population and therefore incidence. I
didn't find a lot of data to suggest that cases were abating, as
I recall, but again, it's been awhile.
I also adjusted costs by forecasts at the time for the CPI
for medical costs and the CPI for urban consumer (basically the
inflation rate). The basis of the data are from the 2001 study.
I believe the cost of cancer is extremely expensive to the
state. You might be able to select a different rate of inflation
and population growth or assume that the disease is abating and
get a different answer if that is the point, but the data on
population and inflation were the actual values reported in the
Economic Report of the President as I recall.
BH
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Billy Hamilton
wrote:
The Cost of Cancer in Texas is attached. As
you will see, it was a very extensive report.
What I did was gather updated data on the
incidence of cancer in Texas in the intervening
year, plus demographic and economic data. I also
got information on state and local government
spending on cancer treatment to the degree the
data were available through the Department of
Health, the Medicaid program and other. I also
looked at more recent national data on the cost
of cancer. Basically, I made an estimate tied to
the base data found in the comprehensive 2001
study and looked at it in relation to how the
population had grown, how costs had increased
since the study. I also gathered data on
National Cancer Institute and other research
grants in Texas to get a sense of the size of
current research commitment in Texas.
Like I said in my earlier email, the real
work was done by David Warner and his colleagues
at UT. Mine was hardly a comprehensive
study--nor was it intended to be. The data were,
as I recall (and this was four years ago),
pretty compelling that the case Chairman Keffer
was making was very reasonable given what was
known about the incidence of cancer nationally
and in Texas and the costs to the state
government, which were actual and quoted in the
testimony. If anything, I think (and intended)
the estimates to be conservative because the
price inflation assumptions I used were closer
the actual rate of general inflation than
inflation in the cost of medical care, which, as
you know, has been through the roof. However, I
recall wanting to be certain not to overstate
the case. It was already appalling enough based
on what Dave Warner found in 2001 without my
inflating it. BH