Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout770508.tiff e `, .» _ RECEIVED AUG 1 2 1977 al) it 1':` ? ' � r`\ COMMISSIONER n OFFICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY PHONE: (3031 356-4000 EXT. 21 X ;` r l ti.' - P.O. BOX 7` • .1' iii F 4`r�;,rt•. • GREELEY, COLORADO 806 t. ^�1tiy ' t Id COLORADO August 10, 1977 Board of Directors Central-Northeast Colorado Health Systems Agency, Inc. 7290 Samuel Drive, Suite 316 Denver, Colorado 80221 Re: Plan Development Committee Report, Oncology:Radiation Having reviewed the proposed plan with local medical staff involved in this field, the overall ideas and content of the plan seem generally satisfactory. The material within it appears to be accurate and drawn from well known and established sources. However, there appear to be major omissions which will affect the future of Northern Colorado health and will be discussed later in this letter. Much of the technical data seems to be somewhat redundant as it represents requirements which are already established for hospital accreditation by the joint commission on hospital accreditation or by the State Board of Health, Radiation Division. The technical nature of the plan may be somewhat of a burden to place on a group of individuals who are not technically oriented and must rely on the written word to evaluate such material , particularly since many of us do not have the benefit of actual personal experience nor the technical background with which to judge the content. The most serious omission in the report seems to be the lack of concern for the patients in the large rural area covered by HSA-1. It appears to be a technical report more concerned with statistics than with people. Although much of the early portion of the report was obtained either directly or indirectly from a booklet entitled, The Role of Radiation Oncology, some of the most important portions of this booklet, particularly those regarding the patient, were not included. The booklet, a report to the National Cancer Institute of the National Institute of Health, is a proposal for integrated cancer management in the U.S. and the role of radiation oncology within such a plan. There are some fundamental principals regarding radiation oncology which I believe should be incorporated into the plan and are basic to providing good medical care to all the people of HSA-1. The following quote from Simon Kramer, Chairman of the Committee for Radiation Therapy Studies which formulated the booklet, states some of these fundamentals. 770 50 8 Oncology: Radiation 8-10-77 Page Two "Certain concepts are fundamental to our proposals. There must be one optimal level of care for all cancer patients regardless of how and where they enter the health care system. Modern cancer management requires an integrated approach by many different specialists each with his own expertise. The significant improvements in results obtained in the few centers of excellence must now become available to all patients. And most importantly it must be recognized that the initial management decision is the most critical component in the treatment of the cancer patient. Therefore, the expertise of the cancer surgeon, radiation oncologist, and the medical oncologist and pathologist must be available where and when that management decision is made." Also from the introduction to the same report: "Optimal care must be uniformly available to all patients with cancer regardless of geographic constraints, manpower limitations, economic restrictions, and variations in methods of health care delivery. " Pages three and four discuss the old method of center satellite referral and consultation, which describes our present health care delivery system. . . "Unfortunately, this stratification may generate three levels of patient care. The level of care has, therefore, often been determined by the patient's point of entry into the system, which, in turn, depended upon geographic or economic considerations, patterns of referral , custom, or accident. Though economically sound, the development of a restricted number of highly centralized cancer facilities has the disadvantage of separating the radiation oncologist and other specialists from the primary physician who sees the cancer patient at other points in the health care system. If a radiation oncologist is not available for consultation at the patient's point of entry into the system, the benefits of irradiation are often lost to the patient." This latter point becomes clear in studying the need for a radiation oncology center in Greeley. The plan states that in the Denver area, the percentage of cancer patients treated by radiation is approximately 50 percent. However, in Weld County, only 28 percent of the cancer patients diagnosed were receiving radiation therapy; in Ft. Collins, only 16 percent were receiving radiation therapy. It is obvious that the lack of available facilities and oncology specialists denies many patients the type of therapy they need. Some of these patients were offered treatment in Denver but refused treatment or became discouraged and stopped treatment after beginning such therapy because of the time and travel involved in making daily trips over periods of from three to eight weeks. This was despite the fact that both Ft.. Collins and Greeley have organizations which provide free private transportation to Denver to the radiotherapy centers for treatments. Oncology: Radiation 8-10-77 Page Three At the present time, with the exception of a low volume cobalt machine in Sterling and the proposed unit in Weld County, all available radiation oncology facilities and their related specialists are in the metropolitan Denver area. Cancer being the type of disease it is, does not lend itself to hospitalization in Denver as does cardiac surgery, etc. , where the patient may stay 10 days to two weeks or sometimes longer, then return home. Most cancer treatments are given on an out-patient basis, even though the patients may be somewhat debilitated or ill . As noted in the proposed plan, they are usually lengthy courses of therapy ranging from three to eight weeks. Frequently, these individuals have only a short time to live; lengthy separations from their families and local environments become very difficult during the valuable time remaining to them. The heavy reliance on the technical data in the plan may limit the plan's usefulness because of the rapid pace' of technological development in the medical field, particularly in radiology. Portions of the specific evaluations are probably already out of date; if not, they will be shortly. Another important omission, as far as Northern Colorado is concerned, is the impression left by the plan that no more facilities will be needed in HSA-1 by 1985; in fact, this is true only in the metropolitan Denver area which presently has an excess of facilities available. The presence of an oncology center in Northern Colorado will probably decrease the volume in Denver; it may decrease the referrals received by each of the centers by approximately five percent. The estimated population of the Northern Colorado medical trade area is expected to be 410,804 by 1985. By the criteria set forth in the plan, i .e. , 250 per 100,000 crude cancer incidents; percent of new cancer patients receiving radiation therapy of 54 percent; and a radiation therapy facility treatment rate of 250 previously untreated patients per year, there will be a need for two therapy facilities in the Northern Colorado area by 1985. Very little consideration was given in the plan to megavoltage treatment with electrons. It is doubtful that a third machine will be needed in Northern Colorado by 1985; however, the plan should not be so rigid that it would not accommodate that possibility. If a third machine were needed, the most logical size would be in the 12 to 18 mev range so that electron therapy would also be available to the people in Northern Colorado. I have been speaking primarily of the rural area and HSA as it relates to Northern Colorado, but a glance at the map of the area reveals a large area of rural Colorado involved in HSA-1. It would seem remiss to consider those patients in Northern Colorado without considering the remainder of the patients in rural HSA-1 as well . There are, of course, the Boulder and Longmont areas which are becoming bedroom towns for the metropolitan area. It would be up to the people in those regions to indicate whether they feel the need for separate radiation therapy facilities so close to Denver or not. There do not appear to be any other communities of sufficient size to support a radiation oncology department. Oncology: Radiation 8-10-77 Page Four The concept of a cancer committee as outlined in the report is an important one: Through such a committee, the areas east of Denver could perhaps be provided with the expertise that is available in Denver by the formulation of a visiting cancer committee. At the present time, similar attempts are being made by a traveling radiation oncologist to Longmont and possibly to Boulder. Perhaps the same type of arrangement might be made in some of the larger communities in eastern Colorado. This has been done in the past in other states. Those people working toward the formation of the oncology center in Weld County have felt very strongly that such services should be provided to the surrounding communities. In fact, all applicants for the position of director of the center were informed that they would be expected to travel to the surrounding communities of Ft. Morgan, Ft. Collins, Loveland, etc. to share their expertise with the doctors in these communities. I would suggest that some form of a traveling cancer committee be incorporated within the plan and not just made a requirement within the hospital requesting radiation oncology facilities. In closing, it would seem to me that if the plan is to truly serve all of the people in HSA-1, a greater effort should be made to see that the geographical constraints imposed by radiation oncology are kept to a minimum throughout the area. Unfortunately, the metropolitan area of Denver seems to be oversupplied with radiation therapy facilities at this time. Regardless of that fact, it would seem to be unreasonable to expect a very large population in Northern Colorado, which may well exceed half a million people by 1985, to be denied ready access to radiation oncology because of the excess of facilities in the Denver metropolitan area. Thank you for your attention to these rather lengthy remarks, and my regrets that I am unable to deliver them in person. Sin erely, r� EjyZdei. une K. Steinmark, Chairperson Board of Weld County Commissioners JKS/clb cc Dr. Franklin Yoder Hello