Do We Need An 'Ice Bucket Challenge' to Help Fund Alzheimer's Research?

Projected  future victims of Alzheimer's (right), and projected costs  - from AARP Bulletin.

"It's just a fact that some diseases have stronger political backing ad that leads to federal funding." - Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).

 By all accounts the 'Ice Bucket Challenge',   which seized the nation to help fund ALS research last year , has been an unqualified success. The money raised by some estimates has come to more than $200m. It has propelled ALS funding as no other campaign in recent years. Now, we need the same for Alzheimer's disease - which claimed the life of my mother - because federal funding is not adequate.


Sen. Collins' words expressed at the top -  as quoted in the AARP Bulletin (Jan-Feb, p. 16) - ought to make citizens sad beyond belief. Sad, because it means that without the extra ballast and bucks federal money can offer we may not find a cure or even satisfactory treatment before the number of Alzheimer patients balloons to the point of straining tens of millions of caretakers, and the costs to the nation explode. But it may provide incentive to launch a powerful public funding campaign as we beheld for ALS.

To put Sen. Collins' remark in perspective, the Bulletin notes that "Alzheimer's disease is an also-ran  when it comes to federal funding for research on prevention and treatment....other diseases come out far ahead".  Some of the figures cited for other diseases:

$5.4 billion this past fiscal year for cancer research

$1.2 billion for heart disease

$3 billion for research on HIV/AIDS

Meanwhile, total federal funding for Alzheimer's:  $566 million - or not even half of the amount allotted  for heart disease.

"But heart disease is a bigger threat and challenge!" you say.

Not so. Most heart disease victims either recover within a year thanks to efficacious,  superior treatments (e.g. stents or open heart surgery) or they die quickly after a massive coronary. Alzheimer's patients can linger for years as their mental faculties decline, and the degree of care rises with each passing year - adding to costs- including of lost productivity for the caretaker(s). 

According to federal government estimates cited in the Bulletin (ibid.), Alzheimer's currently costs the United States some $214 BILLION  annually, according to federal government estimates. Putting that amount in perspective, it is 220 times the gross domestic product of Barbados, and  roughly equal to five years fighting in Afghanistan. In other words, if we'd pulled out five years ago from that useless engagement, we could have confronted the Alzheimer's costs - and perhaps cut those costs with high research funding.

The Bulletin also notes that care of the victims will cost Medicaid and Medicare some $150 BILLION in the current fiscal year - with the remaining costs (some have estimated as high as $40 billion) falling on patients and their families. This is what we call the unseen dimension of costs of care because no government accountant or dept. tallies them up.

A 2014 study by Caring.com reported that 42 percent of families that include someone with Alzheimer's  will spend more than $20,000 per year for care. If that care lasts for six years, as it did with my now deceased mom, it means $140,000 that the family will have to cough up. This might include private nursing payments or even nursing home care at some point.

Bear in mind also, that no one can feel "immune" since early phase Alzheimer's rates are also increasing. But generally it is a disease that singles out those over 65, or so-called "seniors". Indeed, the frequency of Alzheimer's doubles every five years after that age 65 marker. The Alzheimer's Association estimates that  5.2 million Americans had the disease in 2014. As the side graph on the right shows, this is forecast to reach 13. 8 million by 2050.  The attendant costs will meanwhile rise to $1.2 trillion a year as the graph on the left shows.

Nearly two-thirds of these are women, because women tend to live longer than men and so have enhanced probability of getting it (that doubling aspect after 65 again)

The sense of the AARP article is that government and the public too is averse to jumping on the bandwagon - say like so many millions did for ALS (with the "ice bucket challenge") because they dislike the degenerative mental aspects. It's almost as if people feel somehow embarrassed to support such a cause.

But we need to get over this and the sooner the better. Time won't wait and neither will the thousands more Alzheimer's patients and their families to be diagnosed over the coming few months. To that end, why not start an Alzheimer's Ice Bucket Challenge to raise added funds the gov't doesn't seem to be willing to? It will at least make a start and then - who knows? - the government may finally get its own act together when it sees the citizens' response.

Hell, I will be one of the first to sign on to do it if that's what it takes - after all my mom died from it after six years of mental regression. So did my wife's first cousin, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/05/an-alzheimers-blood-test-would-you.html

One thing we cannot do is harbor a personal or  political unwillingness to confront this monster - or it will consume us, in more ways than we'd like to believe.

See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/10/alzheimers-mensa-bulletin-perspective.html

It's Charity "Blitz" Time Again - But You Have To Learn to Say "NO!"

Yes, it's that time of year again, when your mailbox is pounded by charity appeals. Many of these one would never have heard of, as MONEY magazine estimates that there are now over 1 million! Even if I gave one thin dime to each one, I'd be in hock up to my eyeballs as most readers would too. Hence, one must pick and choose, and this means saying a vociferous 'No!' to most.

To put it bluntly then, the Denver Post - in its Wall Street Journal section yesterday - shouldn't have had to run a half -page article headed, 'It's OK to Say NO!' - referring to charity appeals, especially the noxious ones that now confront us when we check out at drugstores and grocery marts like Safeway. Safeway has already had something like five begging appeals since June, and (if I recall)  I believe I've donated a total of $5. (That is $1 on each occasion I did donate, separated by maybe one week during each appeal period).

Am I being a "Scrooge"? Hell no! I am being circumspect in how and where I donate my money, and especially if these are charities with which I may not be familiar.  (I already noted this back in August, in a post on why I wasn't doing the 'ice bucket challenge'.  Thus, just as I refuse to take on charities I've never heard of, I also refuse to hop on a charity bandwagon, even if it's ALS - just to look cool in some viral video or be one of the pack.)

The end result is that despite nearly one hundred pleas hitting my mailbox every week, most - nearly 85 - end up in the dumpster. A huge waste of paper - and trees- but that's not my fault. I never asked these outfits to ply my mailbox with pleas, including a number of them repeating it despite zero donations. (They also try to reach me by phone but I refuse to answer and all messages are filtered through the answering machine. My wife's voice resounds with "If you're a telemarketer, please hang up now!")

Most of the charities also don't meet the effectiveness-efficiency threshhold noted in charity sites such as charitynavigator.org and guidestar.org. This means that most of the money donated goes directly to the practical needs which the organizations claim and not to "administration" or to second hand pushers like telemarketers. One of the best charities in this regard is St. Jude's Children's Hospital for which 100% of proceeds goes directly to attending to needs. It is these charities I am more likely to donate to, rather than, say  'Wounded Warriors'  which doesn't make the cut on charitynavigator.

Many charities also use assorted ploys to attempt to coerce giving under the guise of  plying the would be target with "free gifts".  These may include everything from dream catchers (sent by assorted Native American organizations) to gift wrappings, greeting cards and note pads. Others send calendars then attach a donation form acknowledging receipt with offerings starting at $15. Seriously?  Fifteen bucks for a calendar - actually donation - when I already have received 50? Well, I do acknowledge receipt and enclose a buck, as a minimal receipt donation. Meanwhile, most of the free gift ploys go without response, if it's a "free gift" - ok, I take that literally!

One of the worst ploys  entails playing on the would be donor's emotions - such as putting a garish image of a blind baby on the envelope with the bold script words: "Go ahead and throw me away! I know you would anyway!"

Okay, here goes!  Moral of the story, do not try to play on my emotions and believe that tactic will entice me to pour out my heart or wallet. No it won't. I will see through it instantly and your material ends up in the dumpster.

The best advice the Post WSJ piece offered is that before any charitable giving one must ensure his own financial house is in order. A story was related in which a woman donated so much money she lost her home and went into bankruptcy. This is giving gone mad. The general rubric is that just as when you're on a plane you need to put your oxygen mask on before helping anyone else (in event of emergency) so also you take care of your own financial house before giving to others.

This is good advice.

By all means we all need to donate to charity, since the government programs are simply not going to cover all needy Americans, all the time. This is why the bulk of my donations goes to homeless missions as well as food kitchens. Not giving then, is simply not on and I still am aghast that the richest Americans give so little (about 1% of total yearly income)  relative to those of us middling to low income folks (2 % of income).

But don't donate blindly. Do so with purpose, singling out those charities closest to your heart and causes, but not based on reactive or emotive appeals!