Who could be against curing cancer?

Proposition 6, a constitutional amendment on the Nov. 5 ballot authorizing the Legislature to increase to $6 billion from $3 billion the maximum bond amount for the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, seems like aslam dunk.

No one is opposed to finding a cure for cancer, but this $6 billion debt Texas taxpayers are being asked to assume may not be in the best interest of Texans —or even the best way to fund cancer research.

Knowing that we have limited resources, the purpose ofa legislative body is to develop a balanced set of policies that do the most good for the most people. The Texas Legislature has failed to do that. Texans should vote against this proposition and ask the Legislature to go back to the drawing board to consider how Proposition 6 and other decisions play into a more comprehensive set of health policies that are most impactful on the health of Texans. Lawmakers need to advance strong public health policies that not only seek treatments for many diseases, but also make it possible for all Texans to access and afford these treatments.

The same 2019 Texas Senate that unanimously approved the proposition asking for another $3 billion for CPRIT rejected health coverage for 835,000 Texas children. Meanwhile, CPRIT last year awarded $18 million to the Salarius corporation, which announced its initial IPO at the New York Stock Exchange in July 2019. Salarius spokespeople said the IPO would not have been possible without CPRIT’s grant. Salarius’ research portfolio includes Ewing’s Sarcoma, a rare childhood cancer that affects 200 children across the United States. No child should suffer, but when we make policy choices, how do we balance the health of 835,000 Texas children against 200 children across the United States?

The same 2019 Legislature cut $900 million from Medicaid after refusing to accept federal funding that would have been of little or no cost to the state. Meanwhile, CPRIT lists 34 for-profit corporate partners who are recipients of millions of dollars for product development — pharmaceuticals and medical devices. How many of the taxpayers who are paying the bill for CPRIT will be able to access these treatments if and when they become available? Who will help Texans pay their bills when they need expensive drugs and treatments?

CPRIT’s 2018 annual report says their current funding will last until August 31, 2023, when the organization is scheduled for a sunset review by the legislature. Sunset laws provide regular reviews of state agency operations and spending — and serve to automatically end those operations, unless the Legislature specifically reauthorizes the agency and its funding. That sunset review has not happened. Does this out-of-cycle funding mean that the Legislature is giving CPRIT a pass on the review?

After operating nearly 10 years, The Texas legislature is CPRIT's only funder, which suggests that CPRIT will keep coming back to taxpayers to replenish its coffers. Most cancer research organizations are funded by federal or private grants—not states. There is a reason for that. Floating bonds isa pricey way to fund research: In addition to the $6 billion going to CPRIT, taxpayers will have to pay interest for borrowing the money. This isnot a sustainable scheme for a state government.

Instead of asking voters to commit an additional $3 billion out-of-cycle for an agency that still has funding, the Legislature should use this time to discuss CPRIT's long-term future, including a plan for it to become financially self-sufficient, as grant-making organizations like CPRIT should be. The Legislature has time to go back and get this right, with more voter oversight. Reject this proposition and tell the Legislature they owe it to Texans to think bigger and do better.

Spinks has a Ph.D. in social welfare policy. She is a co-author of several articles on breast cancer survival rates based on race and access to health care. For more detailed analysis on this and the other 2019 propositions, go to www.alamovotesblue.org.