Hon. WILLIAM A. PURTELL, CONNECTICUT STATE HOSPITAL, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR PURTELL: I have recently become aware of the fact that Senate bill S. 2778 now under consideration by the Senate Subcommittee on Health would, if passed, replace separate grants for various mental health purposes with one general health grant. Federal grants-in-aid for mental health services in this State have, in the past, been allocated by our mental health authority. Where the mental health problem is a No. 1 health problem in the country today, I feel that every effort should be made with the aim in mind of reducing this problem at the earliest possible time through better mental health preventative programs. The standards of treatment and care for the mentally ill in this country have been far below those in other health fields and, in my opinion, it is time we should make a concentrated effort to bring about better facilities, treatment and care for those with emotional, mental, social and related illnesses. I am writing to you so that you can give serious consideration to the question of keeping the mental health grants-in-aid for community services set up and allocated as they have been in the past. Sincerely yours, EDGAR C. YERBURY, M. D., Superintendent. Hon. H. ALEXANDER SMITH, AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, Chairman, Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR SMITH: The attention of the American Medical Association has been called to the effect of S. 2778, 83d Congress, on grants-in-aid for mental health. This bill would lump together public health grants-in-aid, including the grant-in-aid for mental health, and require that State mental health authorities submit requests for such aid through the State health authority. We concur in the opinion that the scope of the mental health problem and the independent administration of State mental health programs in most areas warrant separate treatment in this bill. designed to segregate grants-in-aid for mental health or to assure a reasonable We would support, therefore, any amendment appropriation for this purpose in relation to the appropriations for general public health grants. We appreciate that we have already submitted a statement on this bill and that the Senate committee has given considerable attention to it. This matter, however, was brought to our attention by the committee on mental health of the American Medical Association on April 15, so that the information on which to base this recommendation was not available at an earlier date. It would be appreciated if this statement could be made a part of the record on this bill. Sincerely yours, F. E. WILSON, M. D., Director. THE CANCER INSTITUTE AT MIAMI, Senator WILLIAM A. PURTELL, Chairman, Senate Public Health Subcommittee, DEAR SENATOR PURTELL: Senator Smathers has advised that we submit the enclosed information in support of your forthcoming bill, S. 2758. It is our hope that this splendid bill will pass without substantial change, because it will undoubtedly do so much in the interests of national health, preventive medicine, and improved cancer control through early diagnosis. The Cancer Institute at Miami is conducting an active cytology diagnostic center on a nonprofit basis. It is seeking funds for construction purposes, and it is our hope that approximately half a million dollars may be made available to the center through the new bill. May I draw your particular attention to the effectiveness of this new cytology center system now that the Miami experiment has demonstrated its 3-year suc cess. In other parts of the country this type of program will be catalyzed by the new funds made available for construction of nonprofit diagnostic centers. The Cytology Center has much to be said on its behalf. Of greatest importance is its effectiveness in seeking out early cancer in the population. It is accepted by the American Medical Association and private medicine because the patient remains in the doctor's hands, and a private fee is charged on private patients. The charity patient is given the same service gratis. I would like to stress my conviction that the small application of the cytologic method to patients within reach of the routine hospital laboratory is most inadequate to apply this revolutionary new method of detection. To perform its function, it must be brought into play to protect the apparently well patient, and this is possible in the physician's office. However, the doctor's office is relatively less effective in early diagnosis unless he is served by a cytology center equipped to perform tests on large numbers of people. In the writer's opinion, nothing visible on the cancer horizon today could accomplish so much to increase the number of cancers found early enough for successful treatment than the establishment of regional cytology centers throughout the country. Please call upon me for further information if I may be able to help in any way or at any time. Sincerely yours, Enclosures: J. ERNEST AYRE, M. D. (1) Memo-How a cytology diagnostic center operates. (2) Points of information. (3) Challenge to insurance companies. (4) Editorial from the Southern Medical Journal. (5) Early cancer detection: A health economy. (6) Report of Conference on Training and Education, Southern Society of Cancer Cytology. (7) An effective modern cancer program. (Enclosures filed with committee.) The Honorable CARL HAYDEN, ARIZONA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR HAYDEN: We have been studying the provisions of H. R. 8149, Medical Facilities Survey and Construction Act of 1954. Section 646 provides an authorization of $2 million to assist States in carrying out the survey and planning aspects of the new act. Each State within the allotment made to it shall be entitled to receive 50 percent of its expenditures in carrying out the purpose of section 641 of the act, that is survey and planning. It specifies that the minimum allotment to any State shall be $25,000. This appears to be a generous Federal grant, and it is, if all the States can match the minimum of $25,000. Arizona cannot. Possibly other State health departments have limited appropriations for matching funds. Would it be possible to have the minimum grant reduced to $10,000 or $15,000, which Arizona might match with salaries and travel appropriated to our division of hospital planning, survey and construction? The Arizona nursing home licensing law became effective a year ago. The preliminary work done in surveying the conditions of this type of institution and reinspections made for licensing indicate the importance of a further study of these homes. Much work is needed to bring them up to minimum standards for good patient care. We will appreciate your interest in the suggested change. Very sincerely yours, C. G. SALSBURY, M. D., Commissioner. (Whereupon, at 12: 15 p. m., the committee adjourned until 10 a. m., Tuesday, March 30, 1954.) X |