publication date: May. 2, 2014
Officials Open to Fine-tuning Group Budgets As Advocates Chip Away at NCTN’s Façade
By Paul Goldberg
Advocates Request Answers To These Questions in Writing
The questions submitted by the advocates follow:
1.) As the cooperative groups evolved into NCTN, they were told that one of their major metrics for success would be the number of patients each new group accrued to clinical trials. They were also told that NCI expected, perhaps almost demanded, collaboration within the groups. Accruing patients to trials sponsored by other groups would be rewarded, and failure to collaborate would be punished during competitive grant renewal process. NCI funding decisions will significantly lower….even cap….accrual to cancer clinical trials. Since accrual can therefore not really be the metric for group success, how will performance of the four adult groups be judged and evaluated? (submitted by: Jim Omel)
2.) I have been told that one of the new groups will have their funding cut remarkably, perhaps as much as 38% in trial administration expense. This is also the cooperative group with the highest grant review score. How can this be judged as fair, and how can follow-up of clinical trial patients possibly occur with a 38% funding cut? (submitted by: Jim Omel)
3.) How does the old system functionally map to the new system? Are there functions that were once under the ‘group’ umbrella which are now under the ‘LAP’ or ‘NCORP’ umbrellas? (submitted by: Nancy Roach)
4.) The Group awards seemed to truly shock group leadership. Were they informed ahead of time what to expect, in detail? If not, why? (submitted … Continue reading 40-18 NCTN’s Facade 4
To access this members-only content, please log in.
Institutional subscribers, please log in with your IP
If you're not a subscriber why not join today?
To gain access to the members only content click here
You will be given immediate access to premium content on the site.Click here to join.