Mesothelioma Lawyers Blog

November 16, 2012

Former Top French Official Criminally Charged in Asbestos Deaths

Here in the United States, and even more specifically in Massachusetts, we have seen a number of individuals and companies arrested and prosecuted criminally for violations of state environmental law regarding asbestos.

But Boston mesothelioma lawyers know that we have had nothing on the scale of what is happening in France right now, where a former top official of the governing Socialist Party is being prosecuted for manslaughter in connection with thousands of asbestos-related deaths.

Although the outcome of the case is far from certain and the accused official, Martine Aubry, has vigorously denied the charges against her, we find it encouraging that officials in France are taking the matter so seriously. It could mean some modicum of justice for the thousands in that country that died unnecessarily from mesothelioma and asbestosis – both resulting from exposure to asbestos.

The charges in this case are related to Aubry’s work as a top official in the Ministry of Social Affairs. She was the director of industrial relations from 1984 to 1987, before she became a top official in the Socialist Party. Specifically, she is accused of working to help delay the implementation of a piece of legislation known as the 1983 European Union Directive. This was a measure that was specifically designed to strengthen protections for workers whose jobs required direct contact with asbestos.

It was known even then that airborne asbestos particles are deadly. The fibers, when breathed into the lungs, can become lodged in the lining of major organs, such as the lungs and stomach. A person could live many years after that exposure without knowing they’ve been sickened, as the disease can take decades to manifest.

Still, many manufacturers continued to produce and use the material, despite the risk to workers and consumers, because it was cheap, fire-resistant and effective for other purposes.

It’s interesting that France has taken this step to hold leaders accountable, when the U.S. has yet to even issue a formal ban on asbestos – not that some didn’t try. Back in 1989, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a final rule banning almost all products that contained asbestos. However, by 1991, this regulation was overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which deemed it unconstitutional. There are a few product-specific bans still in place, but a recent report by the U.S. Geological Survey found that U.S. consumption of asbestos actually increased in the last year.

In the French case, the magistrate has alleged that Aubry allowed industrialist lobbyists to sway the ministry from issuing a complete ban on asbestos materials in the country, and further that she ignored warnings from federal French health officials regarding a ballooning epidemic of mesothelioma and other lung diseases resulting from asbestos exposure.

Specifically, the case against Aubry stemmed from a number of workers who were employed at a car parts manufacturer, where asbestos was being used to build brake pads. Many of those workers later died prematurely of asbestos-related diseases.

Asbestos was formally banned in France in 1997.
Continue reading

November 14, 2012

Sandy Wreckage Heightens Boston Asbestos Risk Concerns

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

As those in Massachusetts and throughout the East Coast begin to recover from the punishing wind and flood damage caused by Hurricane Sandy, the massive storm has given rise to another concern: asbestos exposure.

Boston mesothelioma lawyers understand that although the storm didn’t technically make landfall until it reached New Jersey, the winds punished a large swath of the Massachusetts coastline, toppling power lines and trees, causing power outages and, in some cases, damaging older structures.

It is the latter of these that causes the most concern, in Boston, as well as in the harder-hit areas of New Jersey and New York City.

These are comparatively older cities, with many structures built before the mid-to-late 1980s. It’s estimated that up to 35 million schools, homes and businesses contain asbestos at least in some levels, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Many construction companies and manufacturers that used this material knew of the dangers, following an epidemic of mesothelioma and asbestosis among asbestos miners.

Some of the building materials for which asbestos was used include:

Drywall and joint compound;
Vinyl floor tiles, adhesives and sheeting;
Roofing tars, siding, shingles and felts;
Popcorn ceilings;
Transite panels, countertops, siding and pipes;
Stage curtains;
Thermal pipe insulation;
HAVAC flexible duct connectors;
Interior fire doors;
Fireproofing;
Caulk.

In Boston, these materials have been identified in numerous schools, government buildings, office structures and homes.

Generally speaking, the material isn’t harmful unless it’s disturbed. That’s why anytime there is renovation occurring where asbestos is present, state environmental law requires the hiring of a contractor who is experienced in safe asbestos removal.

However, hurricanes don’t follow state law, and this one appears to have potentially disturbed a large number of older structures that contain asbestos. Specifically, it has torn off roofs, ripped apart walls containing asbestos insulation and exposed asbestos-laden piping.

As long as its wet, this may not be a major concern. However, as the exposed material begins to dry, it becomes more friable, which means the particles are more likely to become airborne. This is when it is especially dangerous because it’s those airborne fibers that become lodged in the lining of the lungs with deadly consequences.

Unfortunately, these microscopic fibers aren’t generally visible except when there are large heaps, and there is no distinct smell or taste to warn the victim.

It’s important for those digging through the wreckage for any valuables to be aware of this risk, and use proper respiratory protection if necessary. If you aren’t sure whether the home or structure had asbestos, better to err on the side of caution. If at all possible, hire a professional to help, and avoid activities that are going to generate dust, such as vacuuming or sweeping debris that may contain asbestos.

Another concern is that some of that debris could have contaminated the water supply as the storm surge created massive flooding.

We tell you all this not to create a further scare, but to warn you so that you and your loved ones may take proper precautions to protect yourselves.

We wish everyone affected by Sandy a swift and safe recovery.
Continue reading

November 12, 2012

Boston Mesothelioma Patients & Medical Marijuana

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Massachusetts voters have approved the use of marijuana as medicine, a decision that has been hailed by mesothelioma patients and others suffering terminal or serious conditions.

Boston mesothelioma lawyers understand that the law, which makes Massachusetts the 18th in the country to permit medical marijuana use, allows patients to possess up to a two-month supply of the drug for their own personal medicinal use. The exact definition of a “two-month supply” has yet to be determined by the Department of Public Health. Patients and caregivers will need to register with the Health Department by submitting the physician’s certification.

In order to qualify to receive medicinal marijuana, patients would have to have a debilitating medical condition. This would include ailments such as mesothelioma and other cancers, HIV-positive status or AIDS, Crohn’s disease, multiple sclerosis, ALS, Parkinson’s disease or hepatitis C. He or she would also have to obtain a written certification from their doctor, indicating that the patient has a condition that is debilitating and would likely obtain some benefit from the use of medical marijuana.

We know that mesothelioma is a debilitating condition. In fact, it’s terminal. Marijuana is not a cure, but some sufferers in other states where medical marijuana is legal have attested to the fact that the drug can help to ease some of the symptoms.

Specifically, mesothelioma sufferers often undergo various painful surgeries, chemotherapy and other treatments to help prolong their lives. As a result, they often suffer from severe nausea, vomiting and weight loss.

Various studies have proven that marijuana quells nausea and helps stimulate appetite and promote weight gain.

It may also help to reduce anxiety, improve the quality of a patient’s sleep and provide some measure of pain relief.

A Harvard University study conducted in 2001 indicated that THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, reduced tumor growth in common lung cancer by 50 percent, and further reduced the spread of cancer. However, this study did not include mesothelioma patients, and there is no indication that marijuana actually slows the advance of this aggressive and rare form of cancer caused by exposure to asbestos. Still, the relief it may bring for other symptoms could be enough for patients to at least try it.

Studies have shown there are more than 400 natural chemicals occurring in marijuana, including Vitamin A and steroids.

Because many patients who have asbestosis or mesothelioma have weak lungs and trouble breathing, consumption of marijuana in edible forms (as opposed to being smoked) is often preferable. This helps to avoid any further aggravation of the lung tissue.

Some of the different forms of edible marijuana include baking the plant into foods like brownies, cookies, chocolates or rice crispy treats. It can also be made into hard candies, teas and cold drinks. Different dispensaries may offer different options.

One concern with regard to the legalization is how state officials will seek to avert federal action, as marijuana possession and distribution is still illegal under federal law.

Typically, though, criminal sanctions have been pursued against dispensaries operators or those skirting state laws – not patients.
Continue reading

November 12, 2012

Report: High Incidence of Mesothelioma Among Shipbuilders

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

A new report released by Italian researchers provides further evidence to support the stance that shipbuilding trades between the 1940s and 1960s is strongly linked to later diagnoses of mesothelioma.

Boston mesothelioma lawyers know this isn’t necessarily earth-shattering news. However, shipbuilding companies and other defendants in mesothelioma cases have fought vigorously against the notion that they are responsible for the illnesses of their employees later in life. This is just one more example of why those companies are wrong.

The research, conducted by Italian researchers Claudio and Tommaso Bianchi from the Italian Center for the Study of Environmental Cancer, is entitled, “Shipbuilding and mesothelioma in Monfalcone, Italy” and it was published earlier this year in the Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

Monfalcone is a small city in the Province of Gorizia, bordering on Slovenia and Croatia, about an hour northeast of Venice. The shipyards there first opened in 1908, and in the decades after, it became one of the largest shipbuilding operations in the Mediterranean region. At one point during the late 1930s and early 1940s, the workforce topped more than 6,000.

The shipyard business began to dwindle significantly after the 1960s, around the time when area hospitals noticed a large increase in cancer deaths – specifically, mesothelioma.

Mesothelioma is a fatal cancer caused by exposure to asbestos, which is known to have been widely used in shipyards across the world – including in the U.S.

The two scientists started by analyzing the records belonging to the Monfalcone shipyard, specifically the hiring rolls from 1942. They then compared those records to archived health records from nearby hospitals several decades later.

There were a total of approximately 2,775 people who were hired to work at the Monfalcone shipyards back in 1942.

The researchers then took a look at health records from the Pathological Anatomy Unit, which kept documents from the two area hospitals. Specifically, the pair were comparing those 1942 employment records to any documentation of mesothelioma between 1981 and 2005.

What they found was this:

Eighteen of the men who had been hired in 1942 were diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma. A third of those who were diagnosed had been just 14 or 15 years-old at the time they were hired. This was despite the fact that those in this age group accounted for only a fourth of those hired during this time, suggesting that earlier exposure to asbestos may have been more fatal.

They analyzed necropsy findings in 14 of those cases, and found that the amount of asbestos bodies in the lungs varied a great deal, from 150 to 600,000 bodies per gram of dried tissue. What this goes to show is that no amount of asbestos exposure is safe. Even small amounts of the fibers can prove fatal later in life.

The researchers indicate that their study may grossly underestimate the number of shipyard workers who were later diagnosed with mesothelioma, as it is possible some of the individuals moved away later in life or may have died from the disease without having a formal diagnosis.
Continue reading

November 5, 2012

Del. Supreme Court Scraps Asbestos Attorney Sanctions

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

A judge in Delaware overseeing asbestos litigation was frustrated with the voluminous case load on her docket, and as a result, severely and unjustly punished a plaintiff attorney for a procedural mistake, according to that state’s supreme court.

The justices called the judge’s frustration understandable, but nonetheless reversed the sanctions.

Boston mesothelioma lawyers know that the volume of litigation that’s being processed with regard to asbestos-related diseases is a direct result of the negligence inflicted by companies that used the toxic compound because it was cheap – without regard to the safety of workers or consumers. This has resulted in thousands of mesothelioma diagnoses and deaths.

According to media reports, a superior court judge fined an attorney $25,000 for arguing points against a request for a summary judgment using a ruling in a case that had already been denied and subsequently settled.

The case he cited, McNulty v. Anchor Packing Co., involved an anchor packing company based in Pennsylvania. The company manufactured hydraulic packings, rings, seals, gaskets and soft packing. It was later revealed that these products contained cancer-causing asbestos materials. Not only did this put Anchor’s employees at risk, the products’ use in naval ship yards sickened numerous veterans at as well. Anchor later became a subsidiary of Garlock Sealing Technologies, which has been cited in multiple asbestos litigation cases as well.

The attorney’s error in this case was a technical one, and he later said that he made the mistake in good faith, indicating he hadn’t realized the case he had cited had already been settled. But the judge countered that she was far too busy to tolerate such mistakes. She said the attorney had made such mistakes in the past and had not been called out on it.

She said that, at best, it amounted to “laziness” and that the attorney had a responsibility to confirm the accuracy of arguments prior to presenting them in court. At worst, she said it was an attempt to mislead the court.

She maintained that the fine may have seemed substantial, but it wasn’t when taken in the larger context of the large amounts typically doled out in mesothelioma cases.

The supreme court later ruled that the judge had made the ruling without giving the attorney ample opportunity to respond to the allegation and without regard to whether or not the attorney could actually pay it.

The court further said that it appeared the penalties were inflicted as a result of the judge’s concern that the attorney’s actions would cause her additional issues in future cases, and she wanted to curb it now.

But this, the justices stated, was not a valid legal substantiation for the fine. In the end, the justices ruled that there was not a significant enough finding that the attorney had tainted the efficiency or fairness of the process.

This situation highlights the bigger issue, which is how important it is to choose an attorney who can be effective and on-point. The error in this case may not have been intentional, but it could potentially harm your case.
Continue reading

October 30, 2012

Mine Company Settles Asbestos Cases

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Victims of asbestos exposure blamed on a local mine in Montana have reached a number of settlement agreements with the mine company that reportedly put them at risk.

According to local news reports, the individuals will receive varying amounts of compensation from the company that owned the properties. The company is currently undergoing a Chapter 11 reorganization bankruptcy, and the payouts will be part of the deal.

Boston mesothelioma lawyers understand this has been a long journey for many of those involved. Back in 1999, the Center for Asbestos Related Diseases clinic in the local area received a huge influx of some 2,800 patients, and there has been a steady stream of new patients since. Many of these individuals were suffering from asbestos-related ailments, such as asbestosis and mesothelioma. Each of these diseases is fatal, though each affect the body differently.

Asbestosis is a prolonged and chronic disease. It’s not cancer in and of itself, but those who are diagnosed are at high risk of developing lung cancer, and often do.

Mesothelioma, meanwhile, is a cancer. It is rare in that the only known cause is exposure to asbestos. This cancer affects the lining of the lungs, rather than the inside of the lung. The disease lies dormant for many years, but once a diagnosis is received, it’s swiftly fatal.

In this case, the negotiations have been ongoing for years, as the mining companies were simultaneously battling with the railroads and insurance companies, trying to place the blame elsewhere.

Part of the difficulty was that the victims all had varying exposure times, leading to an inconsistency in the severity of illness at the time action was brought.

There was a settlement reached last year in which the mining company agreed to pay $43 million.

This agreement is actually separate.

Many of the terms are confidential, but we do know that $19.5 million will be placed into the local medical program and additional funds will be placed into a trust for those who are currently and those who will in the future be diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease that has proven ties to the mine and its activities.

The settlement also requires the local claimants to withdraw any objections they had to the company’s bankruptcy plan.

The company had on its own founded a medical program in town back in 2000, and provided medical coverage for certain asbestos-related diseases. The company has contributed $2 million to that fund annually.

Of course, this was seen as a good will gesture, but in the end, it doesn’t begin to cover the enormous cost of treatment for these individuals, and it’s far less than they would pay in a court order.

If you have been diagnose with mesothelioma, it’s critical that you contact an experienced attorney.
Continue reading

October 24, 2012

Asbestos Dumping Ground Illustrates New-Generation of Mesothelioma Risks

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Several men were recently convicted in connection with an asbestos dumping scandal and it’s as yet untold damage to the environment, and the health of workers and nearby residents.

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers understand that some 60 million pounds of debris was dumped on farmland that borders federally-protected wetlands.

Two men were convicted by a jury of violations of the Clean Water Act and other environmental protection laws and fraud statutes.

This case is important because it shows that we in this country are still grappling with the aftermath of widespread asbestos use. Mesothelioma diagnoses, exclusively caused by asbestos exposure, are unlikely to taper off any time soon.

The fact is, asbestos is expensive to remove. The reason is because the law requires such efforts be done meticulously and according to very specific procedures – precisely because of the known dangers the substance poses when disturbed.

What these individuals – and others – have been known to do is cut corners to trim costs. But this ends up putting everyone else at risk.

The effects of that risk may not be known for many years, as mesothelioma has a latency that typically lasts decades. Once a person receives a diagnosis, sometimes 30 to 40 years after exposure, the disease progresses rapidly and aggressively. There is no known cure, and it’s terminal.

All of this makes the actions of these individuals even more egregious.

According to news reports, one of those convicted was the owner of a large farm in upstate New York and the other the owner of a waste management company.

Evidence presented during the 10-day trial revealed that the defendants moved thousands of tons of asbestos-laden demolition debris from New Jersey and dumped it in a corner of the farm, which is situated partially on federal wetlands. Neither individual had a permit for the dumping action.

What’s more, when the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation began investigating, the men reportedly produced a phony permit, complete with the forged signature of a DEC official. When the grand jury subpoenaed certain documents related to the alleged dumping, the men reportedly destroyed those documents and hid others.

All of the charges combined carry a maximum 5-year prison sentence, as well as a fine of approximately $250,000 (or twice the gross gain to the defendant or twice the gross loss to the victim, whichever is greater). This could end up being quite expensive, as the pair were additionally convicted of violating something called Superfund laws. These are laid out by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and they essentially govern the clean-up of uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste material. When individuals or parties are responsible for creating a toxic waste hazard, the government has to step in and clean it up in order to prevent injury or illness. The cost to adequately clean up this mess could easily reach millions of dollars.

What’s more, the men were both convicted of federal obstruction of justice charges – which carry a maximum 20 years in prison, plus additional fines.

The men will likely be sentenced before the end of the year.
Continue reading

October 19, 2012

British Study May Help Mesothelioma Lawyers Pinpoint Asbestos Exposure Culprits

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers know that exposure to asbestos is the primary factor in the development of both mesothelioma and asbestosis.

But why is it that some individuals develop one and not the other?

A newly-released British study may have the answer, and it may have to do with the age at which a person is exposed.

First, however, let’s explore what each disease is, and how it affects a person.

Both conditions are caused by exposure to asbestos and both will typically result in difficulty breathing. There is no cure for either. The primary difference is that mesothelioma is a cancer condition, while asbestosis is a chronic lung disease. However, it’s important to note that those suffering from asbestosis are at high risk of developing lung cancer.

Someone suffering from asbestosis will suffer for many years as the disease slowly progresses. Oxygen treatments help, but they won’t cure the person. Eventually, the person is likely to suffer respiratory failure. Often, a person with asbestosis will succumb to pneumonia.

Mesothelioma, on the other hand, is a rare and fatal form of cancer. Often, this disease targets the pleura of the lungs, though it can also affect other internal organs, such as the stomach. The mesothelioma attaches to these pleura. Usually, a person will have no symptoms of the disease for years or even decades after exposure. However, once a person is diagnosed, the disease becomes acute and rapidly aggressive. Surgery, chemotherapy and radiation are sometimes used to help prolong life, but again, there is no cure.

So with this in mind, researchers with the Epidemiology Unit of the U.K’s Health and Safety Division sought to why a person would develop one or the other. Researchers had been puzzled about why asbestos-related deaths hadn’t dropped off between 1991 and 2000, despite increases in government regulation on the material.

To do this, they analyzed data from nearly 34,000 mesothelioma deaths and nearly 5,400 asbestosis deaths in Britain. Deaths were plotted on a chart by age.

The ages of the individuals when they died was no real surprise for both groups – much lower than the average life expectancy of a person without one of these disease.

However, the surprising aspect was that the asbestosis incidents appeared to have peaked for those born between 1924 and 1938, while mesothelioma cases appear to have peaked for those born between 1939 and 1943.

The researchers hypothesize that it has to do with the level of intensity the individuals suffered at certain points in their lives. Those who suffered asbestosis, it seems, were more likely to have been exposed to heavier amounts at a younger age, while those who were exposed to asbestos at an older age appeared more prone to develop mesothelioma.

Obviously, this is just the first study of its kind, and it’s not absolutely definitive, but the theory makes sense. It may also be helpful in terms of litigation because the difference in diagnosis could assist attorneys and plaintiffs in pinpointing the exact time frame – and therefore culprit – of the exposure.
Continue reading

October 16, 2012

Asbestos Monitoring, Eradication Grant Helps Reduce Exposure

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

The Environmental Protection Agency has awarded more than $240,000 to schools and government offices in Oklahoma to eradicate asbestos and reduce potential future cases of mesothelioma.

While our Boston mesothelioma lawyers are encouraged that such measures are being taken elsewhere in the country, we would urge government leaders here in Massachusetts to apply for similar grants.

In fact, it’s been such a major issue in Massachusetts that legislation has been enacted to regulate asbestos monitoring and removal.

All residential, institutional and commercial buildings in the state are subject to the asbestos regulation as laid forth in the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s code, 310 CMR 7.15. What that legislation says is that all owners or operators (including contractors who work on plumbing, construction, renovation, HVAC, flooring, etc.) are required to determine before any work can be initiated whether asbestos is present and whether it is going to be disturbed during the work.

Common sites of asbestos are the HVAC systems, floor tiles, wallboards, decorative plasters, siding, roofing and fireproofing systems.

Companies that don’t follow the law on this risk not only hefty fines, but also the potential to expose workers and nearby residents to asbestos, which causes a deadly form of cancer called mesothelioma.

So why is it we so often hear about contractors who break the law? In reality, those contractors and building owners are in the minority. Most do want to protect people from harm. But those who skirt these regulations often do it because they can be quite expensive, particularly if asbestos is found and it is likely to be impacted by the work at hand. The DEP recommends having a professional come in to conduct the eradication of asbestos before the other work can begin.That gets pricey.

And of course, that’s why grants like the one recently awarded to Oklahoma are so helpful.

In this case, the funds are expected to be used by the Oklahoma Department of Labor to complete audit inspections of state buildings and schools to determine whether asbestos is present and how best to protect students, employees and visitors from exposure. The money will also be used to ensure that workers who are employed to take out the asbestos are properly accredited and trained.

Oklahoma’s policies with regard to government and school buildings are similar to those in Massachusetts in that they call for “in-place management” of the material. That is, officials must be aware of the presence of asbestos so that they can properly maintain it and reduce potentially harmful exposure. It doesn’t necessarily need to be immediately removed, but it does need to be maintained in such a way that the fibers will not become airborne and therefore pose a risk to those who frequent those structures.

Having this knowledge also allows officials with important information about how to proceed, should they need to initiate a demolition or renovation.

For those who have already been exposed to asbestos, particularly direct exposure for longer periods of time, it is important to seek medical treatment and monitoring so that if you do develop mesothelioma, it can be detected early for boosting chances for a longer life.

Additionally, contacting a Boston mesothelioma attorney can help you explore your options with regard to financial compensation for negligent asbestos exposure.
Continue reading

October 14, 2012

Rising Cancer Treatment Costs Make Successful Mesothelioma Litigation Even More Critical

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Costs for medical treatments for cancer are expected to skyrocket in the next eight years, according to a recent study in The American Journal of Managed Care.

In particular, medical treatments for rare, more aggressive types of cancer, such as mesothelioma, are expected to accelerate at a fast clip.

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers know that this makes it all the more critical for our clients to obtain results in their litigation efforts. Although mesothelioma is a fatal disease, medications and treatments to prolong life and enhance the quality are extremely expensive. As it is, they can practically bankrupt a family, even if the individual does have health insurance.

What’s more, those who suffer from mesothelioma may be younger than your average cancer patient. As they have not yet reached retirement age, they and their families are often not financially prepared when the person diagnosed must stop working.

One piece of good news is that the Social Security Administration, which doles out government support for those suffering from serious, long-term disabilities and illnesses, has added peritoneal mesothelioma to its list of compassionate allowances. It is among one of the select few illnesses in which a diagnosis allows a person to fast-track their disability claim, so that they may receive benefits sooner. (In other cases, the process of application is more rigorous and time-intensive.)

Still, these benefits will help in covering day-to-day expenses, but they usually aren’t nearly enough to cover medical costs. Even when a person receives Medicare, the medical bills are typically so astronomical that the costs aren’t covered.

A person who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma has almost always, at some point, been exposed to airborne asbestos fibers. Many, many companies used this material because it was cheap and effective, despite knowing the risks it posed to workers and consumers. This is why, in addition to seeking out medical treatment in the early stages, it’s critical to meet with a mesothelioma lawyer who is experienced in obtaining financial compensation for clients from those responsible for the exposure.

This new study just further underscores the importance.

Conducted by researchers at RTI International and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the study indicates that cancer treatment costs are going to see a major increase in the next several years. The lowest increase is expected in Washington D.C., where costs will rise by about 35 percent, while the highest increase is expected in Arizona, where costs are expected to climb by an eye-popping 115 percent. In some cases, individual state costs for cancer treatments are expected to top $28 billion more a year.

Those conducting the study used a comprehensive method to predict these increases. They analyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau population forecasts, as well as information from the 2004 to 2008 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. From there, they made predictions on how many people in each state are likely to require some form of cancer treatment in 2020, and predicted what the average cost of that treatment is likely to be.

Even in those areas where cancer rates overall were expected to decline, costs still increased sharply. This was even when inflation costs were adjusted. Overall, costs are expected to jump by nearly 4 percent each year.
Continue reading