Urgent injection of funds needed to stave off dementia crisis

Australia is incubating a dementia timebomb. According to Australian Institute of Health and Welfare forecasts, the number of people living with the disease will more than double to one million by 2061, which would work out to 1 in 40 people. The cumulative economic cost would surpass $1 trillion. It is already our leading cause of death.

Yet, as today’s feature on dementia breakthroughs reveals, there’s reason to be optimistic, with the approval of the world’s first drug treatments shown to modify Alzheimer’s disease and new blood tests that can detect key changes decades before symptoms arrive. This progress is momentous and has sparked renewed vigour and momentum in research and development – but it should not be a cause for complacency.

Funding shortfalls are a recurring issue raised by almost every person the Herald spoke to, across areas from research and prevention to subsidies and the development of novel therapies. The sad truth is funding could be the determining factor for whether some develop dementia in our lifetime.

Take Australia’s brain banks, where hundreds of donated brains are collected, stored and distributed in samples around the world for vital research. Post-mortem brain examinations are gold standard for understanding pathology and informing new treatments. Yet, Sydney Brain Bank does not have long-term funding support and relies on philanthropy. The Victorian Brain Bank is not accepting new tissue because of a lack of funding. Others have been forced to close.

Prevention is also under-funded. Not long ago considered a matter of genetic destiny, dementia risk is now 45 per cent attributable to modifiable factors. A new government letter being sent to people turning 50 about risk reduction is a good start, but public awareness remains low and key opportunities for intervention are being missed.

Awareness campaigns and a midlife check could make a difference. A short online survey developed in Australia that gives users a personalised risk assessment for dementia is also funded by philanthropy. If it were supported by government and integrated into GP software, it could be scaled up to prevent or delay the disease. A dedicated Medicare item number for consultations on dementia prevention would also help.

In laboratories, researchers must compete for a limited pool of grants to fund their work.

For individuals, government subsidies would make a difference. Some dig into their superannuation to pay up to $100,000 for expensive new drug treatments. Bill Yeates had to self-fund $2500 for a PET scan that confirmed he had young onset dementia.

The government spends billions of dollars a year on dementia, most of which deservedly goes into aged care services.

But given the size of both our nation’s dementia prognosis and the potential to change our trajectory, not enough is going into targeted, practical and innovative strategies. The government should take a long-term view and invest for the health of our country, rather than for short-term returns. The human and economic costs of failing to act are too great.