Limits are being placed on profits doctors can make on some cancer drugs, causing oncologists to search for new income. Some fear these physicians may resort to prescribing additional treatments for some patients. Not just any treatments, though -- just the ones with the best reimbursements.

Until 2005, Medicare paid a markup of 20 to 100 percent for many cancer drugs. In 2005, Congress changed the reimbursement system to pay physicians just six percent more than the average price for a given treatment. This decrease has made it difficult for small practices to break even on cancer drug purchases because the purchases are not large enough to receive rebates or discounts from drug manufacturers.

According to a recent New York Times article, some oncologists have attempted to increase profits by performing chemotherapy more often, ordering more diagnostic scans, and by putting pressure on patients to make out-of-pocket drug co-payments.

Say it isn't so.

I had no idea my February 10 post Some children's bath products linked to cancer would spark such great debate. At the very moment I write, the post has received more than 64,000 hits and 70 comments.

I must admit when the comments started rolling in, I was a bit nervous. Even though I merely reported the facts on this topic, had no claim to any of the information, and didn't even share my opinion on the matter, the highly charged words written by so many well-meaning readers made me feel a bit like I was caught in the middle, like I started an argument and needed to jump back in, sort things out, and create harmony among those responding to my words.

But then I realized debate is not such a bad thing. It sheds light on all sorts of valid viewpoints. It educates. It raises awareness. And that's what cancer causes are all about.

Having read all the comments that now are officially assigned to this one post, I am so much more enlightened than when I summarized the story I came across revealing that some bath products contain a bit too much of a chemical called 1,4-dioxane, a probable human carcinogen that is already known to cause cancer in animals.

All I really knew at the time I wrote the post is that the FDA has no regulation over this chemical and that cosmetic companies must monitor themselves. Some don't do such a good job, and herein lies the debate.

Some readers say big deal, what's the harm really in a little extra dash of chemical in a whole tub of water. Perhaps if our children soaked all day for many days in this chemical, cancer might strike. But a quick bath with a tiny trace of 1,4-dioxane is not likely to do any harm. One reader wrote that we shouldn't stress so much about headlines that scare us into believing everything causes cancer, that we'll probably live a whole lot longer just living our lives free of constant worry.

Another camp of readers say a little bit of something bad is still too much. Over the course of a lifetime, how do we know our children won't pay for our mistaken belief that this hype is just -- hype. Some cancer surviving readers wonder if their cancer was caused by their plentiful childhood bubble baths. And some go to great lengths to find natural, organic, chemical-free products, whatever the financial cost.

A few consultants for these natural products left their own comments, claiming to help those consumed with anxiety. Others scolded these business people for capitalizing on the fears of others with products that have not been proved any safer.

There are advocates of moderation who wrote. And individuals seeking more information. And people who located resources for others to investigate.

There is indeed a rich commentary on the link between bath products and cancer that follows one short post I wrote late one night, after my own children were bathed -- with Dove soap and generic shampoo -- and put to bed. And I am indeed happy to know my small contribution on the topic has generated such a powerful windfall of thought and concern.

Environmental groups claim some children's bath products contain a suspected cancer-causing chemical in amounts that reach or exceed safe limits. The chemical in question -- 1,4-dioxane -- is found in products made by companies such as Johnson and Johnson, Disney, Kimberly-Clark, and Gerber, says David Steinman, head of the environmental publishing company Freedom Press.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calls this chemical, already known to cause cancer in animals, a probable human carcinogen. But there is no real regulation on the petroleum-derived chemical and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) only recommends cosmetic companies limit the concentration of 1,4-dioxane to 10 parts per million (ppm).

Studies show Johnson's Kids Shampoo Watermelon Explosion contains the maximum recommended level of 10 ppm. They also reveal that Kid Care's Hello Kitty Bubble Bath contains 12.3 ppm of the chemical. And two adult shampoos have been found to have twice the recommended level of this chemical that is typically a manufacturing by-product.

It's been reported that nearly 57 percent of all baby soaps contain 1,4-dioxane. But Iris Grossman, director of communications at Johnson and Johnson, stresses that all of her products are within FDA limits.

Cancer is not the only risky link to children's bath products. It seems these items are also linked to early puberty development. And this is concerning because a fast-paced growth rate combined with children's porous skin increases susceptibility to toxins that can enter the bloodstream. One breast cancer expert says an increase in breast cancer risk is linked to toxic exposures during the formative years of life.

Singer and songwriter Jewel sat down with ABC News This Week's George Stephanopoulos to discuss her support of a bill that will allow women to stay in the hospital at least 48 hours after a mastectomy. Called drive-thru mastectomies, the current practice of discharging women hours after surgery does not allow women sufficient time to heal before being released from the hospital.

During the interview Jewel placed the blame on insurance companies and HMOs who have decided that a mastectomy is not major surgery but an outpatient procedure. You have got to be kidding me, what an absurdity.

As Jewel stated, "This certainly isn't a merely feminist issue. This is about the care of our loved ones."

I don't see it as much a feminist issue as simply a matter of compassionate, and in this case, safe health care of mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters. The obnoxious practice of bean counters to decide that any major surgery is an outpatient procedure to save on health care expenses has been going on far too long.

Jewel will travel to Washington to help deliver 12 million signatures to Congress to support a health care bill that requires insurance companies and HMOs to cover the cost of proper care for women undergoing mastectomy. The VOICES: Jewel Lobbies for Breast Cancer Bill interview is available as video for viewing online.

At this time, there are 200 companies engaged in 600 clinical trials that involve 340 immunotherapy drugs -- all under study in an attempt to assist in the treatment of 40 different cancers. The top five targeted cancers are melanoma, breast, lung, prostate, and colorectal.

While antibody studies are the top headline-makers right now, cancer vaccines are following behind. With the recent approval of Gardasil -- the cervical cancer vaccine -- the push for more vaccine options will become strong. Future industry challenges also include discovering strong antigens, effective immunomodulators, and suitable delivery technologies.

Powerful drugs like Avastin, Erbitux, and Rituxan are just the precursors to what might lie ahead for cancer patients as a result of this widespread effort to knock cancer out of the ballpark.

While public and private groups, along with researchers and a few drug companies, have been making serious efforts to help smokers quit smoking cigarettes, the tobacco industry has been spiking the level of nicotine in cigarettes, according to a study by the Department of Public Health. Between the years 1998 to 2004, the amount of nicotine in cigarettes has risen by ten percent.

According to Lois Keithly , director of the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program, "We in public health have tried to spend a lot of time figuring out why people don't stop smoking."

Full withdrawal will be felt after the first day of not smoking. But symptoms from nicotine withdrawal are felt within the first 30 minutes after the last cigarette, with smokers reporting cravings within the first hour after the last cigarette. In one hour, smokers reported anger. In three hours of smoking cessation, smokers reported heightened levels of anxiety, sadness and difficulty concentrating. Nicotine is what makes cigarettes so addictive.

The Boston Globe reports when contacted, representatives of the three major tobacco makers in the US declined to comment on the study and would not answer questions about the nicotine content of their products.

In an interview with the Globe, We're on the way to making cancer a chronic but tolerable disease, one of the leading oncology experts in the US, John Hopkins Medical Institution cancer researcher David Sidransky, states that we are undergoing a profound change in the way cancer is thought of -- from a deadly disease to a chronic one that will be treated much the same as diabetes or heart disease is currently managed.

With individualized treatments and new drugs, Dr Sidransky predicts that chemotherapy dosages can be reduced and in some cases, not needed as a part of cancer treatment. When asked what he thought chemotherapy drug manufacturers reaction to this might be, he explained that patents on most chemotherapy drugs have already expired, and these companies are working on the next generation of cancer treatments -- such as drugs to manipulate the immune system.

Most of the interview focus is on business and the development of Israel's biotechnology industry, and it is a peek into the potential future of cancer treatments. The bottom line is cancer treatment is driven by the business of drug companies. Paying attention to what they are talking about and what direction they are headed gives us an idea what we can expect in new treatments.

Although under pressure to do so, Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) wrote in an editorial that medical journals cannot ban researchers from having research papers published that do not disclose commercial ties to pharmaceutical companies -- for fear of antitrust lawsuits. DeAngelis also stated that, "rooting out conflicts of interest is nearly impossible given that for-profit companies often provide the funding to discover, test and market advances in medicine."

What does potential conflicts of interest and lack of required disclosure mean for the public? That scientific research reports on research into new drugs and various treatments for disease is, and will remain, open to suspicion as to the scientific integrity of research, if it is not transparent in who is writing the check to have the study done. Even DeAngelis admits that honest disclosure of financial support for researchers is essential information for the public. This is a serious issue that needs to be resolved in a better way than is currently being suggested -- public confidence and health depend on it.

Dealing with cancer in private is hard. Dealing with cancer publicly can be even harder. CEO Donna McAleer -- the founding executive and public face of the large, growing health care company Elant -- knows this firsthand. She just recently went public with her breast cancer diagnosis and prognosis after rumors of her demise started circulating. McAleer set the record straight, announcing that she is doing just fine. While her experience has been frightening, she is surviving well -- and she wants the public to know. She has run Elant for 20 years and wants to dispel any myths about its stability. Apple CEO Steve Jobs faced the same public drama in 2004 after surgery for pancreatic cancer and subsequent drops in Apple stock. Jobs recovered -- and so did the stock -- but the speculation that swirled was powerful and potentially damaging. Just as it was that same year when Kraft Foods was criticized for withholding details of its CEO's hospitalization.

There is some debate in the business world about all of this -- about whether or not executive illnesses should be disclosed. For public companies, one opinion is that there is an obligation to respond quickly to the public. In a private company, it's up to the CEO. McAleer's Elant is not a publicly traded company and there is no worry about stock price -- but her decision to reveal her personal health crisis was the right thing to do, she says. "I have an obligation to share this news in how I progress, in order to educate and make sure people aren't frightened by it," she said in reference to the memo she sent to her 700 employees and community groups too.

I'm open and honest about my own cancer experience because I believe it can help others -- and it helps me to talk about it too. So I'm a fan of a forthcoming approach in the workplace. I appreciate that some fear repercussions that might result from such a disclosure. But honesty may be the best policy -- for prevention of rumors and addressing worry and raising awareness too. McAleer seems to agree as she takes this opportunity to speak up, to encourage women to seek mammograms and to follow up on them.

Close to 6,000 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientists were contacted by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and asked to answer a 38-question survey in an effort to determine the scientific integrity of the agency. Of the scientists contacted, 997 participated in the survey. Following are some key findings of the survey released by UCS:

Horizon Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Jersey announced plans to launch a test program where they will be implanting an ID microchip in people who suffer from chronic diseases. The radio frequency identification device (RFID) microchip will include family contact information and medical history. The purpose is to give emergency room medical staff the ability to access a patient's information if they are brought to the emergency room and are unable to speak on their own.

According to the test program team, Horizon will start sending letters to patients with chronic diseases explaining the new program and inviting them to participate. The program will be cost-free and voluntary for those who wish to participate.

RFID implanted microchips in surgical sponges is one thing -- in people? I don't know.

I am taking an informal poll. Would you consent to having a microchip implanted in your right arm for the purpose of information retrieval?

I have been a cheerleader for the breast cancer drug Herceptin ever since I began receiving it. I had my initial worries -- about an allergic reaction that I knew caused death within 24 hours for a handful of women and about possible toxicity to the heart -- but after faring well through my first dose and having now successfully completed my one year obligation to the drug, with no allergic reaction or heart damage, I have come to believe the Herceptin might just be the gem of a drug that the media says it is. Yet now I've read an article that makes me question what I really know about Herceptin -- and the studies that surround it and the statistics that back it and the messages sent out over the lines of mass communication to every day, non-medical people like me.

Few would disagree that the health care system in this country is breaking down. If you are one of the 45 million without health insurance you already know how difficult it is to get health care, and if you have medical insurance you continue to watch as your insurance premiums and deductibles go up year after year. Medicine has become more about money and less about patient care. We are told we spend more because we have the best health care system in the world.

But as Maggie Mahar points out in her new book, Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much, "We spend twice as much as Japan on health care -- yet few would argue that our health care system is twice as good." Mahar, a seasoned financial journalist, takes an in depth look at what she calls America's complicated and increasingly dysfunctional health care system, and what she finds is disturbing. Frankly, from a patient's perspective, it's reprehensible.

Doctors aren't allowed to function as doctors in putting a patient's needs first -- no -- medicine is business and corporations decide on a patient's treatment. To put it bluntly, medicine is a market-driven $2 trillion industry rife with competition. To cite just one example of what is taking place, and to illustrate how medicine truly sees itself  -- Milwaukee hospitals spent more in one year on advertising than fast food business did. Reviewers are calling Mahar's book a thoroughly researched and carefully reasoned study. I call it gutsy because she takes no prisoners and she isn't keeping any secrets. Until the day comes when doctors are allowed to practice medicine once again, with the priority on the patient and not corporate profit, the wheels on this buggy are going to keep falling off one by one until the axle completely splits in two. A must read for anyone who wants to understand how the system works and what motivates the players. The patients aren't even in the game. And that is what is truly appalling. 

Cancer Research UK has announced its plans to develop new treatments from anti-cancer drugs that have been abandoned by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. The cancer charity is asking for the opportunity to take these anti-cancer drugs and develop them for possible new cancer treatments. Under the terms of the Clinical Development Partnership, CDP, the charity would test the drugs in early trials at no cost to the company. If the drugs show promise at the end of the clinical trials, the pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies could retain the option to develop and market them and the charity would receive a share of the revenue.

According to the people at Cancer Research UK, developing a new drug can take a decade or more and cost as much as 500 million pounds. Only about eight percent of molecules tested in phase-one safety trials make it to market. For anti-cancer drugs the odds are even lower. In addition, mergers in the pharmaceutical industry have resulted in competing programs and hard choices about which compounds to develop -- resulting in many molecules being abandoned from further research. Sounds like a win-win-win proposition -- for the cancer patient, the cancer charity, and the cancer drug companies.