Former Sen. Christopher Bond

Republican  •  Missouri 4 Terms  •  Sworn In 1987
Last Term 2005 - 2010 View All

Comments Feed

  • Moderated Comment

  • Anonymous 02/13/2008 11:29am

    Those who vote for unconstitutional warrentless wiretaps and vote to protect the criminals that violate our privacy are not worthy of the position they hold. It’s impossible to justify undermining the very essence of our constitution in order to protect it. Another sell out.

  • Anonymous 06/27/2008 6:06am

    Thanks! for voting nay on S 3101 (Medicare Competitive Bidding Delay)…lets just turn this country into a socialistic society. Do you realize that by allowing competitive bidding you are making large companies get bigger and shutting down thousands of smaller Durable Medical Equipment companies, thus thousands of jobs have been lost. Medicare recipients have not been educated on this issue and are in for a scare. Thanks again….greed and money= US government!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Anonymous 10/20/2008 8:12am

    Sounds like someone is going to get one of those bs kickbacks for using old equipment that costs more.
    It needs some press…somehow someway

  • Anonymous 12/28/2008 7:43pm

    Medicare Abuse in my opinion.

    New York Times 12-17-2008 about Medicare coverage of prostate cancer link follows:

    I gave testimony at the following meeting regarding Medicare coverage of prostate cancer.

    “Official Testimony of
    Fred >>>>>, Patient
    SBRT Treatment of Cancer of the Prostate
    Palmetto GBA/Medicare Open Draft LCD meeting
    November 18, 2008

    Good morning Palmetto GBA administrators, doctors and other interested parties. Thank you for allowing me to discuss Medicare coverage of SBRT/CyberKnife for treating prostate cancer.
    My name is Fred >>>>>> and I am a small business owner. I am testifying on behalf of myself as an interested party, a prostate cancer patient treated with the CyberKnife and a prostate cancer advocate. I am also a founder of ZERO the Project to End Prostate Cancer.
    I was diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) in Aug. of 2007. My PSA was 4.0 ng/ml, a transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy revealed a stage T1c adenocarcinoma involving the right mid to right apex with a Gleason score of 3+3; in 3 of 12 cores.
    I discussed all treatment options with my family doctor, doctors at Stanford, Surgeons and Radiation Oncologists. I reviewed all options with my wife. As a father of a nine year old son, Business owner, treatment recovery time was an important consideration. I have a clogged artery which made the risk of surgery higher than I was willing to consider.
    I selected SBRT/CyberKnife treatment option for prostate cancer at Stanford. Their clinical trial data, started Dec. 2003, was very encouraging with ZERO biological failures and minimal side effects (my research suggested the CyberKnife is at least as effective as IMRT). My CyberKnife treatment was five days of one hour sessions with no recovery time (IMRT is five days per week for eight weeks). I was advised of and understand the long term risk of radiation side effects and felt the advantages of SBRT/CyberKnife treatment far out weighted the long term risk.
    I completed CyberKnife treatment (May 7, 2008) by Dr. Christopher King. Fourteen days post CK treatment there were minimal side effects. I continued to work every day during and after treatment.
    It is now over six months post CyberKnife treatment. I am 110% of pretreatment base line for all related functions. The plus 10% is from improved urinations. Before treatment I would get up 3-4 times a night now I typically get up once. My PSA at the six month follow up was 1.09 ng/ml. SBRT/CyberKnife has treated my prostate cancer and has improved my quality of life.
    The key messages I hope to impart to you today are:
    1. The previous Medicare contractor in California, NHIC, provided coverage for SBRT/CyberKnife treatment for prostate cancer.
    2. SBRT/CyberKnife treatment for prostate cancer is consistent with the Presidents statement from his press conference announcing the MMA of 2003. With this law, we’re giving older Americans better choices and more control over their health care, so they can receive the modern medical care they deserve.
    3. SBRT/CyberKnife treatment for prostate cancer is consistent with Mark B. McClellan, M.D. PhD Administrator. “Our nation has made a promise, a solemn promise to America’s seniors. We have pledged to help our citizens find affordable medical care in the later years of life.”
    4. As outlined in the CMS Statement of Work for the Palmetto Medicare Jurisdiction (J1), and on Palmettos Website: The MAC shall select the least restrictive Local Coverage Determination (LCD) from the existing LCDs on a single topic when consolidating LCDs. CMS has identified that there may be instances where the decision to implement “no policy” would meet the definition of the “least restrictive LCD”.
    5. There are no prostate cancer treatment options without serious risk of permanent side effects and biological failure.
    6. The patient in consultation with his doctor(s) must decide what treatments are appropriate for their unique circumstance.
    a. Some patients live in rural areas with limited or no local treatment centers.
    b. Some patients have medical conditions that make surgery a high risk.
    c. Some patients have limited mobility making treatment very difficult.
    d. Some patients continue to work full time and this trend is increasing. Making treatment recovery and time away from work an important factor.
    e. Some patients have limited financial resources that limit treatment options due to cost of travel, food and lodging.
    7. The majority of Medicare Contractors include SBRT/CyberKnife treatment for prostate cancer.
    8. Blue Shield of California the largest insurer in the state, in July of 2008, added SBRT/CyberKnife to their policy for treatment of prostate cancer.
    All of the above support Medicare coverage of SBRT/CyberKnife treatment for cancer of the prostate.
    Please consider the fundamental right of patients to make treatment decisions for themselves in consultation with their doctors and families, and for the patients well being and overall quality of life.

    I have no financial interest in Accuray Inc., Stanford University Medical Center or any other medical provider.
    Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today.”

  • Anonymous 12/28/2008 7:48pm

    Palmetto Meeting Comments to Palmetto, CMS and the President of the united States.

    Additional Comments by Fred,
    Patient, and a Founder of ZERO, The Project to End Prostate Cancer
    On SBRT Treatment of Cancer of the Prostate
    Palmetto GBA/Medicare Open Draft LCD meeting, November 18, 2008

    Deep concerns about the process
    Thank you for the opportunity to speak at the recent open meeting held in Los Angeles on November 18th. While I appreciated the opportunity, I would like to state for the public record that I was very disappointed with the failure to provide adequate seating for the registered attendees. Standing room only for physicians and patients who traveled hundreds of miles to provide expert testimony was unacceptable.
    Registration for the meeting was required1, but unregistered representatives from drug companies, with no interest in the policies on the agenda, were allowed to sit at the conference table. By contrast, most registered attendees who came to give testimony or make clinical presentations had to stand in the conference room and adjacent rooms, where it was difficult to hear what was being discussed. No audio-visual aid was available, so we could not see charts and other evidence. Since presentations were solicited in advance, it is hard to explain this as poor planning; it was certainly a formidable deterrent to those who wanted to speak.
    This illustrates Palmetto’s lack of consideration and respect for Doctors and patients, and indeed for the reconsideration process that CMS has mandated. Given this lack of courtesy and the way in which I and others were treated when we attempted to ask questions during the meeting, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Palmetto is simply going through the motions of “reconsideration”, and that its mind is already made up. I hope that events prove me wrong, but I am deeply concerned.

    While I also appreciate Palmetto’s stated concern “to save money” as the reason for the chosen locale, this statement seems disingenuous as the savings to Medicare for one patient to be treated with SBRT (vs. a course of IMRT treatment in the physician office), would have paid for a professional conference room and hotel rooms for all attendees.
    The meeting was held at PCRI, an organization whose website advertises the benefits of IMRT and is conspicuously silent on SBRT. The Palmetto Medical Director is listed as a board member of PCRI. I leave it to others better qualified than I to consider whether this raises issues of ethics or of conflict of interest.

    Request: Palmetto include SBRT as a treatment option for prostate cancer.
    Doctor Lurvey stated at this LCD meeting that he did not care what dose was delivered by IMRT, as that was up to the patients’ doctor.2 While I agree that patients and their doctors should make the treatment choice, increasing the dose of IMRT without clinical studies to verify patient safety translates into Medicare paying for investigational IMRT treatments.
    IMRT is considered investigational and no better than 3D-RT. As stated by the California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF)20:

    “IMRT for prostate cancer was an agenda item at two prior CTAF meetings where discussion focused on a technology assessment that concluded IMRT for prostate cancer was investigational. The investigational status was based on the lack of evidence from controlled trials proving that IMRT provided any incremental benefit over the conventional 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT). However, advocates of IMRT pointed out that IMRT should not be considered a new form of radiation therapy subject to distinct technology assessment. Furthermore, advocates pointed out that dose planning studies of IMRT documenting reduced radiation to normal tissues were an acceptable surrogate outcome.”
    When a patient is treated by IMRT the treatment center submits a code for payment. The dose received by the patient defined varies from treatment center to treatment center. Based on the success of the SBRT, using the CyberKnife, and HDR Brachytherapy for treating prostate cancer with a higher dose of ionizing radiation, IMRT centers are increasing their doses. There have been no randomized trials to define what dose is the most effective and the long term risk, or side effects.

    For the treatment of prostate cancer, no one therapy has been proven to be more safe or effective than any other (for example, look at the government’s own agency AHRQ’s February 2008 report on prostate cancer alternatives3). Therefore, each patient in consultation with their physician should be allowed to make the choice of treatment that is best for them that weighs effectiveness and adverse events (such as sexual dysfunction, and urinary and bowel injury).
    Despite the lack of any definitive or conclusive evidence which demonstrates the superiority of one therapy over another, it is documented in the literature that treatment of localized cancer of the prostate by HDR Brachytherapy and SBRT have cure rates as good as or better than IMRT, 3D-RT, Proton Therapy and Surgery. At one, two, three and four years, the CyberKnife at its worst, is no worse than IMRT and Proton therapy which ASTRO advertises on their website for treating prostate cancer.4-17
    Prostate cancer is the number two cancer of men. There is no doubt that millions of dollars are at stake. Unfortunately, there seems to be a misconception that providing SBRT as an option for the treatment of prostate cancer is somehow financially driven. It’s actually the other way around – IMRT18 is far more lucrative a business than SBRT.
    Look at the facts:
    1. The doctor receives less pay for 4-5 SRS/SBRT visits vs. 40 IMRT visits.
    2. Medicare pays far more for IMRT in a physician office setting, which is where roughly one third of IMRT procedures are performed. Even in the hospital outpatient setting, where Medicare currently reimburses about the same for IMRT and SBRT, Medicare will pay several thousand dollars more for IMRT in 2009.
    3. The patient cost of treatment (deductible/copay), transportation, food and lodging is much less for SBRT than IMRT.
    4. Proton Therapy is the most expensive of all treatments “and shows no benefit over other forms of radiation”.19
    5. Blue Shield of California, the largest insurer in the state of California, policy covers CyberKnife for treatment of prostate cancer (attached).
    In its October 31, 2008 Report titled “Final CMS Rules Look Positive For Radiation Oncology, Neutral for Others” Oppenheimer reported:
    Radiation Oncology. There are roughly 30 commonly used codes. Most important is that the key IMRT code (77418) will be up 18% y/y for HOPPS (and up 13% from proposed), as IGRT, which was incorrectly bundled in ‘08 with no adjustment, is now finally being reflected in payments. So total IMRT+IGRT goes from $403 in CY07 to $348 in CY08 to $411 in CY09. For PFS, 77418 is down 14% y/y. Most other IMRT-related codes are up double digits.
    By contrast, Oppenheimer reports that for Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), the final robotic SRS codes are generally down in line with proposed rules, with first fraction (G0339) down 3% and 2nd–5th fraction (G0340) down 10% (HOPPS). Reimbursement for Elekta’s Gammaknife (77371) is down 5% (HOPPS), while other SRS codes are flat to slightly up (both from proposed and y/y).
    At the ASTRO 2008 Annual Meeting, ASTRO’s President-elect, Dr. Anthony Zietman, M.D. gave a presentation on proton radiation for early prostate cancer. Dr. Zietman spoke on results from a phase I/II clinical trial in which it failed to show any benefit over other forms of radiation19:

    “Proton radiation has unquestioned value for treatment of certain rare cancers, said Dr. Zietman. However, the technology has yet to demonstrate any advantages over other forms of radiation therapy for common malignancies, such as lung and prostate cancer, where proton radiation centers would recoup the capital investment.

    “The problem is that most patients in the United States treated with proton beam are treated for prostate cancer,” he said. “It’s the economic driver of the proton avalanche.”
    Given the lack of any demonstrated superior outcomes for Proton Therapy why does Palmetto allow proton therapy to be covered for the treatment of prostate cancer and not SBRT? Before Palmetto implemented the non-coverage policy of prostate cancer for SBRT it had been covered in California under the exact same circumstances as proton beam therapy. Unlike SBRT, Palmetto continues to cover proton beam despite any evidence to support its superiority over SBRT or any other forms of radiation therapy.

    As a cancer patient and as a concerned citizen, I believe that my government should make available all treatment options including SBRT, not just those that are backed by vested financial interests. I feel very strongly about a patient’s right to make an informed choice for their treatment. Every treatment has risk; and from my extensive research every other option has higher risk of death, infection or biological failure. It must be the patients’ choice in consultation with our doctors to select the treatment that best meets our specific limitations or medical needs.
    Best Regards,

    Prostate Cancer Patient
    A ZERO founder The Project to End Prostate Cancer________________________________________
    1 The Palmetto GBA Website stated: Palmetto GBA encourages individuals interested in attending the open meeting to register early. Registration will be closed 2 business days prior to the meeting or once space limitations are reached, whichever comes first. Individuals seeking to present information at the Open Draft LCD meeting should submit a request via E-mail to along with a copy of their presentation.
    2 IMRT 81-86 Gy Http://
    3 AHRQ’s February 2008 report on prostate cancer alternatives link:



    8 Grills IS, Martinez AA, Hollander M, Huang R, Goldman K, Chen PY,
    Gustafson GS. High dose rate brachytherapy as prostate cancer monotherapy7
    reduces toxicity compared to low dose rate palladium seeds. J Urol. 2004

    9 Fuller DB, Naitoh J, Lee C, Hardy S, Jin H. Virtual HDR CyberKnife
    Treatment for Localized Prostatic Carcinoma: Dosimetry Comparison With HDR
    Brachytherapy and Preliminary Clinical Observations. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
    Phys. 2008 Apr 1;70(5):1588-97.

    10 King CR, Lehmann J, Adler JR, Hai J. CyberKnife radiotherapy for localized
    prostate cancer: rationale and technical feasibility. Technol Cancer Res Treat.
    2003 Feb;2(1):25-30

    11 Hara W, Patel D, Pawlicki T, Cotrutz C, Presti J, King C. Hypofractionated
    stereotactic radiotherapy for prostate cancer: early results. Int J Radiat Oncol
    Biol Phys. 66(3)(supplement):S324-325, 2006.

    12 King CR, Brooks J, Gill H, Cotrutz C, Pawlicki T, Presti JC. Stereotactic Body
    Radiosurgery for Localized Prostate Cancer: PSA results and Toxicity of a Phase
    II Clinical Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 in press.

    13 Madsen BL, Hsi RA, Pham HT, Fowler JF, Esagui L, Corman J. Stereotactic
    hypofractionated accurate radiotherapy of the prostate (SHARP), 33.5 Gy in five
    fractions for localized disease: first clinical trial results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
    Phys. 67(4):1099-105. Mar 15 2007

    14 Fuller DB, Lee C, Hardy S, Jin H. Virtual HDR CyberKnife Radiosurgery:
    Technical Evolution and Clinical Results One Year Following Introduction.
    CyberKnife Society Annual Meeting. January 2008, Scottsdale AZ.

    15 Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, Häggman M, Andersson SO, Bratell S,
    Spångberg A, Busch C, Nordling S, Garmo H, Palmgren J, Adami HO, Norlén
    BJ, Johansson JE; Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study No. 4. Radical
    prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med.
    2005 May 12;352(19):1977-84.

    16 Fuller, DB, Lee, C., et al. Prospective Evaluation of CyberKnife® Radiosurgery
    of Low and Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: Emulating HDR Brachytherapy

    17 Meier, R., Cotrutz, C., et al. Prospective Evaluation of CyberKnife® Stereotactic
    Radiosurgery of Low and Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: Homogenous Dose

  • timhavens 03/27/2009 3:13am

    If you have the chance to vote on H.J.Res.41 please vote Aye!

  • Comm_reply
    atruepatriot 08/10/2009 6:00pm

    that would be hr not hj….

  • timhavens 03/29/2009 8:29am

    As a citizen of the United States, and a Resident of the State of Missouri, I respectfully DEMAND that you return any fund raising donations to your campaign received from any corporation or company which has received TARP funds “Bailout” monies.

    I did not agree with companies like “AIG” issuing contractual bonuses to employees with TARP funds, NOR to I agree with anyone in Congress or the Senate, in fact ANY public official taking a ‘donation’ to their campaign from any company currently being funded by ‘bailout’ monies of ANY kind including “TARP” funds.

    If you have recieved monies of this sort from any company or corporation please return 100% of it to the company or corporation IMMEDIATELY!

    Please also introduce a BILL in congress which requires the same of all other Elected officials within the United States so that they may NOT ACCEPT donations from such ‘bailed out’ companies or corporations.

    See Continued Comment…

  • timhavens 03/29/2009 8:29am

    …Continued from Previous comment…
    Accepting such funds equates to accepting a ‘kick back’ from companies you may have voted bailout, with the Tax Payer Burdening the weight.

    This simply is NOT right, and should be made ILLEGAL! It is a CLEAR violation of a conflict of interest. The interest being that of the People whom you represent vs. the need for you to fund your campaigns.

    Please return immediately any funds you have received from these organizations, and no not accept anymore at least until the ‘bailed out’ companies have restored the funds they have accepted from “TARP”.

    Please also make every effort to encourage legislation in this regard, and please pressure your peers to do the same.

    Tim R. Havens

  • timhavens 03/30/2009 3:40am

    H.R. 1444 ‘Congressional Commission on Civic Service Act’ Sec 4.b.6

    “(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”

    Please VOTE TO STRIKE THIS TEXT from H.R. 1444 prior to any further motion on this bill.

  • timhavens 04/02/2009 5:34am

    Please vote Aye for H.R. 1207 – “Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009” It is about time we have an Audit of the Private institution which calls itself ‘The FEDERAL Reserve" don’t you think?

  • Comm_reply
    atruepatriot 08/10/2009 6:04pm

    I like where your head is…go RON PAUL 2012

  • prouddem570 11/02/2009 12:58pm

    Your a scumbag, Mr. Kit Bond. How could you vote against the unemployment extension? You must have not concern for members of your constituency who have been sold up the river by wall street cronies who could care less whether or not they can feed their families. Keep up the good work, sticking up for big business over your own people who are struggling.

  • Comm_reply
    snappy69 03/21/2010 12:16pm

    It’s pretty simple prouddem570, the problem with social programs that “give” money to anyone for any reason is that you eventually run our of other people’s money. The Constitution guaranteed you the right to “The pursuit of happiness”…. I’m afraid you’ll have to catch it yourself!

  • SRORRER 12/29/2009 2:01pm


  • Spam Comment

  • Spam Comment

  • AnnaSchaefer 06/20/2010 11:38pm

    You and the rest of the Republicans are so transparent! President Obama, as well as us Americans, know what you are doing. Stalling and not voting on what the people want and need in this country. Do the job you were elected to do, and start voting! Your tactics in stalling is only going to back fire on you all. Show our President some respect. How you treat him, is a reflection on how you treat us Americans. We may have been fooled in the past, but not anymore! We The People have spoken by electing President Obama into office. We need change and we need it now! And quit blaming President Obama for the disaster in the Gulf. Enough is enough!

  • Revolution 06/28/2010 7:10pm

    You are a disgrace to your country and should be embarrassed to have the UNITED STATES in front of your title.4th of July is upon us-it reminds us of history and how the people can come together to make a difference.I hope you and your family meet the same outcome as the 15,000,000+ unemployed.You turned your back on the Citizens by playing games and stupid antics.Assistance needs to be offered to ease the minds of the families and allow continued dignity no matter the cost. You spend OUR money like water and the American people MUST and SHOULD be priority one!
    “As good government is an empire of laws, how shall your laws be made? In a large society,inhabiting an extensive country,it is impossible that the whole should assemble to make laws. The first necessary step, then,is to depute power from the many to a few of the most wise and good.”
    John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
    Obviously we dont have the few wise and good in the senate-but we have the power to change that.

  • Spam Comment

  • pelmof 06/29/2010 5:16am

    Dear Senator Bond,
    S.3520 needs to be passed immediately. There are 15 million Americans who are “unemployed through no fault of their own,” and who are also frantically attempting to find new jobs that do not exist. The majority of these 15 million have a family dependent upon their income, so that increases the number to possibly 30 or even 45 million Americans who are in imminent danger of losing everything. When this happens, the financial and moral ramifications for this country will be dire indeed. I’ll say it again— S.3520 needs to be passed immediately! Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

  • Spam Comment

  • Star58 07/21/2010 2:14am

    I’d like to thank you for almost getting me put out of my home. I would like to thank you for my financial situation. It is now worse now that you didn’t vote for the UI extension.
    I pray to God that you don’t find yourself in the same situation. And if you are I hope that you get a Democrat that is willing to help you through. Oh and try not to starve your family trying to save a few dollars.

Official website:


Average Rating

Login to Rate
Track with MyOC