We look forward every year to attending the BIO CEO & Investor Conference in New York in February, because it gives us a window into what the issues of interest and concern to the biotech community are, as we’re planning our own activities for the year.
Here are a few nuggets picked up at this year’s conference:
- Reimbursement continues to be a key and thorny issue – and not everyone in the industry is dealing with it. Companies and deal-makers noted that even in early-stage programs, commercial considerations are “at the table,” and that today you need to have not only a biological and clinical hypothesis in early research but a commercial hypothesis as well. However, almost immediately after a fascinating panel discussion about “Reimbursement in an ACA World,” which catalogued some of the fundamental ways in which the world of not just healthcare but research is changing, a panel of very accomplished investors was asked how reimbursement factored into their world view right now – and they all fell back on the conventional wisdom that “truly innovative products will always get paid for.” One investor in a later panel mentioned that “the Street is ‘catching on’ to reimbursement” – just catching on?
- Everyone seems to love the FDA this year. Investors described the regulatory environment as “favorable,” friendlier,” and companies praised the new accelerated approval and breakthrough designation initiatives – while noting that they remain something of a “black box.”
- Rare diseases are hot, with companies and investors. They see that these products can command high prices. Personalized medicine is causing common diseases to be redefined as subtypes that in many cases could be considered “rare,” and clearly companies were embracing this line of thinking. Hepatitis C, on everyone’s lips last year, was almost nowhere to be found – instead we heard about multiple myeloma, lysosomal storage disorders, and “genetically defined cancers.” This is great news for patients with rare diseases, but how long will the fad last? What happens to patients then? And, as one speaker noted, “just having orphan designation isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card on pricing anymore.”
- China is attracting not just big pharma companies but smaller biotechs as well – and not only to take advantage of cheaper gene sequencing or clinical research capacity, but to manufacture and sell products as well as to raise capital. While doing business in China is not an easy row to hoe, you could hear the excitement of the panelists talking about this new frontier for U.S. companies. Many U.S.-educated Chinese scientists and businesspeople are returning home to make their careers. Will development of the academic infrastructure to fuel homegrown science and companies be far behind?
- Sadly, there was almost no discussion about the impact of impending budget cuts on NIH, which fuels much of the science these companies thrive on, or FDA, which must have the capacity to regulate and approve their products. Their own user fees, which go directly to FDA review of their products, are threatened with sequester – where is the outcry? Besides a promising few talking about the value of these agencies, the policy agenda seemed largely focused on repealing IPAB, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, from the Affordable Care Act.
--- Medical research delivers cures, saves lives and – oh, by the way – is pretty great for our economy too
--- Cutting-Edge Science, Collaboration, and Sustained Funding Needed to Get New Medicines from Lab to Patient
--- The Next Big Thing In Biotech: BIO CEO Conference
--- Are Drugs for Ultra-Rare Diseases the Future of Biotech? Francois Nader of NPS Weighs In