Cecilia Arradaza, Communications Director, FasterCures
With the health reform law in place, participants joining this year’s Milken Institute Global Conference had more questions than answers about its implications. A second panel on health reform convened Tuesday (Read Summary of Monday Health Reform Panel) looks at cost, coverage, and consequences.
“Cost comes from price [of health care] and utilization,” said Ceci Connolly who covers health policy for The Washington Post. Measures are in place to curb the soaring cost of health care services, like a measure that brings hospitalization costs down by lowering readmission rates by addressing preventable underlying causes. But, “we have a lot to do” when it comes to utilization. The law starts to modify behavior by changing incentives, but it requires broader public engagement.
Michael McCallister, President and CEO, Humana Inc. said that the power of consumers are great and can be leveraged with the right incentives, accurate information, and transparency throughout the health system.
The health reform law has measures in place that will move the country toward “outcomes-driven care,” said Billy Tauzin, President and CEO of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
The question now, according to Connolly is “who in the industry is going to innovate?” She noted that “we will see creative, money-making ways” as implementation of different aspects of the law is actualized.
Tauzin said that the law contains protections for biopharmaceutical research if implemented right. To which Connolly pointed out that these protections, the issue of 12-year exclusivity for biosimilars is an ongoing argument among policymakers.
Among the law’s missing links, according to Connolly, was a delay in convening a new Medicare Commission (scheduled for 2014) to examine and improve the Medicaid dental coverage for adults, and no “death panels,” which were never “death panels” to begin with.
Tauzin said the law does not address the litigation system to stop ‘defensive medicine.” The fear of liability encourage healthcare providers to overutilize unnecessary health care service which lead to rising costs that do not necessarily bring better care.
Sandy Beaty, Senior Vice President, Public Affairs, Pfizer Inc., said that implementing this complex health reform law is a five to ten year process.
When panel moderator Sage Kelly of Jefferies & Company asked if timing was right, Tauzin said had the Congress and the President not acted, it would’ve take another 10 years to revisit the issue.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Medical Philanthropy: Investing in the Cure Enterprise
by Gillian Parrish, Manager of Alliance Development and Communications, FasterCures
Though philanthropic investment in medical research accounts for only three percent of overall spending, a pittance compared to government and industry funding, it plays a vital role in catalyzing progress. Unburdened by the demands of shareholders, and the legacy mandates of institutional funders like the NIH, nonprofit disease foundations have the flexibility to fund high risk, high reward research that disproportionately accelerates the pace of innovation.
The “Investing in the Cure Enterprise” panel Monday afternoon at the Milken Institute Global Conference explored what’s working in medical philanthropy and how to encourage more philanthropists to invest effectively in the development of new and better treatments for disease.
Melissa Stevens of FasterCures moderated the discussion, noting the important role that medical philanthropy plays in stimulating research in under-resourced disease areas, and bridging the so-called “valley of death” in funding, between basic discovery and later-stage, clinical research.
Panelists from across the philanthropy spectrum agreed that a mix of accountability and measurement in research, together with investments in process infrastructure, would speed the discovery and development of new treatments.
Though perhaps not as “sexy” as disease-specific investments, funding for the development of medical philanthropy process infrastructure—including the sharing of data and best practices across sectors and diseases—is critical to replicating success and learning from failure, noted Matthew Bishop of The Economist. Melanie Schnoll Begun, Managing Director, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Philanthropic Services, echoed the importance of understanding failures, saying that often in medical R&D, “failures” are actually successes, in that they eliminate ineffective research options and point the way to better cures.
Jane Wales of the Global Philanthropy Forum talked about the growing convergence between the social sector and private sector. “Philanthropists are bringing the rigor of the private sector to the work they do in medical research,” she said, “and the most important thing they can do moving forward is to pass their values along to the generations that follow to drive sustainability towards long-term goals.”
Susan Axelrod of 23andMe, Inc., said: “Philanthropists like us have a high tolerance for risk. We’d rather push the envelope in dramatic ways, even if we might fail, than play it safe.”
Though philanthropic investment in medical research accounts for only three percent of overall spending, a pittance compared to government and industry funding, it plays a vital role in catalyzing progress. Unburdened by the demands of shareholders, and the legacy mandates of institutional funders like the NIH, nonprofit disease foundations have the flexibility to fund high risk, high reward research that disproportionately accelerates the pace of innovation.
The “Investing in the Cure Enterprise” panel Monday afternoon at the Milken Institute Global Conference explored what’s working in medical philanthropy and how to encourage more philanthropists to invest effectively in the development of new and better treatments for disease.
Melissa Stevens of FasterCures moderated the discussion, noting the important role that medical philanthropy plays in stimulating research in under-resourced disease areas, and bridging the so-called “valley of death” in funding, between basic discovery and later-stage, clinical research.
Panelists from across the philanthropy spectrum agreed that a mix of accountability and measurement in research, together with investments in process infrastructure, would speed the discovery and development of new treatments.
Though perhaps not as “sexy” as disease-specific investments, funding for the development of medical philanthropy process infrastructure—including the sharing of data and best practices across sectors and diseases—is critical to replicating success and learning from failure, noted Matthew Bishop of The Economist. Melanie Schnoll Begun, Managing Director, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Philanthropic Services, echoed the importance of understanding failures, saying that often in medical R&D, “failures” are actually successes, in that they eliminate ineffective research options and point the way to better cures.
Jane Wales of the Global Philanthropy Forum talked about the growing convergence between the social sector and private sector. “Philanthropists are bringing the rigor of the private sector to the work they do in medical research,” she said, “and the most important thing they can do moving forward is to pass their values along to the generations that follow to drive sustainability towards long-term goals.”
Susan Axelrod of 23andMe, Inc., said: “Philanthropists like us have a high tolerance for risk. We’d rather push the envelope in dramatic ways, even if we might fail, than play it safe.”
Global Conference FasterCures Panels
Watch video of FasterCures' sessions from Monday covering health and medical research at the 2010 Milken Institute Global Conference.
Healthy Living Trends and Advances: Responding to Today’s Wellness Consumer
Watch a video of this session
Changing Our Health-Care Priorities: Incentivizing Prevention and Cures
Watch a video of this session
Designing Innovative Medical Research Systems: Patients Are the Hidden Asset
Watch a video of this session
Accessing Capital for Medical Innovations
Watch a video of this session
Rethinking Financing for Global Health
Watch video of this session
Medical Philanthropy: Investing in the Cure Enterprise
Watch a video of this session
Healthy Living Trends and Advances: Responding to Today’s Wellness Consumer
Watch a video of this session
Changing Our Health-Care Priorities: Incentivizing Prevention and Cures
Watch a video of this session
Designing Innovative Medical Research Systems: Patients Are the Hidden Asset
Watch a video of this session
Accessing Capital for Medical Innovations
Watch a video of this session
Rethinking Financing for Global Health
Watch video of this session
Medical Philanthropy: Investing in the Cure Enterprise
Watch a video of this session
Rethinking Financing for Global Health
by Loren Becker, Global Health Program Analyst, FasterCures
There is a vital need for creativity and innovation in our thinking about how to fund medical R&D targeting diseases of the developing world, according to a panel of experts from the financial, pharmaceutical, and nonprofit sectors. The discussion focused on innovative financing for global health research and development is part of the health track at the 2010 Milken Institute Global Conference.
Moderator Hannah Kettler, Senior Program Officer and Health Economist at The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation laid the groundwork for the discussion by invoking the name of the late C.K. Prahalad, who was a leading thinker on the concept of the market at the bottom of the wealth pyramid. Although Prahalad, who died last week, did not focus specifically on health, Kettler drew the connection between his broader concept and the market for new medical tools that target diseases disproportionately affecting the poor in developing countries. The question, according to Kettler, was how to attract more investment of resources, financial and otherwise, from a broader set of actors to help meet the health needs of the poor.
Holly Wong, Vice President of Public Policy at the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative pointed to a proposed product development partnership (PDP) financing facility that would rely on a donor-backer bond issue to generate upfront funding while reinvesting some of the proceeds from product sales into the development of new products. The idea, according to Wong, would build more sustainability into the model and allow for cross-subsidization by directing proceeds from one disease area to potentially fund R&D in another.
Eric Easom, Program Leader for Neglected Diseases at Anacor Pharmaceuticals, represented the perspective of a small, privately-held biotechnology company that is collaborating with several PDPs. Easom said that, for smaller companies, “push” funding, which provides capital to companies looking to invest in R&D for developing country needs, is preferable to “pull” funding, which rewards companies for their successful investments.
Stephen Sands, Vice Chairman of Investment Banking and Global Co-Head, Lazard Healthcare, proposed making the investment climate for neglected diseases look more like the one for orphan diseases, which are very attractive to investors because of preferential payment and taxation environments and active patient populations. Sands felt that the credit markets and venture philanthropy models could provide a source of capital that is better aligned with the high risk nature of investment in medical research than debt instruments such bonds.
The audience also brought a variety of perspectives to the discussion. Robert Sebbag of Sanofi-Aventis provided insight on how major pharmaceutical companies make decisions about whether and how to get involved in global health R&D. When asked about how we can ensure products developed for chronic diseases that affect people in both the developed and developing worlds (e.g., diabetes) are accessible to poor populations, Kettler said efforts to make anti-retroviral drugs for HIV/AIDS more accessible as a potential model; however, she also cautioned that affordability issues need to be addressed early in the R&D process in order to ensure that products are accessible to poor patients in the developing world.
There is a vital need for creativity and innovation in our thinking about how to fund medical R&D targeting diseases of the developing world, according to a panel of experts from the financial, pharmaceutical, and nonprofit sectors. The discussion focused on innovative financing for global health research and development is part of the health track at the 2010 Milken Institute Global Conference.
Moderator Hannah Kettler, Senior Program Officer and Health Economist at The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation laid the groundwork for the discussion by invoking the name of the late C.K. Prahalad, who was a leading thinker on the concept of the market at the bottom of the wealth pyramid. Although Prahalad, who died last week, did not focus specifically on health, Kettler drew the connection between his broader concept and the market for new medical tools that target diseases disproportionately affecting the poor in developing countries. The question, according to Kettler, was how to attract more investment of resources, financial and otherwise, from a broader set of actors to help meet the health needs of the poor.
Holly Wong, Vice President of Public Policy at the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative pointed to a proposed product development partnership (PDP) financing facility that would rely on a donor-backer bond issue to generate upfront funding while reinvesting some of the proceeds from product sales into the development of new products. The idea, according to Wong, would build more sustainability into the model and allow for cross-subsidization by directing proceeds from one disease area to potentially fund R&D in another.
Eric Easom, Program Leader for Neglected Diseases at Anacor Pharmaceuticals, represented the perspective of a small, privately-held biotechnology company that is collaborating with several PDPs. Easom said that, for smaller companies, “push” funding, which provides capital to companies looking to invest in R&D for developing country needs, is preferable to “pull” funding, which rewards companies for their successful investments.
Stephen Sands, Vice Chairman of Investment Banking and Global Co-Head, Lazard Healthcare, proposed making the investment climate for neglected diseases look more like the one for orphan diseases, which are very attractive to investors because of preferential payment and taxation environments and active patient populations. Sands felt that the credit markets and venture philanthropy models could provide a source of capital that is better aligned with the high risk nature of investment in medical research than debt instruments such bonds.
The audience also brought a variety of perspectives to the discussion. Robert Sebbag of Sanofi-Aventis provided insight on how major pharmaceutical companies make decisions about whether and how to get involved in global health R&D. When asked about how we can ensure products developed for chronic diseases that affect people in both the developed and developing worlds (e.g., diabetes) are accessible to poor populations, Kettler said efforts to make anti-retroviral drugs for HIV/AIDS more accessible as a potential model; however, she also cautioned that affordability issues need to be addressed early in the R&D process in order to ensure that products are accessible to poor patients in the developing world.
Changing Our Healthcare Priorities: Incentivizing Prevention and Cures
by Cecilia Arradaza, Communications Director, FasterCures
Health reform legislation is a positive step toward providing more Americans with insurance, but there's a big omission: The law doesn't do enough to promote prevention, innovation and cures. In a session moderated by CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo, panelists discussed taking a broader and more holistic approach to what the concept of health care really means.
At least 70 percent of health spending goes toward preventable diseases, most of which are caused or made worse by lifestyle choices. Obesity is linked to several serious medical conditions – from heart disease to cancer – and its consequences are grave.
Every imperative to lose weight is there. But obesity presents an accumulation of complex socioeconomic factors that influence lifestyle choices. For example, in many communities, especially urban neighborhoods, options for healthy choices are limited, not easily affordable, or in some instances, completely unavailable making healthy choices difficult or impossible.
Prevention, said Wayne Gattinella of WebMD, is a “concept without a champion.” Health insurers, pharmaceutical companies and even health-care providers are just not incentivized to promote it. Jay Gellert of Health Net said it’s time to wage a war against obesity, the same way we fought the war against smoking. According to Gellert, “right now, we are fighting this war with squirt guns.”
Ardis Hoven of the American Medical Association called for educating the public in a meaningful way and ensuring that available information is trustworthy and reliable.
Quickly woven into the conversation were the likely suspects of the ever-expanding waistline – Pepsi, Coca-Cola, McDonalds. Are they to take the brunt of the blame? Perhaps. But the larger question remains: Who’s in charge of helping Americans improve their lifestyles, make healthier choices, and enhance productivity?
All panelists underscored that collaboration across sectors – health, policy, business – will be key.
The other side of coin is finding real cures for disease, said Michael Milken, chairman of the Milken Institute and FasterCures. Breakthrough cures will pay tremendous dividends, but we will have to channel capital correctly and streamline the process of translating discoveries into treatments. Milken cited the successful management of polio in the 1950s, and urged policymakers to learn from history.
David Brennan, CEO of AstraZeneca said that it’s “about the art of what’s possible.” The pharmaceutical industry has been treatment-oriented, and for most diseases, there’s limited understanding of prevention.
America’s leadership in medical innovation is now being challenged on a global scale, and the U.S. should look to science parks in China, a biopolis in Singapore and better science and math education in Asian nations to find best practices. Innovation will thrive in an environment where it’s appropriately incentivized and rewarded.
Milken noted that if the U.S. continues to misallocate resources significantly, our future in science will be in question. “What are we as a government going to stand for?”
Health reform legislation is a positive step toward providing more Americans with insurance, but there's a big omission: The law doesn't do enough to promote prevention, innovation and cures. In a session moderated by CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo, panelists discussed taking a broader and more holistic approach to what the concept of health care really means.
At least 70 percent of health spending goes toward preventable diseases, most of which are caused or made worse by lifestyle choices. Obesity is linked to several serious medical conditions – from heart disease to cancer – and its consequences are grave.
Every imperative to lose weight is there. But obesity presents an accumulation of complex socioeconomic factors that influence lifestyle choices. For example, in many communities, especially urban neighborhoods, options for healthy choices are limited, not easily affordable, or in some instances, completely unavailable making healthy choices difficult or impossible.
Prevention, said Wayne Gattinella of WebMD, is a “concept without a champion.” Health insurers, pharmaceutical companies and even health-care providers are just not incentivized to promote it. Jay Gellert of Health Net said it’s time to wage a war against obesity, the same way we fought the war against smoking. According to Gellert, “right now, we are fighting this war with squirt guns.”
Ardis Hoven of the American Medical Association called for educating the public in a meaningful way and ensuring that available information is trustworthy and reliable.
Quickly woven into the conversation were the likely suspects of the ever-expanding waistline – Pepsi, Coca-Cola, McDonalds. Are they to take the brunt of the blame? Perhaps. But the larger question remains: Who’s in charge of helping Americans improve their lifestyles, make healthier choices, and enhance productivity?
All panelists underscored that collaboration across sectors – health, policy, business – will be key.
The other side of coin is finding real cures for disease, said Michael Milken, chairman of the Milken Institute and FasterCures. Breakthrough cures will pay tremendous dividends, but we will have to channel capital correctly and streamline the process of translating discoveries into treatments. Milken cited the successful management of polio in the 1950s, and urged policymakers to learn from history.
David Brennan, CEO of AstraZeneca said that it’s “about the art of what’s possible.” The pharmaceutical industry has been treatment-oriented, and for most diseases, there’s limited understanding of prevention.
America’s leadership in medical innovation is now being challenged on a global scale, and the U.S. should look to science parks in China, a biopolis in Singapore and better science and math education in Asian nations to find best practices. Innovation will thrive in an environment where it’s appropriately incentivized and rewarded.
Milken noted that if the U.S. continues to misallocate resources significantly, our future in science will be in question. “What are we as a government going to stand for?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
