Conversation with Dick Gephardt
Former Majority Leader, and former Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives; and
Chairman, Council for American Medical Innovation
“Medical innovation is at the heart of healthcare-related economic activity. You can’t have a vibrant healthcare system without new ideas, diagnostics, treatments and the like. Proper investment in innovation will underpin this most important part of the economy. That means jobs.”
Congressman Dick Gephardt took an interest in medical innovation when his son, only 18 months old, was diagnosed with terminal cancer. That was 1972. Thanks to medical advances, that son is alive and well today. Gephardt is passionate about the need for public-private collaboration to drive the innovation that will find more answers to big disease problems. He sees this issue as the core of healthcare’s capacity to be the number one 21st century economic driver.
Why should people care about medical innovation?
It lies at the heart of our economy. Healthcare writ large is the biggest generator of jobs and economic activity in the United States today. In every American city, healthcare is the number one employer. It’s picked up a lot of the manufacturing jobs that have been lost. It’s medical innovation that creates those healthcare jobs. Medical innovation can ultimately hold down and cut healthcare costs. Just imagine if we could delay the onset of Alzheimer’s by three years. It would save billions of dollars that’s now spent caring for victims. It’s a big factor in jobs creation, cutting heathcare costs, and making people more productive.
You’ve been traveling the country talking to people about this issue. What do you hear?
The Council for American Medical Innovation has been engaged in a yearlong effort to hear ideas from experts and practitioners around the country on what should be done to foster medical innovation. I’ve been amazed by how much people care. The business community has big healthcare expenses, and they see medical innovation as a way to hold costs down. Labor unions and worker groups want top-quality care for their members so they stay productive, and they see this as the path. Of course, the research community is passionate because this is what it does. And the disease groups, all those who have suffered or cared for one who suffers, are looking for answers. They see a courageous agenda as a way to find those answers.
Does government have an obligation in this area?
Medical research has always been a collaboration between the private and public sectors. For a long time, government has funded scientific research at the National Institutes of Health, partnering with academia. That research and discovery is then picked up by pharmaceutical and biotech companies, which refine discoveries into the products that manage and cure diseases. Without the federal government’s involvement, we wouldn’t be where we are today.
So government’s role as catalyst is not in any way diminished?
I think public-private collaboration is even more important today as need grows for translational research – the long, expensive process of taking basic scientific research and turning it into bedside-ready treatments. The government does basic science really well; but of course, product development is not in its purview. The private sector doesn’t do basic science. It’s too costly and doesn’t yield anything that can be sold to recoup investment. It’s the collaboration that maintains our leadership. It’s time for a big, national team effort.
What’s the link between the economy and investment in medical research?
If you don’t have proper capital invested in this area, the work simply won’t happen. We need the right kinds of public investments. And we need incentives in the tax code and in other federal and state laws so we spark the private sector to do the research work that society desperately needs. Capital needs to come at this problem from both sides. Our ability to compete globally in this burgeoning area depends on it.
Tell me more about job creation.
Medical innovation is at the heart of healthcare-related economic activity. You can’t have a vibrant healthcare system without new ideas, diagnostics, treatments and the like. Proper investment in innovation will underpin this most important part of the economy. That means jobs.
You’ve called for a national conversation on improving American leadership in this area. Why?
This is an area in which we’re falling behind. We’ve got a lot of competitors out there today. But our economy depends on keeping this area vibrant and successful. So we need a national agenda. We need to engage every stakeholder in this conversation so we find the best answers to really can foster the continuation of American leadership. We need ideas from industry, the NIH, the FDA, academia, and the investment community.
Why the urgency?
We’ve kind of been coasting along with the way we’ve always done this. We’ve been satisfied with a fairly stagnant amount of money. We’ve assumed the private sector will handle it. Truth is, that’s not good enough any more.
Is that the sole reason?
Change is coming. We’re on the cusp of a new economic model for the biotech sector. Personalized medicine is coming, through which we’ll discover more treatments that apply to smaller fractions of the population. For instance, if you have a certain kind of prostate cancer, we’ll have a specialized, targeted drug that works only for your gene map. This will change the economic model for the pharmaceutical and life sciences sector. As the private sector embarks into this new realm, they need some assurance that they’ll recoup their investment in research and development. Jobs and the economy depend on it.
Why are you interested in this topic?
I have a son who was diagnosed with terminal cancer when he was 18 months old. That was 1972. Innovative new therapies saved his life. Now he works with me every day. Many, many families have stories like mine.
