Incentives for American Medical Innovation - Protecting America's Greatest Innovators
October 5, 2009
8:30 a.m. – 9:30 a.m.
Rayburn House Office Building Room B338
On October 5, 2009, the Council for American Medical Innovation held its third and final event in a series of three breakfast briefings on Capitol Hill. The briefing, entitled “Incentives for Innovation: Protecting America’s Greatest Innovators” was a great success with nearly 50 attendees including Hill staffers, patient groups, Council partners and members of the media.
The event began with remarks from Council President Debra Lappin, who introduced Former Congressman and Council Chairman Dick Gephardt, the moderator of the discussion. Panelists included Marc Boutin, J.D., Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, National Health Council; Greg Simon, Senior Vice President of Worldwide Policy, Pfizer Inc.; and Kelly Slone, Director of Federal Life Science Policy, National Venture Capital Association.
Talk Radio News Service Ran a story about the event, entitled, “Gephardt: U.S. Innovators In Dire Need Of Investors” on October 5, 2009.
Roll Call included a photo from the event on its cover:
Council for Medical Innovation Chairman and former House Majority Leader Richard Gebhardt talks with council President Debra Lappin at a briefing Monday on providing incentives for medical innovations.
Source: Tom Williams/Roll Call
Read the press release here.
Event Recap
Marc Boutin referenced recent focus group research that the National Health Council conducted among patients and their caregivers to learn what they thought of government policy regarding medical innovation. The research revealed patient’s sentiments that medical innovation should be an altruistic venture. Although they understood the value of industry in the effort, they also wanted government to provide better incentives for the development of new treatments and cures. With government incentives in place, patients felt that more innovation would be possible.
Mr. Boutin also stressed the need for biomarkers – a process to determine which patient populations would benefit from certain new treatments – based on the patient’s genetic characteristics and the nature of their illness. This “personalized medicine” approach prioritizes what is best for individual patients; however, there are a number of obstacles to these breakthroughs due to a lack of certainty and guidance in developing and approving biomarkers, as well as a lack of incentives to do so based on reimbursement. He added that intellectual property incentives should be linked to the value of the innovation to society.
Greg Simon began by defining innovation as “advancements that improve the lives of patients” and asserted that the process required to develop these advancements requires the contributions of the government, industry, non-profit organizations, doctors and patients. Though some organizations try to cut the industry out of the cycle, it won’t work without each party contributing.
Mr. Simon also discussed medical innovation in the context of the health care reform debate. According to Mr. Simon, the current health care debate inaccurately assumes that all dollars are the same. He opined that the first dollar spent on health care should be spent on prevention and the next dollar should be on medicine, not hospitalization and surgery. Mr. Simon stated that it is inaccurate discuss the cost of medicine in the same way one talks about hospitalization and surgery because every dollar spent on medicine saves money in the overall health care system. Additionally, he remarked that it made little sense that the money to pay for health reform is going to be coming from the health industry (drug makers, doctors, health systems) rather than from the disease industry (fast food, pollution, chemicals), a fact that underscores America’s struggle to reward innovation.
Kelly Slone commented that 30 percent of venture capital dollars are put into health care, yet this number is decreasing due in part to the current economic situation but also because there is a disconnect between the risk/reward system in the regulation process. The risks for investment are tremendously high and there is a lack of clarity regarding the benefits or outcomes that venture capital can expect to receive from their investment. She called for a recalibration of this risk/benefit model and stronger patents that would provide security for investment.