Posted on Thu, Oct 01, 2009 @ 10:50 AM
With all the noise in the news lately about the healthcare reform battles being 
fought, there was some very positive news for the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical technology industries yesterday that I think may have gone unnoticed by many.
On Wednesday September 30th, President Obama announced a plan to spend $5 billion on medical and scientific research, medical supplies and upgrading laboratory capacity.
This is great news for the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical technology industries. Promising new treatments and technologies discovered as the result of NIH-funded research are usually developed and commercialized by private sector companies. More investment in NIH research means more opportunities for technology transfer to pharma, biotech and other companies through Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA). The list of successful pharmaceutical and biotechnology products developed as the result of CRADAs is extensive, and includes breakthrough cancer treatments such as Taxol and Velcade.
Government investment in medical research has contributed to enormous growth for the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical technology industries through technology transfer. Most importantly, these investments have improved the lives of millions of patients.
Posted on Wed, Jul 08, 2009 @ 01:16 PM
I r
ead an excellent essay in The New York Times on Monday, written
by a doctor about the shortcomings of our current healthcare system. In the Times essay, the doctor argued that the
current system whereby doctors are paid based on how much they treat patients, rather than how well they treat patients, has created a battle for the soul of
medicine. Why do doctors get into medicine in the first place? Is it really just
about money? What about building relationships with and caring for patients?
What touched me most about this essay was its humanity. As
the battle rages in Washington over healthcare reform, regular people caught
up in the current system—doctors, patients, and yes, healthcare executives—are
struggling with fundamental questions about why we’re all here in the first
place, and how we might be able to make things better.
Call me an idealist, but I really do believe that there are
good people on all sides of the debate, including the clients I deal with every
day at pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical technology companies. I would
say that most of them have chosen to do the work that they do because they want to
help people.
My greatest hope for healthcare communications professionals
in this environment is that we can work with our clients to tell these human stories,
and that the work we do can help remind everybody that the most important thing
to remember is why we all got into this in the first place—to help people.
If
we can remember that, I'm confident that we will succeed in creating a system that allows doctors
to practice medicine with a focus on what is best for the patient, not how many
tests and procedures they perform.
I want to thank Dr. Sandeep Jauhar, the cardiologist who
wrote that New York Times essay, for
sharing his story with us.
Posted on Tue, Jun 02, 2009 @ 08:30 AM
Whether you like it or not, healthcare reform has arrived in the United States.
The widespread opposition that characterized attempts to get the Clinton healthcare plan off the ground in 1993 will not be repeated in 2009 as the Obama administration tackles healthcare reform. In fact, industry representatives have pledged their support for healthcare reform, as seen by the recent meeting of industry leaders with President Obama where they by outlined $2 trillion in spending reductions to help cover the cost of universal healthcare.
The debate over what form universal healthcare in the US will take, and the new business environment that will be created by implementing those changes, creates opportunities for public relations to do the things that it does best. Communicating complex, nuanced messages, rallying disparate interest groups to achieve a common goal, fostering debate and dialogue over challenging issues, and leveraging advocacy groups to influence critical decisions—these are all areas where public relations excels compared to other marketing disciplines.
How will our industry fare as reform begins to happen? Rather than doom mongering, let's look at some positives. Major changes in healthcare infrastructure and delivery will force industry leaders to innovate and adapt. I have great confidence in pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical technology companies’ ability to innovate in order to respond to the changes that are coming. Increases in funding for basic research and finding new treatments that address unmet medical needs will remain important national priorities. Stem cell research is a relatively new area of biotechnology and is likely to become one of the fastest growing R&D sectors moving forward. This is all good news for industry in the long run.
I spent eight very rewarding years of my career living and working in the United Kingdom, so I have first hand experience of nationalized healthcare, its benefits and shortcomings. I also know from personal experience how important public relations is to companies competing to communicate comparative effectiveness, fighting for a share of limited healthcare resources, and trying to motivate patient groups and the media to push for rational funding decisions. Politicians, patient advocacy groups, industry and the media all have a very strong interest in these issues. Skilled healthcare public relations professionals can play an essential role in making sure that these different interest groups are heard, and that they engage on these issues with articulate, clear and effective messages.
Some companies operating in the UK have shown great initiative and creativity in dealing with the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) regarding funding decisions for their treatments. For example, Johnson & Johnson has agreed to refund the cost of treatment with Velcade(R) in multiple myeloma patients who don’t respond. Celgene has received a positive appraisal from NICE for its multiple myeloma treatment Revlimid(R), including Celgene’s proposal that the National Health Service (NHS) pay for the drug for 26 treatment cycles in those patients with previously-treated disease. Celgene would fund the drug (used in combination with dexamethasone) in patients benefiting from it thereafter.
These two examples, I think, show our industry at its finest. These companies are not afraid to be creative in how they approach difficult business challenges. They are also sending a very clear message that they believe in the value of their products.
If comparative effectiveness becomes a component of healthcare reform in the US, I wouldn’t be surprised to see industry leaders using similar approaches in the US to cooperate with government health authorities and to demonstrate the same belief in the value of their products.
--David Avitabile