Difference between revisions of "Healthcare system reform"
Murat.akguc (talk | contribs) |
Murat.akguc (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
This was clear when comparing the lightly regulated information and communication technology (ICT) sector with the heavily regulated life sciences, the former sees a much greater degree and rapidity of change in products and capabilities arising from technological innovation and small start-up companies are able to build up rapidly to become major players on the basis of innovations that effectively challenge the status quo. At the beginning of 21st century, biotechnology was expected to have a similar impact on health care industries and, while it has indeed played an important role in their development, this has been mainly supportive of the prevailing model for drug discovery, rather than challenging it. Despite large scale public and private investment, the sector is still dominated by a similar set of companies (although their names may have changed) and the basic innovation model remains fundamentally unaltered. Regulation formed primary cause for this result by creating an insurmountable barrier to entry for any start-up company with an innovative idea that might challenge the status quo. | This was clear when comparing the lightly regulated information and communication technology (ICT) sector with the heavily regulated life sciences, the former sees a much greater degree and rapidity of change in products and capabilities arising from technological innovation and small start-up companies are able to build up rapidly to become major players on the basis of innovations that effectively challenge the status quo. At the beginning of 21st century, biotechnology was expected to have a similar impact on health care industries and, while it has indeed played an important role in their development, this has been mainly supportive of the prevailing model for drug discovery, rather than challenging it. Despite large scale public and private investment, the sector is still dominated by a similar set of companies (although their names may have changed) and the basic innovation model remains fundamentally unaltered. Regulation formed primary cause for this result by creating an insurmountable barrier to entry for any start-up company with an innovative idea that might challenge the status quo. | ||
Around 2010 after the 2008 financial crisis, instead of seeing themselves as passive responders to events, regulators began to see their role in a much more proactive way. In line with “new governance” agendas and linked to globalization initiatives, discussions began to take place within regulatory bodies about their role in stimulating changes in the processes and outcomes of health care innovation. But as like any other regulatory issue, turning this concern/discussions | Around 2010 after the 2008 financial crisis, instead of seeing themselves as passive responders to events, regulators began to see their role in a much more proactive way. In line with “new governance” agendas and linked to globalization initiatives, discussions began to take place within regulatory bodies about their role in stimulating changes in the processes and outcomes of health care innovation. But as like any other regulatory issue, turning this concern/discussions was taking long period. | ||
Meanwhile next to the advancement in biotechnology, after dotcom buuble, IT world started to increase innovation pace. Especially with Apple Iphone and later Google's Android products turned mobile phones into handheld computers turned society to 7/24 online community and shifted the paradigm. | Meanwhile next to the advancement in biotechnology, after dotcom buuble, IT world started to increase innovation pace. Especially with Apple Iphone and later Google's Android products turned mobile phones into handheld computers turned society to 7/24 online community and shifted the paradigm. |
Revision as of 19:22, 8 October 2009
Work under construction. In case you have any questions, additions or comments, please do not edit these pages, but you are more than welcome to contact us.
Scenario wherein the healthcare system is more integrated, shorter lines between pharma, medicine, insurance companies
Developments in time
2010-2015
During first decade of new millennium, innovation in the healthcare system was primarily dominated by multinational companies. The most important factor contributing to this long term resilience of the drug-based innovation model, and its dominant role in the development of health care systems, was the regulatory system. The primary markets, Europe and USA, have very lengthy, expensive and complex set of regulations which impose significant constraints on the innovation system for drugs thus making product to market process a lengthy and costly process.
This was clear when comparing the lightly regulated information and communication technology (ICT) sector with the heavily regulated life sciences, the former sees a much greater degree and rapidity of change in products and capabilities arising from technological innovation and small start-up companies are able to build up rapidly to become major players on the basis of innovations that effectively challenge the status quo. At the beginning of 21st century, biotechnology was expected to have a similar impact on health care industries and, while it has indeed played an important role in their development, this has been mainly supportive of the prevailing model for drug discovery, rather than challenging it. Despite large scale public and private investment, the sector is still dominated by a similar set of companies (although their names may have changed) and the basic innovation model remains fundamentally unaltered. Regulation formed primary cause for this result by creating an insurmountable barrier to entry for any start-up company with an innovative idea that might challenge the status quo.
Around 2010 after the 2008 financial crisis, instead of seeing themselves as passive responders to events, regulators began to see their role in a much more proactive way. In line with “new governance” agendas and linked to globalization initiatives, discussions began to take place within regulatory bodies about their role in stimulating changes in the processes and outcomes of health care innovation. But as like any other regulatory issue, turning this concern/discussions was taking long period.
Meanwhile next to the advancement in biotechnology, after dotcom buuble, IT world started to increase innovation pace. Especially with Apple Iphone and later Google's Android products turned mobile phones into handheld computers turned society to 7/24 online community and shifted the paradigm.
Thus fundamental, rather than incremental, change becomes increasingly inevitable, but also increasingly unimaginable. Some time in the future, the science and industry innovation system will experience a “Black Swan”.
2015-2020
Change of the regulatory system A series of creative think-tanks was set up, initially involving a restricted set of participants from the full range of life science companies, ICT companies, regulators, and insurance industry representatives. As discussions progressed and concrete proposals began to be formalised, discussion fora were widened to include patient groups and other stakeholders.
Collaboration between a big pharma and a big IT (Apple or Google)
2020-2025
Reform established, result: a "Networked Healthcare System" Gene sequencing plus synthetic genomics is an example of a convergent technology, combining chemistry, physics, engineering, biotechnology and information technology to develop health care diagnostic and delivery systems operating at the nano scale. Such developments were facilitated by the existence of the new NHC based companies that could organise the collaborations across different disciplines required to bring such products to market.
Shorter product lifecycle
No blockbusters but many lower margin products which target specific customers, overall better financial performance compared to old model multinational pharma's.
Research on stem cells had by 2025 resulted in successful and affordable therapies, based on both adult and human embryonic stem cells. They had reduced drug bills and done away with some important drug markets.