| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Trilogy Tidings July 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
Potpourri this month: A sampling of some recent work and published items that are worthy of your attention.
To my American clients, colleagues and friends: Happy Independence Day!
Carry on, and remember: Refuse to participate in the recession!
Regards,
Joe
|
| Understand the Economics of Your Clinical Method
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Following my warnings last month about the lurking impacts of Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) and its inevitable linkage to cost effectiveness, I developed a generic outline of a process for comparing clinical methods on an economic scale. You might find this outline useful as a roadmap in understanding and communicating your product's economic value to a target audience (practitioner, institution, payer or society) as a complement to its clinical value.
There are certainly many ways to think about this issue; I'd be pleased to hear yours.
|
|
CER Priorities from the Institute of Medicine
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And, on the subject of CER, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 called on the Institute of Medicine to recommend a list of priority topics to be the initial focus of a new national investment in comparative effectiveness research. The IOM came up with a list of 100 topics, grouped by priority into four sets of 25. I think we can be confident that many, if not all, of the top 25 topics will be funded and addressed.
I took special note of the following highest-priority items that could influence your strategies and future success:
Thoughts to share?
|
|
Combination Products
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've been interested in the future of combination products - the most common example being the drug-eluting stent - for some time. There are a great many possibilities, some real and some ethereal. A recent article in MD&DI does a nice job of summarizing the categories of such products and raising some not-so-obvious impacts on partnering relationships and clinical trials. I'm especially intrigued by three kinds of combinations:
That last one is a little "out there", but you never know!
|
|
Do Medical Devices and Diagnostics Rule?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Steven Burrill, the life science investor and analyst, is always an interesting read. His interview, recently published in Life Science Leader, a new trade magazine, includes the following remarkable exchange:
Interviewer: "You run a venture firm that invests almost exclusively in life science companies. What existing or emerging technologies would you recommend for investment?"
Burrill: "Historically, the life sciences industry has relied on revenue from high-value-high-margin therapeutics (Rx) and lower-value-lower-margin medical devices and diagnostics (Dx). However, with healthcare reform going forward and the changes in science that allow us to move closer to a personalized, predictive, and preventative medicine world, there is going to be a reversal in the Rx/Dx value proposition - that is, I believe Dx rather than Rx will drive future profitability in the life sciences sector. In the future, the Rx business will be transformed from a high-value-high-margin into a high-volume-low-margin proposition, whereas the Dx side of the business will change from a high-volume-low-margin to a high-value-high-margin opportunity."
We report, you decide.
Thoughts to share?
|
