Sunday, October 09, 2011

Serious Medicine Crash--update


According to the Medical Innovation & Competitiveness Coalition, a unit of the National Venture Capital Association, medical investment is dramatically falling off

The survey found that U.S. venture capital firms have been decreasing their investment in biopharmaceutical and medical device companies over the past three years and expect to further curtail such investment in the future. Overall 39 percent of respondent firms have decreased their investments in   life sciences companies over the last three years and the same percentage expect to further decrease these investments over the next three years, some by greater than 30 percent. This is roughly twice the number of firms that have increased and/or expect to increase investment.

While 40 and 42 percent of firms expect to decrease investment in biopharmaceutical and medical device companies respectively, 42 and 54 percent expect to increase their investment in non-FDA regulated healthcare services and healthcare information technology companies respectively.

In another alarming sign, survey respondents expect to see significant investment decreases in companies fighting serious and highly prevalent conditions including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, cancer, and neurological diseases.

“More than 100 million Americans suffer from diseases for which there are still no cures, or even meaningful therapeutic options. To conquer disease and relieve suffering, we must have a medical innovation pipeline that is as strong and robust as possible,” said Margaret Anderson, executive director, FasterCures. “Bringing critical therapies to market requires venture capital investment to spur a thriving life sciences industry as well as having a regulatory system that’s appropriately resourced and equipped to ensure innovation is translated to better health.” 

H/T: Manhattan Institute's Medical Progress Today

2 comments:

Jay Adler said...

Jim, when I read the initial suggestions of the federally acquired
committee which is interested in men being denied PSA screening for Prostate Cancer on at least an annual basis, I immediately realized the distance we are from curing another disease. I thought they added that a man can request a screening,will the insurance companies pay in this case? This disease has not one symptom for years, so what would cause someone to ask for a PSA test and subsequently, how could a biopsy decision be made? Additionally, we know that PSA testing has flaws but when there is a "spike" in levels odds are it is cancer.PSA is all we have; I would stay with it until a better test is introduced.Jim, we speak of investment to find a cure. Cutting expenditures from medical evaluation is a savings investment that may increase the mortality rate, in this case your dad or maybe you if you do not know it is there.

Peter913 said...

Good "Red Flag" Jim. Thanks.
Having kin who are medical folk, I was thinking last week about saving monies that besides the idea of eliminating the EPA for 5 years ....
Has the FDA out lived its usefulness since like and kind agencies in Europe seem to be doing just as high quality, good and faster a job?
Don't know the answer to this one. Would appreciate some comparative reflections on regulations.