|
Pharma industry awaits impact of Obama’s second term
November 2012
SHARING OPTIONS:
Now that the American people have
spoken—with about 120
million votes estimated to have been cast as we went to press with this issue—and
reelected President Barack Obama to a second
term, many of you may be asking,
"How will this affect pharma?"
It's a heavy question,
given how the passage of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) during the president's first term
already has the pharma and biotech
industries busy assessing how to do business
in a new healthcare paradigm. But with many facets of the new law taking effect
as the president's second
term begins, tongues are wagging, and all eyes are on
the phasing in of some of the particulars of the 2,000-plus-page bill.
The effect of the PPACA might be a blessing and a curse, in
the view of some. Although more insured patients may
mean more prescription
drug sales, a push to reduce public spending and rebates on drugs for seniors
in the Medicare Part D coverage gap may also mean
decreased profits. The
authorization of biosimilars has the potential to change the prescription drug
landscape, while the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration may be overwhelmed by a
push to bring new drugs to market in a timelier fashion.
Aside from the obvious issue of healthcare reform and the
ongoing stem cell research debate, the president alluded to some of the other
great
challenges facing our nation, some of which will undoubtedly impact the
pharma, biotech and life-science industries in profound ways—or so we all can
hope.
"We want our kids to grow up in a country where they have
access to the best schools and the
best teachers," he said in his acceptance
speech, delivered in the early morning hours of Nov. 7. As noted recently by
ddn columnist Peter T.
Kissinger in his August commentary,
"August-is-back-to-school month," "much has been
written about failing schools
and our student performance ranking below other nations on standardized tests
for science, technology, engineering and
mathematics subjects."
"We are unconvinced that Finland, with its population
smaller than many
American cities and less diverse than a bag of frozen peas,
is a reasonable benchmark," Kissinger wrote. "Many gurus respond that science
teachers
should have deeper content knowledge and science as their primary
college major. That's a noble thought, but the disincentives are many."
Serious challenges abound in our formal education system, as
well. With the cost of college tuition
skyrocketing, the pursuit of advanced
degrees is in danger. At the same time, some in the drug discovery ecosystem
are beginning to question whether
advanced degrees are needed at all. For
example, a March 2010 Nature editorial
posed the question, "Do scientists really need a PhD?" The article cited an
experiment at Chinese genomics firm BGI in
which the company hired young
university students to perform genomic sequencing duties, few of whom had plans
to pursue postgraduate education.
"Would the slower, less tightly focused training provided by
Western-style postgraduate study
ultimately allow them to become more
imaginative and creative in their research?" the article queried.
Whether or not our next generation of scientists decides to
pursue certain advanced degrees, we will still be left with the nagging dilemma
of
how to increase innovation in R&D once they do or do not graduate.
"A country that lives up to
its legacy as the global leader
in technology and discovery and innovation, with all the good jobs and new
businesses that follow," Obama noted in his
speech.
Much has been written about this topic, in this publication
and in many others. The
issues surrounding R&D's shortcomings are varied:
the rising cost of clinical trials; regulatory burdens; the "brain drain";
patent battles;
safety issues; massive pharma layoffs; the outsourcing of basic
research functions, to name a few. But isn't it time for serious discussions to
be
had, with a set of deliverables and a timeline in which to tackle this
challenge? On the cover of this month's issue, you can read about an initiative
in Big Pharma to do just that ("All for one, one for all"). TransCelerate
BioPharma
Inc., a consortium of 10 top pharmas, has formed a plan to eliminate
some of the bottlenecks that cause inefficiencies in clinical trials. That's a
start. What else have we got, pharma?
"We know in our hearts, for the United States of America,
the best is yet to come," said the president in his acceptance speech. While
the identity of our president obviously shapes what indeed is to come,
ultimately—like
the electoral process itself—it's really up to us. For those of us who
exercised our right to vote, our work did not stop when we
turned in our
ballots. No matter who our president is, it's up to we, the people, to look at
the challenges facing this country and this industry and
decide what to do
about them.
"The
role of citizen in our democracy does not end with your
vote," the president
stated. "America's never been about what can be done for us. It's about what
can be done by us together through the hard and
frustrating, but necessary work
of self-government. That's the principle we were founded on."
And in his concession speech, Obama's opponent, Mitt Romney,
made a similar push for us all to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps: "This
election is over, but
our principles endure. I believe that the principles upon which this nation was
founded are the only sure guide to a resurgent
economy and to a renewed
greatness."
Here's to four years of prosperity, collaboration and
innovation, and all of the newsworthy stuff it takes to get there. Back |
Home |
FAQs |
Search |
Submit News Release |
Site Map |
About Us |
Advertising |
Resources |
Contact Us |
Terms & Conditions |
Privacy Policy
|