Required Reading: June 2014

June 24, 2014 by

Great stories are published daily about the impact personalized medicine is having on individual patients, and the medical community as a whole, but it can be a challenge to stay on top of the news. With that in mind, we bring to you a monthly roundup of the three to five most thought-provoking articles we are reading, sharing and discussing with our colleagues.

This is the first installment of Required Reading.

Drugmakers Find Breakthroughs in Medicine Tailored to Individuals’ Genetic Makeups by Brady Dennis, The Washington Post

One-size-fits-all blockbuster drugs are giving way to treatments tailored to individuals’ genetic makeups. This article highlights the advantages of these targeted treatments, posing important questions that regulators, drug makers, insurers and patients alike need to consider as more specialized drugs come to market, including who will benefit and how to ensure patients have access to life-saving treatments.

In a First, Test of DNA Finds Root of Illness by Carl Zimmer, The New York Times

Diagnosis is a crucial step in medicine, but it can also be the most difficult. A new DNA sequencing technology, called unbiased next-generation sequencing, can identify a pathogen by testing DNA samples from a patient and then comparing fragments with genetic sequences stored in online databases. This technology has the potential to not only provide speedy diagnoses to critically ill patients, but could lead to more effective treatments for diseases that can be hard to identify.

The Perfect Drug by Erin Biba, Newsweek

This article highlights how continued innovation in our understanding of cancer and the emergence of companies providing personalized treatments helped change one patient’s life by turning his cancer diagnosis from a death sentence into a managed chronic illness.

Keeping the Patient at the Center of Cancer Innovation by Amy Abernethy, M.D., Ph.D. and Arif Kamal, M.D., The Hill’s Congress Blog

Hot on the heels of the 2014 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting and Institute of Medicine’s National Cancer Policy Forum earlier this month, this op-ed focuses on the role of medical innovation and patient-centered approaches in the growing discussion on the cost and value of cancer research and care.

Making the Case for Personalized Medicine

June 18, 2014 by

As lawmakers, industry, consumer groups and the general public debate the future of health care, personalized medicine continues to focus attention-with good reason. In a time of unprecedented scientific breakthroughs and technological advancements, personalized health care has the capacity to detect the onset of disease at its earliest stages, preempt the progression of disease, and, at the same time, increase the efficiency of the health care system by improving quality, accessibility, and affordability.

With that in mind, I’m excited to announce the release of the fourth edition of Personalized Medicine Coalition’s signature document, The Case for Personalized Medicine, which notes the steady development of the field. Most notably, in 2006, there were 13 prominent examples of personalized drugs, treatments and diagnostics on the market. In 2011, there were 72, and today there are 113-a 57 percent increase in the last three years.

Along with this steady growth, we also examine opportunities for the continued development and adoption of personalized medicine as several factors come into play: the cost of genetic sequencing declines, the pharmaceutical industry increases its commitment to personalized treatment, and the public policy landscape evolves. While momentum is building, much remains to be done to keep up with the evolving developments in science and technology, according to the report. With all this progress comes a greater responsibility to actually help patients by advancing personalized medicine to make it standard practice in the near future.

According to The Case, personalized medicine can accomplish the following:

  • Shift the emphasis in medicine from reaction to prevention
  • Direct the selection of optimal therapy and reduce trial-and-error prescribing
  • Help avoid adverse drug reactions
  • Increase patient adherence to treatment
  • Improve quality of life
  • Reveal additional or alternative uses for medicines and drug candidates
  • Help control the overall cost of health care

But to advance personalized medicine, we need intelligent coverage and payment policies, clearer regulatory guidelines, and modernized professional education to prepare the next generation of doctors and other health care professionals for personalized medicine.

PMC is pleased to partner with BIO and release this report at the Personalized Medicine & Diagnostics Forum at this year’s meeting. The Forum takes place next Wednesday, June 25 at 9 a.m. PT in room 7AB and will explore many of the salient issues facing personalized medicine, as discussed in The Case. If you’re onsite at BIO this year, come check out the forum. We’d love to hear your thoughts on the current personalized medicine landscape and what’s to come.

The new edition of The Case for Personalized Medicine will be available online June 25 at 9 a.m. ET, but in the meantime, check out PMC’s other publications here.


This blog post originally appeared in BIOtechNow, the blog of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO).

 

Prescribe by Price, But at What Cost to Patients?

June 16, 2014 by

In recent months, there has been increased discussion about the cost and value of cancer care. These conversations are important, but it’s crucial to make sure the patient’s unique perspective on value isn’t lost in the mix. We must also be sure we are considering each patient’s unique diagnosis, as well as the heterogeneity of their disease.

It is clear that targeted therapies play an important role in delivering personalized care to patients, and in particular, those with many forms of cancer. A recent article in Newsweek profiled a patient who, through a new tumor identification method, was able to receive a highly-targeted treatment for his sarcoma. As noted in the article, “the slow and steady march of innovation in our understanding of cancer and the emergence of companies providing personalized treatments have not only saved Rose’s life but allowed him to turn his cancer from a death sentence into a chronic illness that simply needs regular managing.”

These stories are becoming more common, yet as new targeted treatments work through the regulatory pathways, we are faced with ongoing questions: How do we ensure patients have access to these life-saving drugs and the diagnostics used to select them? And how do we ensure the system incentivizes research and development broadly, so more people benefit from personalized medicine?

Recently, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) announced that it will be developing a scorecard, slated to come out this fall, to evaluate cancer drugs based on their cost and value, as well as their efficacy and side effects. This signifies a potential shift in the way that physicians make decisions about their patients’ health, encouraging them to consider the financial implications of interventions alongside patients’ needs. As this framework is developed, it will be important to ensure that the full value of innovative interventions is recognized.

Scientific advances have the potential to provide earlier and better diagnoses, more effective treatments and even possible cures for patients. Personalized approaches to care could provide a patient with more or better quality time to spend with their family or friends, and overall greater long-term value.

As Edward Abrahams, president of the Personalized Medicine Coalition told The Washington Post, these targeted treatments also bring a greater long-term value to the healthcare system as a whole by cutting down the frequency of unnecessary treatments and procedures, and avoiding unnecessary side effects.

Still our continued focus must be on providing high-value care and creating a system that improves patient outcomes and does not place the focus on prescribing drugs based on cost or financial incentives. The Personalized Medicine Coalition, along with the American Association of Cancer Research and Feinstein Kean Healthcare, continues to engage the cancer community to address these questions of cost and value through the Turning the Tide Against Cancer initiative.

Through ongoing dialogue and discussion as part of this initiative, two key themes continually resurface as components that should be considered when defining value: advancing approaches that are patient-centered, and developing new approaches to value assessment that align with and incentivize scientific progress and innovation.

On October 9, 2014, the Personalized Medicine Coalition, the American Association of Cancer Research and Feinstein Kean Healthcare will re-convene the cancer community in Washington, D.C., for a second Turning the Tide Against Cancer national conference to advance the conversation on the value and cost, while supporting a shift to patient-centered cancer research and care.

From The ASCO Meeting In Chicago: A Focus On Cost, Value, And Financial Toxicity Of Cancer Care

June 9, 2014 by

In the following post, Dr. Leonard Lichtenfeld, Deputy Chief Medical Officer for the American Cancer Society, shares his thoughts on the discussion at the 2014 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting regarding the cost and value of cancer care and treatment and mentions an article recently published in Clinical Cancer Research that he co-authored with other members of the Turning the Tide Against Cancer initiative.


At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) here in Chicago, something vitally important is happening: there is an increasing recognition of something no one really wanted to talk about in polite company until now. It is the fact that the costs of many of the new treatments being developed are extraordinary.

The headlines about cost and value of cancer care greeted me when I walked into the McCormick Center in Chicago for the opening sessions of the meeting. This is the leading cancer meeting in the world, and what happens here makes news worldwide, significantly impacting the lives of patients with cancer wherever they may be.

Now there is an increasing recognition of the elephant in the room: the costs of these new treatments are extraordinary. No matter how one chooses to slice and dice the arguments, these drugs are expensive with costs per month of $8000 and upwards getting a lot of attention and increasing concerns, especially at this meeting.

For years, it was whispered in hallways, muttered about with reporters, but now it’s out in the open. The headlines say it, the lecturers say it, the attendees are talking about it. There is an increasing awareness surrounding the value, cost and toxicities–both medical and financial-of cancer treatment. Even as I write this I am sitting in a session devoted to the topic of how we make the choices so necessary for the welfare of our patients and how we should guide those choices.

Some say the costs of this brave new world of cancer care are justified by the advances they bring to the clinic and the lives of patients. The cost of the drug should reflect the value they provide to society says one company. Others say the costs are justified to allow continued research to advance new drugs. But increasingly, another voice is being heard: one that says the costs are unconscionable and not sustainable. Patients are going bankrupt and some of the drugs are quite toxic or don’t bring sufficient value to the patient (such as meaningfully extending life, or reducing side effects).

This argument and the facts behind it are not going to go away. And they shouldn’t. There are too many forces at work here to suggest that this discussion be tabled. Right now, camps are developing on either end of the spectrum, with many if not most cancer professionals are in a large undecided middle. This war of words includes pharmaceutical company press releases promoting drug development, lectures describing how organizations are trying to develop ways to measure the true value of particular treatments-not just the cost, but what the drug really brings to the table, how many side effects does it have, and what is its “financial toxicity” (the lecturer’s words, not mine) of the medication.

And as this debate rages, I can assure you it’s only the beginning. Listen to the experts and you hear that we are moving forward rapidly to develop new equipment to more rapidly analyze the cancer genome. Another expert exhorts us that we only have drugs to address 5% of the genetic abnormalities we have identified that make a cancer cell a cancer cell. We are looking at a future where literally thousands of drugs may potentially be available to treat the various genetic abnormalities we find in any one person’s cancer (each cancer has a number of these changes, and then with treatment the cell is smart enough to develop a “workaround” which would require a different drug).

One expert made the very appropriate comment that this level of individualization means we are moving toward a day when “every cancer is a rare cancer.” Imagine cancer cells being like fingerprints: each one an individual, except that unlike fingerprints, cancer cells can change their stripes. And we need to meet each of those changes wherever those cells reside in the body.

A couple of months ago I was privileged to be a coauthor on an article published in Clinical Cancer Research talking about these issues. The article was written by members of the Turning The Tide Against Cancer initiative, and described what we have to do to change the system. Refocusing on the entire ecosystem of research, translation of drugs from lab to bedside, clinical trials, clinical practice and how we care for patients was the topic, and all of those have to be addressed. It will be an immense effort that will require intense focus and commitment from many participants to reform what we do and how we do it and then make it work for our patients, wherever they may be. Ultimately, patients must be our focus and always be the center of our attention. Whatever we do must be through the lens of the patient and their families.

What bothers me about all of this? While it’s great this issue is finally getting some attention, I don’t yet see the passion I would expect to see given the serious barriers standing between us and our promised future. We have spent decades getting to this point. We need to get the new effective treatments to patients as quickly as possible, wherever that patient may be. We need new trial systems to evaluate drugs, and perhaps rethink how we study drugs to learn as much as we can from each patient.

And then we need to figure out how to pay for all of this, supporting our research enterprise, pay for the care, and afford the new drugs. Many people, organizations, and corporations have to rethink how they do business. Society must make this process work.

Here we sit, but is it on the edge of a precipice or the edge of an opportunity? Who will take the lead? Who will truly define value? Who will afford the costs?

So many questions, and hopefully some answers are coming. We need a new paradigm, we need a better future. Business as usual is not going to get us where we need to be. If we want to make this cancer’s last century we had best take hold of the opportunity and make it happen. We may not get another chance if we don’t act now, and make our future and our vision our reality.


A version of this blog originally appeared in Dr. Len’s Cancer Blog at the American Cancer Society.

Key SGR Fix Brings Relief to Diagnostics Industry

April 8, 2014 by

On April 1, the diagnostics industry let out a collective sigh of relief as President Obama signed into law HR 4302. Officially known as the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014, many refer to the law as “Doc Fix” or “SGR fix”, focusing on the delay, yet again, of the 24 percent physician pay cut as a part of Medicare’s sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula.

However, my attention, along with that of the diagnostics industry, focused on the provisions in the law that protect clinical diagnostics from unpredictable repricing (subscription required) under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Clinical Lab Fee Schedule (CLFS).

The passage of this law showcases the need and value of the industry to unite in highlighting policies that, though unintended, challenge innovators by creating an uncertain reimbursement environment. Predictable reimbursement policies encourage exploration and innovation within the diagnostics community, improving health care through advances in diagnosis and beyond.

This law acknowledges the transformative scientific advancements the industry has achieved in recent years, catching our policies up with our technologies.

Many questions remain as we look at the implementation of this law, and as such we remain committed to convening the personalized medicine community to work in collaboration with CMS.

Collaboration Key to Improved Reimbursement Policies for Personalized Medicine

April 1, 2014 by

Significant reimbursement challenges to personalized medicine began in 2012 when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) changed payments for diagnostics from a stack of different types of codes describing different parts of lab testing to a unique code for a type of test.

The Personalized Medicine Coalition (PMC) has engaged with CMS on reimbursement issues for personalized therapies and companion diagnostics in a variety of ways, most recently when Patrick Conway, M.D., Deputy Administrator for Innovation and Quality and Chief Medical Officer, CMS, delivered the keynote address at the Tenth Annual State of Personalized Medicine Luncheon.

Dr. Conway outlined his perspective on the state of personalized medicine and where it is headed, noting that we are in an era in which the power of genetics is driving innovation, informing treatments and improving patient outcomes.

As Dr. Conway noted, diagnostics are a challenge as a new market, and CMS is working with FDA to streamline the process further. We want and need diagnostics that enable physicians’ to tailor therapies for individual patients and influence decision making, all resulting in better health outcomes and improved patient care.

Dr. Conway emphasized innovation, noting that we need a system that values innovation and pays for it appropriately. We should cover and pay for technology that may have greater costs in the short-term, but which will result in long-term savings and improved outcomes.

Yet, innovators are facing significant challenges stemming from CMS policies, through the unintended consequences related to coding, in particular. PMC is focused on working with CMS to ease the pressure on innovators, and identifying opportunities to make sure this does not happen again.

A key theme of Dr. Conway’s talk was that of collaboration. PMC will continue to facilitate engagement with CMS, taking up Dr. Conway on his open door policy to ensure that future policies encourage innovation and support continued developments in personalized medicine.

Dr. Conway’s presentation is available at the PMC website.

Finding My Future, or, How to Coexist with Cancer

March 24, 2014 by

In October 2007, my identity was stolen.

In September 2007, I was a 39 year-old wife and mother of two young girls. Then, suddenly, I was a 39 year-old wife, mother of two young girls, and Stage IV lung cancer patient.

At the time of my diagnosis, I learned a majority of late-stage lung cancer patients die within one year. Just one year. One birthday. One summer. Would I make it to another Christmas? I didn’t know. Already a “glass half empty” kind of person, I wondered if this was my death sentence as the sense of a future ahead of me drifted away.

For the first six months, I tried traditional treatments, and I felt terrible. I was finding out what it felt like to experience the decline of death.

But here I am. More than six years later, alive and kicking. And personalized medicine is the reason.

My experience with molecular testing and targeted therapies
My first line of treatment was the classic carboplatin-taxol combo, combined with bevacizumab—the first of the newer, targeted therapies. Even though I was epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) negative and might not respond, I fit the common demographic for success closely enough that my doctor and I decided to try erlotinib with bevacizumab. That run lasted over two and a half years—precious time. I spent that time with versions of the most common side effects but otherwise felt pretty normal and lived life actively, something I never expected to do again.

During that time, I learned about the clinical trial for crizotinib on the news, and after three different people contacted me to pass along the story, I considered it an omen of sorts and asked to have my tumor specimen tested to see if I was a fit for this new personalized treatment.

When I found out I was ALK positive—and therefore likely to respond to the treatment—I felt relief. I knew how promising crizotinib already was and now I had my next plan in place. I have been on this targeted therapy for more than two years and I have been living a virtually symptom-free, normal existence with my daughters, with the hope for more.

Targeted therapies have been invaluable to my treatment. I know that I am very fortunate and remain in the minority to have my disease controlled so well. Frankly, that fuels my feeling of responsibility to do something productive to change things. So many—too many—die so quickly.

From my perspective, there are two important considerations for targeted therapies.

  1. We should use molecular testing as a way to inform treatment—not exclude access to drugs: I am enthusiastic about the value of molecular testing, and I also believe that its value lies not in its exclusionary potential, but in informing the priorities of a treatment plan.

    Having benefited over a period of almost three years from erlotinib when I tested negative for the genetic marker, I’d hate to see that same possibility be denied outright to others. I know that for some cancers and other illnesses, there is a concern about “overtreatment,” but in the lung cancer world, we’ll take whatever we get because our odds are so poor.

  2. We should better keep healthcare providers educated and up-to-date on the latest in molecular testing: I have heard horror stories about oncologists who don’t know much about the testing, never mention it to their patients, and trudge down the traditional paths without pause.

    We need better approaches to ensure doctors have access to the latest research and tools for diagnosis and treatment. I worry about the patient that doesn’t have the tools to advocate for their own healthcare.

Millions of people are depending on scientists, business people, and policymakers to keep working hard and collaborating to bring access to promising therapies to those in need and accelerate medical breakthroughs.

Now, I live with Stage IV lung cancer. It is a part of my body and part of my identity. My outlook on life has changed dramatically since my diagnosis, but my ability to take care of my daughters and live my life hasn’t at all. And that is incredible.

Molecular testing and personalized medicine gave me my life back, and my sense of a future back. While I’m realistic enough to know that my daughters are fairly certain to lose their mother before they are grown, I also know I have tools to fight with, and a responsibility to share my story.

We need earlier detection.
We need the tools to cure.
We need to increase survival for those, like me, who live with cancer.

Examining the Relationship Between Payment Policies and Personalized Medicine

March 12, 2014 by

In an era of increased focus on containing rising healthcare costs, personalized medicine represents an important solution in addressing these concerns, while improving the quality of patient care. In order to ensure that these important advances continue, it is essential to ensure payment policy supports personalized medicine.

Much of PMC’s policy work in the coming year will focus on both the challenges and opportunities in Medicare payment policy. For several years, ongoing efforts to reduce reimbursement for advanced diagnostic tests have been at the leading edge of this work. Recent proposals to cut reimbursement for diagnostics and drugs in Medicare Part B underscore the importance of our continued focus in this area.

Building on the success of our reimbursement issues brief from 2010, we will soon publish an updated brief outlining the difficulties facing personalized medicine in coverage and reimbursement decisions. This paper will cover coding changes as well as the challenges that CMS has placed on innovators. It will also outline evidence issues and how the field might consider tackling them.

In addition, PMC will address how emerging, alternative payment models (such as medical homes, accountable care organizations, and pathway- or episode-based payment) also will have a significant impact on development and adoption of personalized medicine. While some of these approaches appear to hold promise, we must pay attention to the details to ensure that they are designed in ways that allow physicians to tailor care based on an individual’s genetics and other factors, and that support adoption of novel targeted therapies.

PMC already has begun engaging on this important set of issues. Based on our policy principles for deficit reduction, we are developing additional messaging and conducting further analysis to engage Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) throughout the year. Our next opportunity will be on April 10 when we will respond to a request for comments on Specialty Practitioner Payment Models. In our response, we will encourage CMS to see targeting drugs with diagnostic tools as a way to increase the quality of patient care and to ensure that policies encourage this direction.

As we engage on a growing range of important policy issues, it is timely that Dr. Patrick Conway, the acting director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), will be joining us this week at our Tenth Annual State of Personalized Medicine Luncheon. CMMI has responsibility for testing and implementing alternative payment models at CMS. We look forward to hearing from Dr. Conway as he shares his vision of personalized medicine, CMS’ perspective of innovation and quality health care reform, and answers questions about developing payment policies.

We recognize that personalized medicine depends on our ability to pay for both diagnostic and therapeutic products, and to that end, the PMC is focused on advocating for public policies that support personalized medicine’s development through scientific, regulatory, and reimbursement-related activities. I invite you to join PMC at the Tenth Annual State of Personalized Medicine Luncheon Address at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on March 13.

The Pathway to Progress: An update from the Turning the Tide Against Cancer initiative

March 6, 2014 by

Recent advances in cancer research have expanded our understanding of how cancer develops, and how to target treatments for specific cancer types. However, cancer – a collective term to describe more than 200 unique diseases – remains the second most common cause of disease-related death in the United States according to the AACR Cancer Progress Report 2013.

The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) supports the need for ongoing research and the translation of scientific discoveries into new and better ways to prevent, detect, diagnose and treat cancer. To that end, along with the Personalized Medicine Coalition (PMC) and Feinstein Kean Healthcare (FKH), the Turning the Tide Against Cancer national conference was convened in 2012.

As members across all stakeholder groups joined together to consider the status and future of innovation in cancer research and care, it became clear that an ongoing discussion was needed to sustain progress against cancer. Today, the conference has evolved into an initiative to unite stakeholders within the cancer community to identify specific policy proposals policies that align with emerging science and evolving perceptions of value.

Last week, Clinical Cancer Research published an article authored by members of the initiative’s advisory committee. “Turning the Tide Against Cancer Through Sustained Medical Innovation: The Pathway to Progress” examines the themes that have emerged from ongoing discussions in the cancer stakeholder community. Key points of discussion include the need to develop policies and regulatory pathways that reward innovation and acknowledge the unique dynamics of patient-centered cancer care.

The report also points out that while we have a greater ability to collect and analyze scientific information than at any other point in medical history, a deluge of data alone will not answer the basic question of how value is defined. I encourage you to review the article to learn more about the challenges of defining value in a field where patient experiences and expectations can vary widely based on their clinical and life circumstances and personal preferences.

To address some of these challenges, the authors have identified policy suggestions that move towards better alignment with patient needs and values, and also consider the way science and clinical practice evolves over time, including incentivizing patient-centered research and care, and promoting a learning health care system. These are not prescriptive, but rather are a call for further discussion and community action. This fall, AACR, PMC and FKH will convene a national conference in Washington, D.C., to explore specific policy solutions that have emerged from our continued work. These policy solutions seek to foster continued innovation in cancer research and care so that improved outcomes for patients are delivered. Please stay tuned for additional information in the coming weeks.

To learn more, please visit www.turningthetideagainstcancer.org.

Read the article, “Turning the Tide Against Cancer Through Sustained Medical Innovation: The Pathway to Progress”.

New Approaches for Practical Challenges in Personalized Medicine

January 27, 2014 by

When I received the invitation to speak at the Personalized Medicine World Conference (PWMC), I was excited. When I saw the program and faculty, I was honored. When I received my “assignment,” I was intimidated. To share the podium with many of the luminaries in the field of genomics — even to hear them speak — is tremendously exciting. In contrast, how can they really be interested in hearing me speak on the real-world challenges providers and payers face in bringing genomics advances from bench to bedside more quickly?  I cannot answer this question. Although based solely on the number of conferences to which I am invited on this topic, someone must care. They should. Making the science “work” is only the first step in moving from bench to bedside.

As I was preparing my talk, I reflected on the story Sid Mukherjee, M.D., Ph.D., tells in his fabulous book, The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer. I’m not usually a big non-fiction fan, but if you are involved in cancer care in any way, this is a must read. Perhaps the book resonated because my professional career spanned many of the seminal events described in the book. That, and I share Dr. Mukherjee’s general perspective on the challenges of making meaningful advances in cancer treatment. The bottom line: cancer is tough. Just when we think we’ve made some great progress, it teaches us humility. Still, it is impossible not to be excited and enthusiastic about how far we have come in our understanding of the genetics of cancer. I really think we are experiencing a sea change. We must begin to think about navigating these changing currents in the world of health care reform in order to take best advantage of that progress.

So what are the practical challenges? There are many. And many share the underlying theme that the old paradigms do not work so well. Traditional methods of quality control in test performance, i.e. analytical validity, are a big problem. Proficiency testing and standards do not currently exist. To be honest, most doctors do not think about them when ordering a test. The billing and coding of molecular tests have been undergoing dramatic evolution but is still not suited to multi-analyte assays. Perhaps the biggest challenges lie in the area of clinical utility, which impacts providers, payers and regulatory agencies. Patients are impacted in a huge way. Most people have an idea of where we need to go, but we have a shortage of ideas about how to get there. Finally, all of this occurs in the setting of unsustainable growth in health care spending, and the near uniform agreement that we need to spend our money in a more intelligent, impactful way.

We have a lot of work to do together. It is important to remember we are all on the same side. We have a chance to make a huge difference, but we need to do it right.

What do you think our greatest challenges and opportunities are today? I look forward to the discussion in California.

_____________________________________________________

Read additional posts from speakers and participants of the 6th Annual Personalized Medicine World Conference on January 27-28, 2014. For more information and the full agenda, visit: 2014sv.pmwcintl.com.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 154 other followers

%d bloggers like this: