Latest / Making Medicine / Year in Review: Biotech Innovation, Policy, and Global Competition

Transcript

Year in Review: Biotech Innovation, Policy, and Global Competition · Making Medicine

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: At Making Medicine. We're reporting on the headlines, not making
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: medical recommendations. For personal health questions, always consult a doctor.
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: Nothing in this episode constitutes investment, financial, or legal advice,
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: and please consult your own advisors before making decisions. Merry
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: Christmas and a happy Holidays to all Making Medicine listeners,
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: and welcome back to another episode of the Making Medicine Podcast,
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: where science, policy, innovation, and a little holiday cheer meet.
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: I'm your host, John Stanford. Today we're taking a look
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: back at our greatest hits Making Medicine since our relaunch
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: of the show in July. But before we get into
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: the show, a really important announcement. The Denver Broncos are
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: without a doubt, the best team in the NFL and
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: I look forward to seeing them go all the way
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: to the Super Bowl and bring home yet another championship
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: under bo Nix. Let's get into the show. In September,
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: I sat down with Kendall Berlin O'Connell, CEO and president
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: of mass Bio to unpack their twenty twenty five industry snapshot.
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: We discussed how Massachusetts attracts a huge percentage of US
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: venture capital, why stability and r and D funding is
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: the single most critical factor for keeping the biotech flywheel turning.
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: She laid out a clear agenda, a comprehensive competitiveness package
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: as she called it, to ensure America remains a world
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: leader in life sciences.
• 1:28
  Speaker 2: There's no replacement for that.
• 1:29
  Speaker 3: And by the way, it's worked for years and years
• 1:32
  Speaker 3: and years, why are we questioning whether or not it works?
• 1:36
  Speaker 3: And you know, something like our age was so.
• 1:38
  Speaker 4: Exciting because we know what happened when we have concentrated
• 1:44
  Speaker 4: financial and time resource. Right, there's there's a group that wins. Right,
• 1:49
  Speaker 4: When we can put more money and more concentrated experts
• 1:53
  Speaker 4: behind something, there's a great outcome at the end. And
• 1:56
  Speaker 4: so we should be continuing to try to do that
• 1:58
  Speaker 4: if we're going to be a world leading innovation economy.
• 2:03
  Speaker 4: And the same thing with NIH right, that is where
• 2:06
  Speaker 4: the riskiest science is happening. And by the way, the
• 2:09
  Speaker 4: science is really hard, so a lot of times it fails.
• 2:11
  Speaker 4: We've got to continue to sprinkle that investment to see
• 2:15
  Speaker 4: what's up there, to see where these the smartest people
• 2:17
  Speaker 4: in the world can you know, innovate and then spin
• 2:22
  Speaker 4: out a company. Right, This is the other thing that
• 2:24
  Speaker 4: I think people don't realize when you think about that investment,
• 2:26
  Speaker 4: it goes to the you know, academic institution for research, hospitals,
• 2:30
  Speaker 4: what have you.
• 2:31
  Speaker 3: But it's not just the science and the post docs
• 2:33
  Speaker 3: that are doing it. Companies start from that, right Like
• 2:36
  Speaker 3: in Massachusetts, our academic institutions in the last ten years
• 2:39
  Speaker 3: have started over five hundred companies and I guarantee you
• 2:42
  Speaker 3: you can correlate all of them started with NIH funding.
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: That's I mean, I think that's such a good call out,
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: particularly for oh, the government shouldn't be getting involved. It's
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: it is such a perfect seed grounding and to your point,
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: it works. And so if we zoom out and we
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: think about you know, incubates, all about where policy and
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: the business of biotech or meeting. There are individual prescriptions
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: for policy, no pun intended, but broadly speaking, how do
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: you we have so many threats, so many misconceptions, so
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: many things out of this administration that we're wrapping our
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: heads around. If you boiled it all down to what
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: should our policy agenda be to a couple words, have
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: you thought about is there a unifying thing of FDA, SBI, R, NIH, tariffs, MFN,
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: what makes you make sense? Of all of it.
• 3:36
  Speaker 3: What we need to be doing collectively is thinking about
• 3:39
  Speaker 3: a comprehensive competitiveness package. Right, if we want to be
• 3:44
  Speaker 3: a world leader, stay a world leader. And innovation, and
• 3:49
  Speaker 3: not just because it's an in critically important economic engine
• 3:52
  Speaker 3: for the United States, but because it's a national security priority,
• 3:57
  Speaker 3: we should be doubling down and having concentrated investment and stability.
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 4:03
  Speaker 2: We should be investing more through NIH.
• 4:05
  Speaker 4: We should be clearly reauthorizing sbi ARE and doubling down
• 4:10
  Speaker 4: on that.
• 4:11
  Speaker 2: You know, initiatives like.
• 4:12
  Speaker 3: Our age lead to successful outcomes for large patient populations.
• 4:17
  Speaker 3: Potentially that's a good thing for the United States. We
• 4:20
  Speaker 3: should be continuing to invest in that. Things like we
• 4:24
  Speaker 3: want to onshore more. That's incredible, we want to do that,
• 4:28
  Speaker 3: but we've got to have vehicles to do that.
• 4:30
  Speaker 4: We should be prioritizing incentives around domestic manufacturing. We should
• 4:36
  Speaker 4: be continuing to incentivize research and development that's happening here.
• 4:42
  Speaker 3: I mean all of these pieces. We should be fixing
• 4:45
  Speaker 3: the pill penalty.
• 4:46
  Speaker 4: We should be modernizing FDA, you know, instead of sort
• 4:50
  Speaker 4: of hitting each stage of the life cycle and pieces
• 4:54
  Speaker 4: and and sort of systematically dismantling it.
• 4:57
  Speaker 3: We should be continuing to constant investment so we can
• 5:01
  Speaker 3: continue to stay the world leader in research and development.
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: I love that and I will fairly attribute it to
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: you when I absolutely steal it on Capitol Hill. A
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: comprehensive competitiveness package, and I think that moment is palatable
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: for the politics of today. We're not asking for handouts,
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: we're not asking for things. We're not asking to nationalize
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: in industry, which is a topic for another episode. But
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: we're just saying we need to stay competitive. And so
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: if we go down the path of MFN and messiness
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: at the FDA, can I take the logical step that
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: we are, we would be less competitive. In your view.
• 5:50
  Speaker 4: You can see what's happened just in the last seven
• 5:53
  Speaker 4: or eight months, right and think about the traction that
• 5:57
  Speaker 4: China has had in this short period of time. We
• 6:00
  Speaker 4: know other competing global clusters have taken advantage of these
• 6:03
  Speaker 4: vulnerable movements for us, whether they're recruiting our postdocs or
• 6:08
  Speaker 4: our scientists, or just accelerating some of that innovation in
• 6:12
  Speaker 4: times where we've had uncertainty and not making those investments
• 6:15
  Speaker 4: at the clip which we've been doing them over the
• 6:17
  Speaker 4: last few years, So I think the time is now.
• 6:21
  Speaker 4: I think it's critically important if the United States wants
• 6:24
  Speaker 4: to stay the world leader for this biotechnology innovation economy.
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: Bonus question, because you've been so generous with your time,
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: but you are on the ground floor. I mean, you
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: are out in the hottest cluster in the world, but
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: other clusters around the world are coming. How much does China,
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: whether it's from biosecure, conversation on shoring manufacturing, or even
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: some of your own members saying, hey, we need to
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: pay attention to the science coming out of China. I
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: know that mass bio contributed to the the Senate National
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: Security Working Group Section two thirty two. I know y'all
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: responded to how much would you say China as a
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: broad construct good bad otherwise is eating up your time
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: and your thoughts and your leadership energy versus five years ago?
• 7:19
  Speaker 3: Oh, it's night and day versus five years ago.
• 7:21
  Speaker 4: I mean it was sort of. China was hardly in
• 7:24
  Speaker 4: the conversation five years ago. I am hard pressed to
• 7:27
  Speaker 4: have a conversation where we're talking about investment and politics
• 7:32
  Speaker 4: and competitiveness where China isn't in the conversation.
• 7:35
  Speaker 2: If that is an answer to that question.
• 7:39
  Speaker 4: And I think the other thing that is starting to
• 7:42
  Speaker 4: be clear, and obviously this is something that the report underscores,
• 7:46
  Speaker 4: is the fragility of our innovation economy, not just here
• 7:51
  Speaker 4: in Massachusetts but nationally, Like we have to realize that
• 7:55
  Speaker 4: we could lose it, right. I think there's been this
• 7:58
  Speaker 4: assumption that where the world leader, and we have the
• 8:00
  Speaker 4: best medicines, and we have the smartest people, and we
• 8:03
  Speaker 4: do it the best, and that is true. But you
• 8:08
  Speaker 4: can see that when we can create all of these
• 8:11
  Speaker 4: additional hurdles and barriers in a really difficult, challenging industry
• 8:15
  Speaker 4: that we're feeling it and if we continue to do that,
• 8:20
  Speaker 4: we're going to lose it.
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: Later this fall, we dove deeper into that global competition
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: with Daphne zohar CEO of Seaport Therapeutics and one of
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: the most accomplished biotech founders we've seen in the last
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: few years. She addressed the risks around IP theft fast
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: followers and offered creative policy solutions, particularly how tax incentives
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: like unlocking net operating losses could help reinforce the US
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: biotech ecosystem.
• 8:46
  Speaker 5: I think there's learnings, right, So we can learn and
• 8:50
  Speaker 5: we should learn, and we should emulate the things that
• 8:53
  Speaker 5: they're doing well. And that has to do with the speed,
• 8:57
  Speaker 5: speed to get into the clinics, speed to run clinicals studies,
• 9:01
  Speaker 5: and you know, many many resources that the government in
• 9:08
  Speaker 5: China has invested in those capabilities, and I hear, for
• 9:12
  Speaker 5: example Mcaray and others talking about emulating that here in
• 9:16
  Speaker 5: the US. So here positive signals. I don't know how
• 9:22
  Speaker 5: quickly we'll be able to translate those, but I know that,
• 9:25
  Speaker 5: for example, we will do early phase one studies, early
• 9:29
  Speaker 5: proof of concept studies, often in Australia because it's quicker,
• 9:33
  Speaker 5: and then we'll file an I and D later. So
• 9:35
  Speaker 5: you know, there's there's definitely learnings from places like Australia,
• 9:39
  Speaker 5: like trend. I think there's a whole other piece of
• 9:43
  Speaker 5: China which is very concerning, and that has to do
• 9:46
  Speaker 5: with the You know, you could say, to be charitable,
• 9:49
  Speaker 5: you could say me too fast, follower, and if you
• 9:54
  Speaker 5: wanted to be a little bit more aggressive, you could
• 9:56
  Speaker 5: say ip theft. Right, So what happened when a company
• 10:01
  Speaker 5: that is innovating goes and publishes in nature science files
• 10:07
  Speaker 5: a patent and then you know, that there's a group
• 10:11
  Speaker 5: of companies in China that quickly take what you just published.
• 10:15
  Speaker 2: And move ahead of you.
• 10:18
  Speaker 5: And then I think the other piece of it is
• 10:20
  Speaker 5: what happens when large pharmaceutical companies start doing big deals
• 10:23
  Speaker 5: with those companies, and that's when you start getting concerns.
• 10:27
  Speaker 5: So what could we do from a policy perspective, I
• 10:29
  Speaker 5: think there's two pieces of it. The carrot where whenever
• 10:33
  Speaker 5: I bring up the carrot, everybody supportive. When I bring
• 10:36
  Speaker 5: up the stick, there's a little bit less support. So
• 10:38
  Speaker 5: I'll bring up both and you know, I'd be fine
• 10:41
  Speaker 5: with just the carrot. But how do you make it
• 10:44
  Speaker 5: more attractive for large pharmaceutical companies to do deals with
• 10:48
  Speaker 5: US biotechs? And I think there's a number of things
• 10:51
  Speaker 5: you could do, like tax incentives. You know, I've tried
• 10:54
  Speaker 5: to advocate for making net operating losses and ols survive
• 11:01
  Speaker 5: major dilute of financings and M and A transactions, because
• 11:04
  Speaker 5: like if you could actually if a big pharma company
• 11:06
  Speaker 5: could access your NLS and you have three hundred million
• 11:09
  Speaker 5: of costs or you know, whatever it is, by the
• 11:13
  Speaker 5: time the big pharma company is buying the smaller biotech,
• 11:16
  Speaker 5: that's like you know, obviously going to make the acquisition
• 11:20
  Speaker 5: more attractive, similar to what you see with the vouchers, right,
• 11:24
  Speaker 5: so the pediatric vouchers and the rare disease these vouchers
• 11:27
  Speaker 5: which are transferred and they actually have value. So I
• 11:32
  Speaker 5: think that there's a number of things from a policy
• 11:34
  Speaker 5: perspective that we could do, and those could be tied
• 11:36
  Speaker 5: to innovator status US you know, domiciled companies that have
• 11:42
  Speaker 5: been advancing innovations from the US and things like that.
• 11:47
  Speaker 5: The other thing that you could think about is the
• 11:49
  Speaker 5: stick approaches, and that is to tie regulatory status reimbursement
• 11:54
  Speaker 5: even FTC related M and A decisions to you know,
• 12:01
  Speaker 5: being the innovator and not having any IP theft involved.
• 12:06
  Speaker 5: So that's more complicated, it's more controversial.
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: All ideas come with controversy. I want to go back
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: to the I'm going to say back to you that
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: the NL idea would We've had some folks come on,
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: some sort of China experts and we talk about they're
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: selling similar innovation for sixty seventy cents on the dollar.
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: One of the concepts could be level setting that to
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: US biotech would be allowing the NL and that's how
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: you could close the gap between a cheaper asset out
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: of China that frankly was built on the back of
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: innovation maybe somewhere else, and the US biotechs would have
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: these recognizable losses that frankly could get it closer to
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: evening out. Is that am I saying that right?
• 12:53
  Speaker 2: Exactly?
• 12:54
  Speaker 5: So if you're looking at two different companies, ones in China,
• 12:57
  Speaker 5: ones in the US, and the US company has inted
• 13:00
  Speaker 5: a lot in R and D and that is then
• 13:04
  Speaker 5: you could see that in the NLS, and then you
• 13:07
  Speaker 5: can actually access those NLS and use them, you know,
• 13:10
  Speaker 5: to offset profits because you're a large company and you're
• 13:12
  Speaker 5: making profits. The smaller companies actually can't benefit from the
• 13:16
  Speaker 5: NLS often. So it would be a really nice way
• 13:19
  Speaker 5: to reinforce the ecosystem, the M and A, the recirculation
• 13:23
  Speaker 5: of capital, people and other resources back to the early
• 13:28
  Speaker 5: stage so that new medicines can get developed.
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: Well, it's a I mean it's certainly timely. We don't
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: have a meeting with a policy maker where China doesn't
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: come up, And I think we are beginning to see
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: depending on where you are in the value chain, even
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: just amongst investors, We have some in the investor community
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: that have been making relationships and plans in China and
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: some folks who have stayed far away, and now that's
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: leading to divergent views around the next step. But I
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: think what's critically clear is this is a conversation we
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: have to be having and kicking around these ideas, controversial or.
• 14:05
  Speaker 6: Not for sure.
• 14:07
  Speaker 2: Glad that you're doing that. By the way, it's really.
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: Important, without a doubt. A really special episode took place
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: only five thousand miles away. Our Tokyo discussion highlighted the
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: need to better connect early stage innovators with the pharmaceutical
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: companies that can scale and deliver their therapies. We explored
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: how US domestic policy shapes global markets, importance of fair pricing,
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: and why returns for early stage investment are critical to
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: future innovation. It reinforced a simple truth. Innovation doesn't happen
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: in isolation. It depends on the entire ecosystem working together.
• 14:42
  Speaker 7: It's a tough one and it's not only a tough
• 14:45
  Speaker 7: kind of financially and strategically, it can be tough emotionally.
• 14:48
  Speaker 7: When you've got an important therapeutic with incredible success in
• 14:53
  Speaker 7: clinical trials, And yet when you start to consider how
• 14:56
  Speaker 7: do you make that available to the market, where the
• 15:00
  Speaker 7: pricing system simply isn't rewarding effectively the innovation, even to
• 15:05
  Speaker 7: the point where the rewards aren't enough to even justify
• 15:09
  Speaker 7: manufacturing the product, it sets off a whole different set
• 15:13
  Speaker 7: of decisions that you consider. Now, what about abandoning these
• 15:17
  Speaker 7: patients that have these conditions that are now unmet medical needs?
• 15:22
  Speaker 7: Put that against a backdrop of an aging population where
• 15:26
  Speaker 7: so much more of the pharmacopeia and the US and
• 15:29
  Speaker 7: Europe is kind of gearing toward, and that's going to
• 15:32
  Speaker 7: be a kind of a blind.
• 15:33
  Speaker 2: Spot for a market.
• 15:35
  Speaker 7: So I think, while I'm incredibly encouraged by the efforts
• 15:40
  Speaker 7: to support innovation at the early stage, I would advise
• 15:46
  Speaker 7: think about how do we make the back back end
• 15:49
  Speaker 7: of this process, the commercial environment, equally attractive.
• 15:53
  Speaker 2: And I think that came through.
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: I was actually very positive of sort of valuing innovation offs.
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: The value chain is the recipe. And you know, I
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: kept on saying, you didn't say quaw throughout the whole trip.
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: I don't know why Kendle square works, but I know
• 16:12
  Speaker 1: that it was just lab central. You know, if it
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: was just lab central, Kendl.
• 16:16
  Speaker 2: Square would still be.
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: But the presence of of large and small integrated, and
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: we get in Japan's no no outlier. Here in the US,
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: we deal with this all the time. A champion for
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: small biotechs from a policy maker saying, oh, I love
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: small biotech, I want in my backyard. But some of
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: the policies they're also backing don't help the end of
• 16:42
  Speaker 1: the value chain that Frankly has.
• 16:44
  Speaker 8: Talking about Massachusetts, somebody's runing a paradox, but it's it's
• 16:54
  Speaker 8: I don't want.
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: To frame it as like a uniquely Japanese thing, like
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: everybody loves small biotech, but they struggle to see just
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: that it is in the system.
• 17:02
  Speaker 2: It has to in. These medicines have to go someplace,
• 17:05
  Speaker 2: they have to they have to finish their development so
• 17:08
  Speaker 2: that they can actually be distributed.
• 17:09
  Speaker 9: Yeah, they're very clearly part of as as the early
• 17:14
  Speaker 9: innovators that sort of I represent. We're very clearly part
• 17:16
  Speaker 9: of a relay. I describe it as a relay, right,
• 17:19
  Speaker 9: that's right, Like you take the baton, you start at
• 17:22
  Speaker 9: the start line and then you run. Like our people
• 17:26
  Speaker 9: they run from discovery to you know, development, candidate I
• 17:31
  Speaker 9: ind O early clinical. Eventually they hand over the baton,
• 17:33
  Speaker 9: the molecule, the idea of the concept to in many
• 17:37
  Speaker 9: cases the pharmaceutical partners who are very well suited for
• 17:41
  Speaker 9: the larger scale development, clinical development, dealing with the regulatory authorities,
• 17:46
  Speaker 9: and then ultimately getting paid for it. And so one
• 17:49
  Speaker 9: does not work without the other. We do need, honestly,
• 17:54
  Speaker 9: talking about capitalistic incentives, we do need the investment that
• 17:59
  Speaker 9: we all put in as early stage investors to be
• 18:02
  Speaker 9: rewarded or else there will be no further capital coming
• 18:05
  Speaker 9: our way. We need a balance of input and output
• 18:09
  Speaker 9: in terms of at risk capital. And so even in
• 18:14
  Speaker 9: the US we've had a period recently where the returns
• 18:18
  Speaker 9: we didn't really see exits right. And when VC doesn't
• 18:23
  Speaker 9: see egg don't see exits, then they will have a
• 18:27
  Speaker 9: hard time investing in early stage companies again not taking
• 18:30
  Speaker 9: that risk right. And so there needs to be a
• 18:33
  Speaker 9: certain balance of money invested in early stage concepts and
• 18:38
  Speaker 9: then returns through exit. Those could be trade sales partnerships
• 18:43
  Speaker 9: with larger pharmaceutical companies, or the ability to take our
• 18:48
  Speaker 9: companies to the public markets and monetizing that way. So
• 18:51
  Speaker 9: we very clearly feel that needed integration and partnership, honestly
• 18:56
  Speaker 9: with between the innovators and the pharmaceutical companies. And I
• 19:04
  Speaker 9: really don't understand why we are why we're doing such
• 19:08
  Speaker 9: a bad job explaining that to the public, even in
• 19:11
  Speaker 9: the United States, right. Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical industry does not
• 19:16
  Speaker 9: have a great reputation with the public. And yet we
• 19:20
  Speaker 9: all benefit from the achievements, right, like why does Grandma
• 19:23
  Speaker 9: live longer? Why do we have a treatment for my
• 19:25
  Speaker 9: friends cancer? Right because of innovation of the work that
• 19:29
  Speaker 9: we've done.
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: And you know, and there was sort of a US
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: specter overlaying all this is we're in the environment of
• 19:37
  Speaker 1: MFN and you know, the President was just here and
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: five hundred and fifty billion coming from Japan to the
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: US as part of bilateral you know, fixing that trade deficit.
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: But better believe President Trump wants to see them also
• 19:55
  Speaker 1: quote paying their fair share. And I think one of
• 19:59
  Speaker 1: the things that came through also is concern about how
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: a US domestic policy could put huge pressures on their
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: system here. And I think that's something that will play
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: out over the next year or two.
• 20:10
  Speaker 2: That's right, That's right.
• 20:11
  Speaker 9: It's really unclear where it's going to go, and it
• 20:13
  Speaker 9: depends on how different stakeholders decide. Yeah, I think the
• 20:18
  Speaker 9: Europeans are facing that reality very clearly, that US pricing
• 20:25
  Speaker 9: will likely be benchmarked based on non US country is paying,
• 20:32
  Speaker 9: and so that there will be a lot of pressure
• 20:34
  Speaker 9: on prices upward, pressure on prices on those geographies, and
• 20:40
  Speaker 9: eventually maybe there will be a much more balanced pricing system.
• 20:45
  Speaker 9: I don't think we will see pharma eating losses of
• 20:50
  Speaker 9: revenue easily, right. They will put up a strong fight,
• 20:53
  Speaker 9: and they should. We need We need that revenue to
• 20:57
  Speaker 9: come into the system in order to fuel novel innovation.
• 21:00
  Speaker 9: Otherwise the alternative. Let's also face the alternative is that
• 21:04
  Speaker 9: we have a decent stable of drugs right now, right,
• 21:08
  Speaker 9: and we can we can work with them, but then
• 21:10
  Speaker 9: you can just let them, let them run off, But
• 21:12
  Speaker 9: then there's no level innovation.
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: It's also critically important that we value that ecosystem and
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: the products that it derives, both here and in countries
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: around the world. That's something we're going to be talking
• 21:24
  Speaker 1: a lot about in twenty twenty six. I also had
• 21:28
  Speaker 1: the honor of sitting down with US Senator Tom Tillis.
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: He's the first sitting Senator to join the Making Medicine podcast.
• 21:35
  Speaker 1: We discussed government involvement in drug pricing, the risks of
• 21:38
  Speaker 1: price controls, and how policy choices can either support or
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: slow innovation, before of course wrapping up with a deep
• 21:46
  Speaker 1: dive into IP and a pretty direct critique of some
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: of the actions of the Trump administration. IP that is
• 21:54
  Speaker 1: somehow derived from the federal space. Therefore we get equity stakes,
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: and they.
• 22:00
  Speaker 6: Think that is nonsense. I am tired of Republicans calling
• 22:06
  Speaker 6: themselves conservatives if they condone that sort of intervention. With
• 22:10
  Speaker 6: all due respect to the Secretary of Commerce, go back
• 22:13
  Speaker 6: to business if you want to do that. That is
• 22:15
  Speaker 6: not the proper role of the government at all, certainly
• 22:17
  Speaker 6: not the federal government. Other than that, I don't have
• 22:20
  Speaker 6: an opinion.
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: I was going to say, I don't even need a
• 22:23
  Speaker 1: follow up question. It's just it's absurd.
• 22:25
  Speaker 2: You know.
• 22:25
  Speaker 6: It's sort of like it's going into these ten percent
• 22:27
  Speaker 6: stakes and chip manufacturers. Does anybody honestly believe that any
• 22:32
  Speaker 6: other board vote matters when the US government has a
• 22:35
  Speaker 6: ten percent stake and a major corporation, we've got to
• 22:38
  Speaker 6: get out of that. Well, let the government observe and
• 22:42
  Speaker 6: facilitate innovation, not become a part of it, because government
• 22:47
  Speaker 6: does not innovate, it only creates the groundwork for innovation.
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: Well, and we seem to have a deepening reach by
• 22:55
  Speaker 1: this administration. You know, I think when you decided to
• 22:58
  Speaker 1: come to Washington, you know, the parties were beginning to
• 23:02
  Speaker 1: meander from true pillars, and for Republicans that was free
• 23:06
  Speaker 1: markets and capitalism. We have meandered quite a bit. And
• 23:11
  Speaker 1: now one of the issues that we talk a lot
• 23:13
  Speaker 1: about here is this most favored nation approach, this idea
• 23:16
  Speaker 1: of reference pricing, that the US market should begin to
• 23:19
  Speaker 1: employ price controls all our Europe, alla Japan. Where One,
• 23:27
  Speaker 1: what do you think about that?
• 23:28
  Speaker 6: Two?
• 23:29
  Speaker 1: If we become a price controlled market, where do you
• 23:33
  Speaker 1: see consequences for the innovation jobs North Carolina economy?
• 23:37
  Speaker 6: I again, I think that it will probably lead to
• 23:42
  Speaker 6: significant unintended consequences. Anytime you try to control the market
• 23:48
  Speaker 6: or control prices, it never works. Never works. Now, one
• 23:54
  Speaker 6: of the things that we should do is educate our consumers.
• 23:58
  Speaker 6: And one of the reasons why we are very expense
• 24:00
  Speaker 6: of jurisdiction. Take a look at our litigation environment, take
• 24:04
  Speaker 6: a look at so I do believe that there is
• 24:06
  Speaker 6: a disparity, and I do believe that there are certain
• 24:09
  Speaker 6: countries that are getting an advantage that we need to
• 24:13
  Speaker 6: equalize in the same way that we have trade deficits
• 24:16
  Speaker 6: and we need to have more I think fair flow
• 24:21
  Speaker 6: of trade, but against all of the blanket tariffs, I
• 24:25
  Speaker 6: think the what if we're trying to address the inequities
• 24:28
  Speaker 6: in trade. I'm on board with the how I'm not
• 24:31
  Speaker 6: so on board with the same thing here. The what
• 24:34
  Speaker 6: I get it, there should not be a dramatic There
• 24:37
  Speaker 6: should not be a scenario where somebody is getting mail
• 24:40
  Speaker 6: order or access from some other country for consumption here.
• 24:45
  Speaker 6: Whether they're doing that legally or illegally, it's occurring. There's
• 24:48
  Speaker 6: got to be a way to adjust for that. This
• 24:50
  Speaker 6: is not the right way to adjust for it. It's mechanical,
• 24:53
  Speaker 6: it's government enforced, and it's going to produce unintended consequences.
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: And so when you see these, I mean, let's separate
• 25:00
  Speaker 1: the two issues, because I want to make sure I
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: want to hear this right. Company decides it's in their
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: interest from a market based solution, to make some announcement
• 25:11
  Speaker 1: on individual products that they're going to charge the same
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: around the world. So company decided this is in our
• 25:17
  Speaker 1: interest that in my mind seems passable. So what what
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: the White House is sort of calling these MFN deals,
• 25:24
  Speaker 1: They're really just company by company working with the White House. Fine,
• 25:30
  Speaker 1: the codification of these price controls, in my mind, is
• 25:33
  Speaker 1: a separate bucket and one that needs to be pushed
• 25:35
  Speaker 1: back with your colleagues.
• 25:37
  Speaker 6: Yeah, I don't think it as a prayer being passed
• 25:40
  Speaker 6: in Congress. So I think this is an administration policy.
• 25:43
  Speaker 6: But even the administration policy needs to be careful. I mean,
• 25:47
  Speaker 6: you're when you're the US government, you are the thousand
• 25:50
  Speaker 6: pound guerrilla. And of course every company is going to
• 25:54
  Speaker 6: come to some agreement. They may negotiate tough, but at
• 25:56
  Speaker 6: the end of the day, they're not going to walk
• 25:57
  Speaker 6: away from the table. So it's not a fair fight.
• 26:00
  Speaker 6: So the question you have to ask yourself is what drug,
• 26:03
  Speaker 6: what project is not going to get initiated, what drug
• 26:06
  Speaker 6: is not going to be ever brought to market? And
• 26:09
  Speaker 6: what the good news is it's going to be very
• 26:11
  Speaker 6: low cost. The bad news is it's not going to exist.
• 26:14
  Speaker 6: So the you know, I think it's striking that balance
• 26:18
  Speaker 6: that I'm really trying to encourage in this administration. Now
• 26:22
  Speaker 6: the flip side, If you want to see what happens
• 26:24
  Speaker 6: when you overreach, just go back to the Inflation Reduction Act.
• 26:29
  Speaker 6: We have notes from board meetings where there were sixty
• 26:32
  Speaker 6: percent cuts in small molecule research within months of the
• 26:37
  Speaker 6: Inflation Reduction Act because of the blunt forced object that
• 26:40
  Speaker 6: they use to try and get drug prices under control.
• 26:43
  Speaker 6: I mean, what more evidence do we need? Does anybody
• 26:45
  Speaker 6: really believe that you want to go on a CEO
• 26:48
  Speaker 6: wants to go on a board into a board meeting
• 26:50
  Speaker 6: and saying we have slashed research and development for small
• 26:53
  Speaker 6: molecule research byus sixty percent, not because we don't think
• 26:56
  Speaker 6: there are incredible therapies and cures, but because the money's
• 26:59
  Speaker 6: got to come from somewhere.
• 27:01
  Speaker 1: Well, this has been the from as an advocate sitting
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: with policy. I mean, this one has been basic, one
• 27:07
  Speaker 1: oh one, as easy as it gets for me to
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: explain a policy. We launched the Life Science Tracker to
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: show exactly that the public statements from these companies saying
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: science is great, our people are great. I'm killing it
• 27:18
  Speaker 1: because why can how can I justify pursuing a project
• 27:22
  Speaker 1: that I know has fifty percent less revenue out of
• 27:25
  Speaker 1: the gate. One of our vcs was quick to say,
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: don't even pitch us an NDA based product. You you
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: either reformulate as a biologic because the market's still for
• 27:35
  Speaker 1: there for that. So the Epic Act and for those
• 27:38
  Speaker 1: who follow incubate, you know, the Epic Act, this is
• 27:41
  Speaker 1: one of our champions. Seriously geeky by the way, I
• 27:43
  Speaker 1: know why this is. This is who you're talking to,
• 27:45
  Speaker 1: like T shirts and stuff.
• 27:47
  Speaker 2: You know.
• 27:47
  Speaker 1: Our head of Public Affairs, Grace, was running me through
• 27:50
  Speaker 1: some recent numbers one of our episodes across the one hundred
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: and fifty thousand view mark and I sat there saying,
• 27:56
  Speaker 1: who are these people who.
• 28:00
  Speaker 5: I know?
• 28:00
  Speaker 1: You're ready to get a T shirt? You're IP is
• 28:03
  Speaker 1: sexy in quotes with the logo we can do that
• 28:06
  Speaker 1: Doggie with Tillis really highlighted the balance between policy and innovation.
• 28:10
  Speaker 1: He shared some eye opening thoughts on how the unintended
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: consequences of price controls, why protecting R and D matters,
• 28:17
  Speaker 1: and of course we're still working hard away on printing
• 28:19
  Speaker 1: off IPS sexy T shirts. As the Senator recommended, it's
• 28:23
  Speaker 1: a good reminder that even in the most serious conversations,
• 28:26
  Speaker 1: there's always room for a little fun. That wraps up
• 28:29
  Speaker 1: our Greatest Hits episode of the Making Medicine Podcast, highlighting
• 28:33
  Speaker 1: some of the most important conversations we've had since relaunching
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: the show in July. If one of these moments sparked
• 28:39
  Speaker 1: a question or a new idea, drop us a comment,
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: or simply wish us a Merry Christmas or happy New Year,
• 28:45
  Speaker 1: we may feature in a future episode. As we look ahead,
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: we're excited for what's coming in twenty twenty six. We
• 28:51
  Speaker 1: want to wish all of our listeners a happy holiday
• 28:54
  Speaker 1: season and a wonderful new year. Be sure to subscribe
• 28:57
  Speaker 1: on YouTube, follow us on LinkedIn, x and instac I'm
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: using the links in the description. Thanks for listening, Happy holidays,
• 29:04
  Speaker 1: and as always, keep innovating.