HEALTHCARE Archives

21/03/2024by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Digital Therapeutics: The Future of Healthcare?

390views

Although the COVID-19 pandemic seems to be done with its rampage, many people still opt to access all kinds of services, including healthcare, from the comfort of their homes. As this trend is expected to continue, the global digital therapeutics market, with its projected growth at a 20% CAGR from 2022 to 2035, is one important sector healthcare firms should focus on right now.

Digital therapeutics (DTx) are digital health interventions or software applications that are clinically validated and designed to treat or manage medical conditions. They can be used alone or in conjunction with traditional medical treatments.

The Digital Therapeutics Alliance categorizes DTx products into three types: disease treatment, disease management, and health improvement.

Examples of DTx include a solution to manage chronic musculoskeletal pain developed by Kaia Health, a biotechnology company in New York. This motion analysis tool assesses and guides patients’ progress during physical therapy and tailors treatment to individual requirements.

Similarly, Clickotine from Click Therapeutics, a company also based in New York, uses AI to help people with nicotine addiction. This solution offers a personalized plan fully integrated with eight weeks of nicotine replacement therapy, including options such as gum, patches, or lozenges. It tracks critical aspects such as daily cigarette counts, craving triggers, craving times, etc. A trial study conducted by the company in 2016 claimed that 45% of Clickotine users were able to quit smoking.

Adoption of DTx is taking off amid increased investments

The commercial development of DTx started around 2015 and, since then, has grown into a global market of considerable size. The total value of global DTx start-ups was estimated at a whopping US$31 billion in 2022, according to a 2022 report published by Dealroom, an Amsterdam-based firm offering data and insights about start-ups and tech ecosystems, in partnership with MTIP (a Swiss-based private equity firm), Inkef (an Amsterdam-based early-stage venture investment firm), and Speedinvest (an Austrian early-stage investor).

The number of people using DTx solutions is expected to increase over the next few years, according to a 2022 report by Juniper Research, a UK-based research firm. The study found that there were 7 million DTx users in the USA in 2020, a number expected to rise to around 40 million in 2026.

This increase can be attributed to the fact that DTx solutions are highly accessible and distributable due to an increase in the use of smartphones. A 2021 report published by Pew Research Center, a US-based think tank, found that 87% of Americans owned a smartphone in 2021, compared to 35% in 2011. With this, more people will be able to access medical care without having to spend more on hospital visits.

DTx applications have also been attracting numerous investors owing to the applications’ cost-effectiveness, ease of distribution, and better accessibility. According to the same 2022 report published by Dealroom, global venture capital funding in DTx witnessed a fourfold increase in 2022 compared to 2017.

All these studies reveal that, despite certain challenges, the DTx applications hold the promise of developing into a practical and affordable means of treating illnesses and conditions that impact large numbers of people.

Regulatory pitfalls present a major roadblock to DTx adoption

One main challenge DTx companies face is the regulatory environment. All DTx products must comply with the regulations of regional agencies such as the FDA, HIPAA, HITECH, etc.

Many US firms initially faced regulatory obstacles and payer resistance around product reimbursement. Before 2017, the US FDA classified DTx solutions as a SaMD (Software as a Medical Device) and, therefore, made them subject to risk assessment (low, medium, or high). Due to this, DTx solutions needed premarket approval and rigorous clinical trial results to get approval.

This has improved with the introduction of the Digital Health Innovation Action Plan by the FDA in 2017. According to the new plan, the FDA will first consider the company producing the solution. If the producer has demonstrated quality and excellence, it can market lower-risk devices with a streamlined premarket review. Post-market surveillance and data collection are also done to evaluate product efficiency.

Similarly, in the EU, DTx is controlled by national competent authorities and governed by the European Regulation on Medical Devices 2017/745 (MDR). However, no specific framework indicates the evidence required for assessing the performance or quality of DTx solutions or their production standards. This means that the member states may interpret the dossier requirements differently, leading to a fractured regulatory environment.

The COVID-19 pandemic has provided companies with some regulatory flexibility, leading to an increase in venture capital funding. In 2020, the federal government in the USA issued a new rule allowing healthcare practitioners to treat patients across state lines, including the use of digital medicine. This can increase access to healthcare, especially in rural areas, and physicians will be able to offer timely care to their patients traveling in a different state.

The FDA has also loosened regulations during COVID-19, particularly for mental health products, with the Digital Health Innovation Action Plan. This was to ensure that patients received timely care even from their homes while reducing the burden on hospitals. It waived certain regulatory obligations, such as the need to file a 510(k) premarket notification during the COVID-19 pandemic. The 510(k) is a submission indicating that a new medical device is similar to something already approved by the FDA (a predicate device) to ensure safety and efficiency. However, finding suitable comparables can be highly challenging in the case of DTx, which is dynamically evolving. This can result in misunderstandings or overlooking of critical aspects of these solutions, leading to uncertainty and delays in the approval process. The waiver of this regulation offers DTx companies some relief in the future.

Digital Therapeutics – The Future of Healthcare by EOS Intelligence

Patient health literacy is a hurdle in the adoption of DTx solutions

A survey by the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) in 2003 has shown that only 12% of Americans possess proficient health literacy skills, making them able to find and understand information related to their health. This lack of awareness among patients can also impede the ease of applying DTx products.

Patient experience is also crucial for the acceleration of DTx adoption. Older patients unfamiliar with using technological gadgets can find it difficult to adopt DTx solutions. However, a 2022 AMA survey has shown that 90% of people over the age of 50 in the USA recognize some benefit from digital health tools.

Similarly, a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2021 indicated an increase in the use of smartphones and the internet among older people in the USA, driven by the pandemic. Older adults are using technological applications for activities such as entertainment, banking, shopping, etc., even after the pandemic, a 2021 survey by AARP Research, a US-based NPO, shows. This indicates that there is scope for an increase in adoption.

Many companies are now trying to increase patient involvement by using gamification, aiming at patient groups for whom DTx use is likely to be more challenging (e.g., older population, children). DTx developers include game-like elements or mechanics into a DTx solution, such as tasks, rewards, badges, points, and leaderboards. An example is US-based Akili Interactive’s EndeavorRx, a prescription DTx aimed at enhancing attention function in children with ADHD aged 8 to 12. It uses an interactive mobile video game to assist children in improving their attention skills and adjusting to their performance levels. The game’s sensory stimuli and motor challenges also help kids multitask and tune out distractions.

Payer reluctance affects many DTx products

Although the number of DTX products on the market increases, payers’ reluctance to cover their costs to the patient can also slow down adoption. The coverage of DTx solutions is limited, even when they are FDA-approved. Only 25% of payers are currently willing to cover prescription DTx solutions, according to a 2022 survey by MMIT, a Pennsylvania-based market data provider, which involved 16 payers.

Akili Interactive’s EndeavorRx is one such solution facing insurance coverage issues. Elevance Health (previously Anthem) denied coverage for EndeavorRx, deeming it medically unnecessary, while Aetna, another insurance provider, considers it experimental and investigational.

A study released by Health Affairs, a health policy research journal, in November 2023 has shown that only two of the twenty FDA-approved prescription DTx solutions on the market have undergone rigorous evidence-based evaluation. This means that no authoritative results indicating the benefits of these solutions for various population demographics are available, making many payers skeptical of their medical claims.

DTx offers solutions for managing multiple conditions

Over the past few years, several prominent players have emerged in the DTx landscape. Around 59% of the DTx market is concentrated in the North American region and 28% in Europe.

Top players, such as Akili Interactive and Big Health, both US-based firms, focus on offering products for managing mental health illnesses, mostly management of anxiety, depression, and stress, according to a report published in 2023 (based on data until September 2022) by Roots Analysis, an India-based pharma/biotech market research firm. With about 970 million people suffering from mental health conditions globally (according to the WHO), the potential user pool is enormous, offering growth opportunities for DTx solutions developed to address mental illnesses and, over time, driving the growth of the DTx market as a whole.

Many top companies also focus on solutions offering pain management and treatment for chronic conditions such as diabetes, obstructive pulmonary disease, and musculoskeletal disorders. An example is US-based Omada’s pain management solution, Omada MSK. This application guides patients through various customized exercises and records their movements, which are then assessed by a licensed physical therapist (PT), who can make recommendations for improvement. It also has a tool that utilizes computer vision technology to help PTs virtually assess a patient’s movement and range of motion, allowing them to make necessary changes in the therapy.

Similarly, several DTx solutions on the market now focus specifically on diabetes, which affects around 537 million adults globally. Some top companies focus on the previously unmet needs of conventional methods, such as weight management or preventing prediabetes, to help with overall diabetes treatment. US-based Omada’s solution, Omada Prediabetes, comes with a weight scale pre-connected to the app, and the weight is added to the app as soon as the patient steps on the scale. A dedicated health coach assesses the patient’s weight, creates a customized plan, and monitors the patient’s progress. In other similar DTx solutions for diabetes, an app can also give insulin dose recommendations based on the patient’s blood glucose levels.

DTx can serve in a range of other conditions, including major depressive disorder, autism spectrum disorder, and multiple sclerosis, to name a few.

The DTx landscape is rife with development

The DTx business landscape has recently seen many developments, from acquisitions to product launches. One of them was Big Health’s acquisition of Limbix, a California-based DTx firm, in July 2023 to bolster its portfolio, including SparkRx, a treatment for adolescents dealing with depression and anxiety. Similarly, in June 2023, Kaia Health launched Angela, a HIPAA-compliant, AI-powered voice-based digital care assistant, to serve as a companion and guide, enhancing the physical therapy experience for patients.

In another development, BehaVR, a DTx company headquartered in Kentucky, and Fern Health, a digital chronic pain management program, merged their companies in November 2023 to create a novel pain management DTx solution that addresses both pain and fear caused by chronic diseases. With this merger, they launched RealizedCare, an app designed to offer a comprehensive solution that collaborates with health plans, employers, and value-based providers to treat a range of behavioral and mental health conditions. This solution provides clinicians with immersive programs specifically designed for in-clinic use. It is initially focusing on chronic pain.

Bankruptcy of Pear and lessons for the industry

However, the most shocking development in the DTx market was the bankruptcy of Pear Therapeutics in 2023. The remains of this once-prominent company were purchased by four other companies for a total of US$6.05 million at an auction. Pear was a big name in the industry since its inception in 2013. It introduced numerous products such as reSET, reSET-O, and Somryst for treating substance use disorder, opioid use disorder, and chronic insomnia, respectively. It was also the first company to receive FDA approval for a mobile app aimed at treating substance use disorders.

Though the company announced layoffs of nearly 20% of its workforce in November 2022, its management expressed optimism about the company’s growth and reduced operating expenses in the third quarter. But in April 2023, the company filed for bankruptcy.

The demise of Pear has opened the eyes of industry experts to the challenges faced by DTx players. Certain issues were unique to Pear itself, such as the comparatively higher prices of its products and the focus on treating challenging conditions such as substance use disorders. However, the bankruptcy of Pear also brings attention to the obstacles that can be faced by any other DTx company. One crucial roadblock is that physicians and payers still approach these products with caution. Additionally, achieving profitability for DTx might be challenging for all types of players, particularly for small start-ups lacking substantial market influence. The bankruptcy of Pear and the challenges it faced can be used by budding DTx companies as a road map as they navigate this complex sector.

EOS Perspective

DTx is all set to revolutionize the medical industry, with a 2020 McKinsey report suggesting it could potentially alleviate the global disease burden by up to 10% by 2040. Given the impact of emerging treatments on stakeholders, pharmaceutical and healthcare companies should consider expanding their portfolio to include DTx solutions.

With telehealth companies seeing good growth in the pandemic and post-pandemic years, an increase in investment can be expected as they are uniquely placed to support prescription DTx. With the growth of the digital health industry, prominent telehealth providers may also choose to acquire DTx businesses or create their own in-house DTx solutions.

Read our related Perspective:
 COVID-19 Outbreak Boosts the Use of Telehealth Services

An increase in industry M&A activities can be expected in the next few years, with growing incidences of chronic illnesses, improved technology penetration across all age groups, and a maturing market. Big names such as Bayer, Novartis, and Sanofi are also entering into partnerships with DTx companies, indicating a bright future for the sector.

Mental health and behavioral therapy are great fields to branch out for companies starting in the DTx landscape, especially in this post-pandemic era. Demand for such services is likely to be sustained, considering the National Institute of Mental Health Disorders estimates that one in four adults in the USA suffers from a diagnosable mental illness, with many suffering from multiple conditions.

Similarly, diseases such as diabetes, cancer, heart, and respiratory ailments are on the rise. Healthcare companies can effectively address these medical areas through the use of DTx applications, providing personalized care for patients. This approach has the potential to manage not only chronic conditions such as diabetes but also terminal illnesses such as cancer.

Many DTx players will likely focus on areas with unmet needs, including pediatrics and metabolic disorders. With seven DTx-based diabetic management solutions already receiving 510(k) clearance as of December 2022, it can be expected that more products addressing the treatment gaps might flood the market.

The DTx industry is gradually maturing and has been receiving significant investments in recent years (US$8 billion in 2022). While experts view it as a profitable market, hesitation remains, particularly following the bankruptcy of Pear Therapeutics.

Nevertheless, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdown measures, technology adoption among older adults has increased significantly. Hence, strategic investments in DTx by pharmaceutical and healthcare companies, taking into account market conditions, can expect to establish a stronger presence in this industry in the future.

06/03/2024by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Soaring Healthcare Costs in the USA: Is Greed Winning Over Welfare?

363views

Americans have been struggling with access to affordable healthcare for years, with thousands of stories of an unexpected illness driving a patient to bankruptcy. Meanwhile, the USA spends much more than European nations on healthcare but covers the smallest percentage of the healthcare costs. Wasteful spending, excessive administrative costs, no limit to medicines prices, lack of a single unified interface system, and passive attitude by the government are all building blocks of a wall separating Americans from the quality and affordable healthcare system expected from any developed country.

According to a 2020 article published by Harvard, the annual cost of healthcare in the USA was around US$3.5 trillion, of which around 33% is believed to have been squandered. Simultaneously, healthcare costs are soaring, contributing significantly to several issues around the delivery and affordability of healthcare in the USA. The same Harvard article revealed that about 40-44% of Americans decided to omit or postpone medical treatment, tests, or care owing to their high costs. Although the USA has the highest national healthcare expenditure, the country registers one of the lowest life expectancies among the developed economies. Additionally, around 10% of the population does not have health insurance.

This problem is so deep-rooted and widespread that the issue of healthcare costs was referred to as the “tapeworm of American economic competitiveness” by investor Warren Buffet. Almost 67% of the US population wishes the federal government to regulate healthcare prices in the country. Yet, despite it being such a grave problem, the US government does not seem to be taking any (visibly) constructive measures to resolve it. While significant political aspects are certainly at play, a deep dive into the cost drivers of the US healthcare system might shed some light on the complexity of this issue.

Soaring Healthcare Costs in the USA – Is Greed Winning Over Welfare by EOS Intelligence

Healthcare administrative costs hold the lion’s share of total healthcare expenditure

One of the major components of healthcare costs in the USA is the annual cost of healthcare administration at US$1,055 per capita, according to a 2021 estimation by the Peterson Foundation. The US spending on healthcare administrative purposes is by far the highest globally. Compared with Germany, the second-highest spender on healthcare administration at US$306 per capita, the stark difference of US$749 per capita speaks volumes about the current situation in the USA. The country also registers the world’s highest share of administrative costs in total healthcare costs, at around 15-30% annually. Wasteful administrative spending is estimated to contribute about half of that share (7.5% to 15% of the country’s total healthcare spending), translating to anywhere from US$285 billion to US$570 billion in 2019.

The USA spent around US$950 billion in 2019 on healthcare administration, which translates to 25% of the national healthcare expenditure (NHE) that year. A significant part of the excessive administrative expenditure is billing and insurance-related costs (BIR), including overhead costs for medical billing and services such as claim submission, claim reconciliation, and payment processing. Profits made by the insurance companies account for the highest share of BIR costs. Healthcare providers also get part of these administrative costs for note-taking and record-keeping during the medical billing process. According to an article published by Harvard in 2020, there are occupations in US healthcare that do not exist elsewhere, such as medical-record coding to claim-submission specialists. Further, the article claims that in other countries, such as Germany and Switzerland, where multiple payers and private providers exist, healthcare administration costs less than 50% of the USA equivalent.

As per 2019 McKinsey research, the USA could decrease healthcare administrative expenditure by 30% through automation and streamlining of the BIR processes. Claims processing software enables automation of BIR processes, however, only 15% of US hospitals employ such software, as per Definitive Healthcare tech data.

Healthcare services costs, including physicians’ salaries, empty patients’ pockets

A 2018 JAMA study revealed that physician salaries in the USA were higher than in other developed countries. A survey by Medscape in 2021 revealed that physicians earned the most in the USA compared to other developed countries. On average, the annual income of physicians in the USA was US$316,000, followed by Germany (US$183,000) and the UK (US$138,000).

As per 2019 Commonwealth Fund research, Americans are much less likely to consult a doctor in case of a health issue, at half the rate compared to other developed countries. This can be attributed to the fact that the cost of healthcare services is considerably higher in the USA vis-à-vis other developed nations. According to a 2017 report, the average cost of a coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in the USA was US$78,100, whereas the same procedure cost only US$11,700 in the Netherlands. While the procedure cost is already far lower, in the Netherlands, patients will likely have the procedure cost fully covered by insurance without any co-payment. The USA also reported higher costs for outpatient procedures such as MRI scans and colonoscopies compared with other developed countries.

Skyrocketing prescription drug prices further inflate healthcare costs

As per OECD, in 2019, the average spending on prescription drugs by an American was about US$1,126 per capita, which was over double that in other developed nations. As per CMS, prescription drug spending in the USA by the federal government is expected to grow by 6.1% through 2027.

The growth in prescription drug spending could be attributed to increased focus on specialty pharmaceuticals and precision medicine. Specialty medicines are experimental therapies for treating cancers, autoimmune diseases, or chronic conditions. Some specialty medicines employ genetic data to provide highly targeted, personalized therapy. Owing to the complex nature of these drugs, they are generally expensive to develop and distribute.

For instance, a novel specialty drug called Hemgenix to treat hemophilia B is the most expensive drug ever approved by the FDA. The price of a single infusion of this gene therapy is around US$3.5 million. No healthcare providers have submitted a claim for Hemgenix so far in 2023.

Apart from specialty medicines, pricing strategies for drugs in general play a significant role in soaring healthcare costs in the USA. Drug producers set a list price based on their product’s estimated value, and the price list can be increased by the producers as they see fit. In the USA, there are few regulations to curb producers from increasing drug prices in this way.

Chronic diseases add fuel to the fire of escalating healthcare costs

As per the CDC, six out of ten adults in the USA have a chronic disease or condition. The most common chronic diseases or conditions in the USA include heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Furthermore, according to 2022 research published in the National Library of Medicine, of the population 50 years and older, the number with at least one chronic disease is estimated to increase by 99.5% from 71.522 million in 2020 to 142.66 million by 2050.

There is a robust correlation between the prevalence of chronic diseases and rising healthcare costs. As per a report from the American Action Forum, the USA spends about US$3.7 trillion annually for the treatment of chronic health diseases and the consequent loss of economic productivity. Routine office visits, prescriptions, outpatient treatments, or emergency care account for most of this healthcare spending in the USA.

Expanding geriatric population contributes to rising healthcare costs

According to the US Census Bureau, 21% of the US population is expected to be 65 years or older by 2030. The growing aging population is expected to drive healthcare costs in the USA in two ways: through Medicare enrollment growth and the increase in the prevalence of more complex and chronic conditions. Medicare had over 65 million beneficiaries as of March 2023, a number that is expected to increase by 2030 dramatically. This enrollment growth will impact NHE since Medicare is a publicly funded program. As per the CMS, in 2020, the USA spent US$900.8 billion on Medicare, and the CMS expects that Medicare spending will surge by 7.6% annually through 2028.

The elderly population is vulnerable to chronic conditions such as hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, coronary heart disease, and Alzheimer’s disease, among others. According to the National Council on Aging, 80% of older Americans have a chronic condition, and 77% of older adults have two or more chronic conditions. These chronic conditions will require ongoing treatment or long-term care at a nursing home or assisted living facility. These outcomes will account for increasing healthcare costs and overall national healthcare expenditure in the USA.

Greed over welfare

Corporate avarice is another factor said to be responsible for the rising healthcare costs in the USA. Insulin list price in the USA is 10 times higher than that in Canada. Not only pharma companies but also renowned hospitals charge more for the same service compared with less renowned hospitals. This applies to various services, from complex surgeries to simple X-rays.

Price regulation is the only solution to this problem that could be implemented with enough political will. The US state of Maryland has introduced this regulation for hospital services, while most European countries have regulated the prices of pharmaceuticals. However, implementing price regulation would mean that the compensation of the top management executives or the CXOs would decline, or the budget for R&D would reduce. This causes much resistance among top management executives to arrive at a constructive decision of choosing between self or service. However, the fact that patients delay treatment because of rising prices speaks strongly in favor of introducing at least some level of price regulation.

EOS Perspective

Standardization is one of the key ways to decrease administrative costs. Just for comparison purposes, checking out of a grocery store is easy because all products possess bar codes, and all credit card machines are the same or uniform. Similarly, mobile banking and inter-banking are straightforward since the Federal Reserve has set standards for how banks should interface with each other.

However, the American healthcare system has been immune to such a standardization. Every health insurer needs a different bar-code-equivalent and payment-systems submission. In addition, it is tough to send electronic medical records (EMRs) from one hospital to another because there is no mandate by the federal government for them to be in compatible formats. Additionally, this lack of standardization benefits many healthcare providers, as they strive to avoid the interchange of EMRs to prevent patients from switching doctors.

Standardization is possible only when prominent stakeholders are involved in it, agree to it, and decide they need it. The largest stakeholder in the US healthcare system is the federal government. Buying capacity and administrative control to compel payers and providers to adopt billing and interface rules to standardize the process lies within the federal government’s responsibilities.

Similarly, a price cap regulation needs to be brought about in the pharmaceutical sector. Price regulation is the only way to lower the prices of prescription drugs. Apart from this, the federal government needs to implement price cap regulation in healthcare services such as X-rays, MRIs, CT scans, etc.

It is the government that should introduce regulations that put caps on drugs and services prices, at least in certain product and service groups. It is the government that should establish the infrastructure to materialize standardization and introduce a deadline by which all interactions must be standardized.

However, to date, the federal government only considers providing insurance – particularly Medicare and Medicaid – to people as its role rather than looking out for the entire healthcare system as a unit. This mentality needs to change if healthcare costs are to be brought down.

27/02/2024by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Bridging the Gap between MDx Testing and Point-of-care

552views

The COVID-19 pandemic brought innovation and investment to the in vitro diagnostics (IVD) market, opening new pathways to simplify and expand testing. The previously complicated and time-consuming molecular testing gradually started moving towards rapid testing, changing how we manage healthcare. The growing popularity of rapid testing gave way to self-sampling and at-home sampling, which is set to bring molecular testing closer to patients. Another noticeable transformation the industry witnessed post-pandemic was the rise of molecular testing at point-of-care (POC), which is set to disrupt the way clinicians deliver accurate diagnoses in record time.

The latest generation of IVD devices is focused on providing quick diagnosis and being cost-effective. This has led to IVD companies focusing on developing simpler and less invasive sample collection methods, such as self-sampling tests.

IVD innovation is also transforming molecular testing to make healthcare more accessible. To a certain extent, dependence on laboratories is gradually decreasing with molecular testing available at POC. A key development in this area is the use of multiplex assay, which allows to test for multiple pathogens simultaneously, allowing for early diagnosis.

Molecular testing moving near-patient

After using antigen tests during COVID-19, demand for molecular testing for a variety of diseases at POC has risen drastically. In 2023, the industry faced an acute shortage of skilled laboratory staff, further increasing the need for molecular testing to move near-patient. This has resulted in physicians and patients preferring molecular tests at POC (MPOC). Some prominent industry players, such as Cepheid, Abbott, and BioFire, offer CLIA-waived PCR instruments and multiplex assay tests for the POC setting. A CLIA-waived certification allows tests to be performed at a doctor’s office by a non-technician instead of other more complex MDx tests requiring specialized technicians.

Moving these multiplex molecular tests near-patient is revamping the IVD landscape, positively impacting both the patients and payers. Early diagnosis with POC diagnostics empowers physicians with evidence-based decision-making at an early stage. Moreover, with multiplex assays increasingly being used for MPOC and delivering results within 10-25 minutes (in the case of respiratory assays), the wait time for patients to receive the correct diagnosis has reduced substantially. This results in clinicians being able to start with proper treatment on the patient’s first visit, thus reducing the total number of patient visits. Consequently, physicians are also able to accommodate a higher number of patients.

In fact, MPOC could become a critical element of the value-based care model in the USA. The value-based program incentivizes healthcare providers/physicians to provide quality healthcare. With MPOC offering quicker turnaround time and lower testing costs, physicians/payers will likely be better incentivized and motivated to deliver high-quality services.

Growing demand for self-sampling/at-home sampling

The pandemic raised public awareness regarding the use of self-sampling kits and increased demand for them. Further, the FDA granted Emergency Use Authorization to multiple assays during the pandemic to quickly onboard self-test kits and penetrate the US households with this novel testing method.

Driven by the convenience, cost-effectiveness, and accessibility offered by self-sampling kits, they are becoming increasingly popular, particularly amongst the aging population that needs tools and technologies to manage health at home. It is also proving to be a sustainable testing method, as it can be used for preventative screening as well as allows for discretion for patients who may not prefer to get tested in a laboratory or by a physician, particularly in case of sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

Additionally, unlike OTC tests, molecular diagnostic tests allow for better accuracy in results and are recognized by the FDA for clinical diagnosis use. This has given confidence to healthcare providers to advocate self-sampling, as they stand to benefit from bringing care to patients’ homes, eventually reducing healthcare expenses. In a value-based setting, at-home testing proves to particularly benefit physicians who are able to eliminate unnecessary patient visits.

For the prominent industry players, at-home testing represents a key opportunity area to grow in the niche direct-to-consumer testing segment. Companies are also using these tests as an opportunity to target the rural population who do not have easy access to laboratories. Besides infectious and respiratory diseases, companies are now trying to foray into other treatment areas, such as human papillomavirus (HPV). Self-sample collection for HPV has begun in Europe with BD’s Onclarity HPV assay.

EOS Perspective

Establishing a strong foothold in both self-sampling and MPOC segments is seen as a sizeable business opportunity for stakeholders of the IVD market. In the near term, it is likely for the IVD players to continue launching new assays and technologies to expand offerings.

For self-sampling, MDx players have been focusing on infectious diseases, and there still is a vast untapped market for self-sampling at home, specifically when testing for STIs. In November 2023, LetsGetChecked became the first company to secure FDA approval for chlamydia and gonorrhea at-home sample collection. This has opened doors for other players to enter this niche market, and they are likely to jump on the bandwagon by seeking FDA approvals for their STIs self-sampling kits. Major players, such as Hologic, are already gathering data to launch a self-collection device for STIs. Hologic’s Aptima Swab for STIs multi-testing is approved in the EU, and the company is now conducting trials to get approval in the USA.

In the near term, a noticeable trend in the MPOC segment is expected to be the focus of MDx players on developing multiplex assays that follow the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. There is a growing demand from physicians for multiplex assays that allow them to test for multiple viruses and deliver results in under four hours. Companies have already started to take matters into their own hands by focusing their R&D efforts on developing panels and preparing them for FDA approval and CLIA waiver. Becton Dickinson announced the launch of its first molecular diagnostics POC instrument, BD Elience, by 2025. The device is expected to allow panel testing for respiratory and sexually transmitted diseases.

Although the self-sampling and MPOC segments present many opportunities for the IVD stakeholders, some roadblocks may hinder their development and adoption. For instance, multiplex assay reimbursement schemes may hamper their widespread adoption in the POC setting. Per the latest guidelines, reimbursement schemes for multiplex assays are less favorable than those for singleplex assays. Furthermore, at present, there are no reimbursement schemes in place to reimburse for self-sampling at home, so patients are required to pay out-of-pocket.

Several players face a crucial challenge for at-home collection: proving to the FDA that the self-sample collected is not contaminated or poorly taken. FDA requirements for approval of these tests are very stringent and demand that companies prove the adequacy of the sample collected by patients to match that of laboratory collection.

Despite these challenges, self-sampling and MPOC present untapped opportunities for many IVD players seeking to expand their capabilities and offerings to position themselves better in the MDx market.

21/02/2024by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Vaccines in Africa: Pursuit of Reducing Over-Dependence on Imports

316views

Pandemics such as COVID-19, Ebola, and the 2009 influenza instilled the need for a well-equipped domestic vaccine manufacturing industry in the minds of African leaders. Currently, due to insufficient local production, the continent depends heavily on imports from other countries, with the imports satisfying about 99% of vaccine demand in the continent. However, thanks to recent significant FDI, the vaccine industry in Africa had a market potential of around US$1.3 billion as of 2021 and is expected to range between US$2.3 billion and US$5.4 billion by 2030, as per McKinsey estimates.

Vaccine sovereignty is the need of the hour for the African continent

One of the most important lessons the COVID-19 pandemic has given to Africa is the pressing need to ramp up vaccine production locally. Biotech firms, such as Moderna and Pfizer, developed COVID-19 vaccines faster than any other producers. However, these vaccines were not easily accessible to most African countries.

Africans, in general, lack access to affordable and quality healthcare. Preventable diseases, such as pneumonia, malaria, and typhoid fever, have high fatality rates across the continent. This calls for localized production of pharmaceuticals and vaccines to lower the economic burden of these diseases and facilitate better access to affordable healthcare.

Currently, Africa relies heavily on other countries, such as China and India, for its pharmaceutical needs. The paucity of localized pharma production aggravates healthcare and vaccine inequity across the continent. To substantiate this, the COVID-19 vaccination rate at the beginning of 2022 in 16 African countries was less than 5% on average.

Currently, Africa consumes around 25% of the global vaccine production, whereas it produces less than 1% of its vaccine needs locally, as per the African Union (AU). Therefore, a lot remains to be done to materialize the goal of achieving 60% of vaccine needs to be satisfied locally by 2040, the vision of the Partnerships for African Vaccine Manufacturing (PAVM) under Africa CDC.

Increasing the vaccine production capacity from 1% to 60% in 15-16 years is not an easy task. Considering this, PAVM designed a continental plan for creating a vaccine production ecosystem capable of achieving the 60% target. This plan, called the PAVM Framework for Action (PAVM FFA), assessed that the African vaccine manufacturing industry would be expected to have increased the number of their vaccine production factories from 13 in 2023 to 23 (11 form, fill, finish, or F&F factories and 12 end-to-end factories) by 2040 providing a total of 22 priority products by 2040. It will require dedicated efforts from all involved stakeholders, such as producers, biopharma companies, industry associations, regulatory bodies, and academia.

Vaccines in Africa Pursuit of Reducing Over-Dependence on Imports by EOS Intelligence

Significant FDI will aid in driving localized vaccine production in Africa

The continent is attracting considerable FDI from the USA and Europe for vaccine development. Several foreign biotechnology firms are partnering with African governments to venture into localized vaccine production.

In March 2023, US-based biotechnology company Moderna partnered with the Kenyan government to set up a production facility for making messenger RNA (mRNA). The proposed annual capacity of Moderna’s first-ever facility in Africa is around 500 million doses of vaccines. The facility is expected to produce drug substances or active pharmaceutical ingredients and the final product for the entire continent.

In another example, a Germany-based biotechnology company, BioNTech, is contemplating commencing production of mRNA-based vaccines in its Rwanda facility in 2025. The construction of the facility began in 2022. With an investment of around US$150 million, this is Africa’s first mRNA manufacturing facility built by a foreign company. The proposed annual capacity of BioNTech’s mRNA facility is about 50 million vaccine doses. BioNTech also plans to set up mRNA factories in other African countries, such as South Africa and Senegal, and plans to produce vaccines for malaria, tuberculosis, HSV-2, and HIV in the future.

In September 2023, the South African government partnered with the KfW Development Bank of Germany. As per the agreement, South Africa will receive €20 million from Germany’s KfW Development Bank over five years for developing and manufacturing mRNA vaccines. The fund will be utilized for equipment procurement and API certification for vaccine production in South Africa.

A consortium of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI), AU, and Africa CDC established the African Vaccine Manufacturing Accelerator (AVMA) with the intent of fostering a sustainable vaccine industry. The formation of AVMA involved donors, partners, industry stakeholders, and non-governmental and not-for-profit organizations. GAVI planned to expand its supplier base, mainly in Africa, in 2021. Furthermore, the global alliance announced the commencement of around 30 vaccine manufacturing projects across 14 African countries.

Moreover, as of December 2023, over US$1.8 billion is planned for investment by a collaboration between the French government, Africa CDC, and other European and international investors to streamline the development and production of vaccines across the continent.

Desire to ensure vaccine effectiveness is seen as a biased vaccine preference

African governments are not only proactively putting in dedicated efforts to attract considerable FDI to build and strengthen the continent’s vaccine manufacturing industry, but they also focus on good quality, effective vaccine types. However, some perceive this as a lack of interest from the African governments to buy non-mRNA vaccines made by local companies.

For example, Aspen Pharmacare, a South Africa-based biotechnology company, put significant investments in ramping up the capacity of its manufacturing facility to produce viral vector vaccines against COVID-19. The company announced in November 2020 that it would be formulating, filling, and packaging the COVID-19 vector vaccine made by J&J. It also received €1.56 million investment from Belgian investors, BIO, the Belgian Investment Company for Developing Countries, which is a JV between the European Investment Bank (EIB) and several European DFIs.

However, millions of J&J COVID-19 vaccine doses made in South Africa were exported to Europe by J&J without the knowledge of the South African government, to support Europe’s domestic vaccine demand in August 2021, not complying with the initial agreement of vaccine distribution within the African continent. This created a political impasse between European and African governments over the distribution of the vaccines, which, in turn, delayed their production as the standoff resulted in a long waiting time for Aspen Pharmacare to produce the COVID-19 vaccine.

Ultimately, by September 2021, the European countries agreed to return 90% of the J&J vaccines to Africa. In March 2022, J&J gave Aspen Pharmacare the license to manufacture and distribute the vaccine under its brand name, Aspenovax. The expected production capacity of Aspenovax was around 400 million doses. However, not a single order came from African governments.

According to Health Policy Watch News, the reason for this was the rising production of Pfizer and Moderna’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine distributed by COVAX that was being opted for by most African governments. Thus, in August 2022, Aspen Pharmacare had to close its production line, stating non-existent demand in Africa, partly due to the subsidence of the pandemic and partly due to African governments’ lack of interest in non-mRNA vaccines. The company could not sell a single dose of the vaccine, owing to multiple factors, starting from what was perceived as the lack of government’s intent to purchase home-grown vaccines to delayed production due to the Europe-Africa political clash and the rising inclination of the world towards mRNA vaccines.

It is interesting to note that of the total Covid-19 vaccines Africa administered to its residents, 36% were J&J vector vaccines, shipped directly from the USA.

Technology transfer hub and know-how development initiatives are set

To strengthen vaccine production capacity in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the WHO declared the establishment of a technology transfer hub in Cape Town, South Africa, in June 2021. In February 2022, WHO said that Nigeria, Kenya, Senegal, Tunisia, and South Africa will be among the first African countries to get the necessary technical expertise and training from the technology transfer hub to make mRNA vaccines in Africa.

Afrigen Biologics, a South Africa-based biotech firm, is leading this initiative. As Moderna did not enforce patents on its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, Afrigen Biologics could successfully reproduce the former company’s vaccine, capitalizing on the data available in the public domain. As per an article published in October 2023, Afrigen Biologics reached a stage where its vaccine production capabilities are appropriate for “phase 1/2 clinical trial material production”. Additionally, in collaboration with a Denmark-based biotech firm, Evaxion, Afrigen is developing a new mRNA gonorrhea vaccine.

Besides setting up a technology transfer hub in South Africa, academic institutions are partnering with non-profits as well as companies to reinforce the development of necessary technical know-how and training required for vaccine manufacturing. One such example is the development of vaccines in Africa under the partnership of Dakar, Senegal-based Pasteur Institute (IPD), and Mastercard Foundation. Approved in June 2023, the goal of MADIBA (Manufacturing in Africa for Disease Immunization and Building Autonomy) includes improving biomanufacturing in the continent by training a dedicated staff for MADIBA and other vaccine producers from Africa, partnering with African universities, and fostering science education amongst African students.

Read our related Perspective:
Inflated COVID-19 Tests Prices in Africa

Although significant initiatives are underway, challenges exist

With 13 vaccine manufacturing companies and academic organizations across eight African countries, the continent’s vaccine industry is in its infancy. However, the current vaccine manufacturing landscape includes a mix of facilities with capabilities in F&F (10 facilities), R&D (3 facilities), and drug substance (DS) or active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) development (5 facilities).

One of the challenges African vaccine producers face is not being able to become profitable in the long run. In 2023, a global consulting firm, BCG, in collaboration with BioVac, a South Africa-based biopharmaceutical company, and Wellcome, a UK-based charitable trust that focuses on research in the healthcare sector, conducted a detailed survey exploring stakeholder perspectives on challenges and feasible solutions. The respondent pool consisted of a diverse set of stakeholders spanning across Africa (43%), LMICs (11%), and global (46%). A total of 63 respondents from various backgrounds, such as manufacturers, industry associations, health organizations, regulators, and academic organizations, were interviewed across the regions above. According to this research, most vaccine producers in Africa who were interviewed said that profitability is one of their key concerns. This leads to a lack of foreign investments required for scaling up, which in turn creates insufficient production capacity, thereby increasing the prices of vaccines. Therefore, these producers are unable to meet considerable demand for their products, and their business model becomes unsustainable.

Continued commitment and support from all stakeholders are necessary for achieving a sustainable business model for vaccine producers in Africa and, consequently, for the industry at large. However, it has been observed that the support from global, continental, and national levels of governments and other non-government stakeholders, such as investors, donors, partners, etc., tend to diminish with the declining rampage caused by epidemics in Africa. Therefore, this poses a severe challenge to strengthening the vaccine production industry in Africa.

In another 2023 study, by a collaboration between the African CDC, the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), a global non-profit health organization, and PATH, formerly known as the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health, involving 19 vaccine manufacturers in Africa, it was suggested that the current vaccine production capacity including current orders to form/fill/ finish using imported antigens is nearly 2 billion doses. In contrast, the current average vaccine demand is 1.3 billion doses annually. In addition, there is a proposed F&F capacity of over 2 billion doses. Thus, if Africa can materialize both current and proposed plans of producing F&F capacity vaccines from imported antigens, the study concludes that the continent will reach a capacity of more than double the forecasted vaccine demand in 2030. Overcapacity will lead to losses due to wastage. Thus, not all vaccine producers will be profitable in the long term. This may challenge the African vaccine manufacturing industry to be profitable.

Moreover, Africa’s current domestic antigen production capacity is lower than what is required to meet PAVM’s vaccine production target of 60% by 2040. In addition, a large part of the existing antigen capacity is being utilized to make non-vaccine products. Although antigen production plans are underway, these will not suffice to narrow the gap between demand and production of antigens domestically in Africa.

EOS Perspective

To create a local, financially sustainable vaccine manufacturing industry with output adequate to support the continent’s needs, it is necessary to create an environment in which producers can achieve profitability.

Initiatives such as technology transfers and funding will only be fruitful when their on-the-ground implementation is successful. This will require the involvement of all stakeholders, from the state governments to bodies that approve the market entry of vaccines. All stakeholders need to be steadfast in their actions to achieve the ambitious target of 60% of vaccine needs to be met from local production by 2040 without compromising on the accuracy and quality of the vaccines.

One of the most vital aspects of the necessary planning is for stakeholders to ensure that even after the pandemic and its aftermath are entirely gone, the effort towards establishing facilities, creating know-how, and training a workforce skilled in vaccine development and production does not stop.

The focus should extend beyond COVID-19, as there are many other preventable diseases in Africa, such as malaria, pneumonia, tuberculosis, and STDs, against which vaccines are not yet produced locally. These areas provide a great opportunity for vaccine producers and associated stakeholders to continue being interested and involved in vaccine production and development in Africa.

07/02/2024by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Opioid Epidemic in the USA – Is the War to Curb the Crisis Turning Futile?

The opioid crisis in the USA is believed to have begun in the 1990s with the overprescription of pain-relieving medicines. However, the epidemic gained steam recently with the availability of cheap heroin, fentanyl, and other synthetic opioids in the USA that foreign drug cartels from Mexico and China predominantly provide. According to a report by the US Congress Joint Economic Committee (JEC), the economic burden caused by the opioid crisis in the USA is to the tune of US$ 1.5 trillion in 2020, a 37% increase from 2017 when the CDC last reported it. This translates to 7% of the country’s GDP in 2020, indicating that the problem cannot be ignored.

The death toll owing to the opioid epidemic has tripled from 2016 to 2021, as per research by Yale University. In terms of human deaths, over 1,500 Americans die per week from taking some form of opioid. The overall death toll owing to opioid overdose was 80,411 in 2021.

Although the US government has taken initiatives to curb the crisis, such as increasing the federal, state, and local governments’ investments in drug treatment and prevention programs, a lot more needs to be done in the field of foreign policy and drug approval control, among others.

Federal action to control the opioid epidemic is underway, but more efforts are needed

From funding treatment programs and addiction prevention tools to focusing on a harm-reduction approach that lays importance on life-saving drugs and tools that could reverse opioid overdose, the US government has recently taken significant measures to curb the opioid crisis in the country.

Government grants and monetary aid

To begin with, the federal, state, and local governments have increased funding for the treatment and prevention programs for opioid use disorder. The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act was passed in 2016 to combat the opioid crisis in the USA. It was a six-pronged strategy with pillars: prevention, treatment, recovery, law enforcement, criminal justice reform, and overdose reversal.

In monetary grants provided by the federal government, a sum of US$1.8 billion was given to states to combat the opioid crisis in 2019. Grants of US$900 million were given to the CDC over three years to facilitate the monitoring of overdose data and subsequently design strategies for treatment in states and counties/localities.

In addition, US$932 million was given to all 50 states in State Opioid Response grants in 2019. In 2021, the Biden government and the American Rescue Plan Act (ARP) provided US$5.5 billion for mental health and substance abuse prevention. In 2022, the sum was increased to US$1.5 billion for the State Opioid Response grants.

Apart from grants given by the federal government, some states and counties/localities utilized the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) from the ARP for developing programs to improve behavioral health, prevent opioid addiction, and treatment strategies for opioid use disorder. The SLFRF was to the tune of US$350 billion that was given to the state, territorial, local, and tribal governments across the USA to help them respond to and recover from COVID-19.

Drug control policies

In addition to monetary aid, the federal government brought about changes in drug control policies. For example, in April 2022, the Biden government introduced the National Drug Control Strategy that focused on a harm reduction approach that advocates using life-saving tools such as naloxone, drug test strips, and syringe services programs. It also promotes evidence-based treatment for those who are at a high risk of an overdose and improvement of the data and research systems for seamless development of drug policies.

With the FDA approval of the naloxone nasal spray Narcan in March 2023, it became the first OTC drug in the USA to reverse fentanyl overdoses. Narcan began to be sold to the public by September 2023.

Foreign policies

The US federal government has worked together with the government of Mexico for decades to curb the flow of illicit drugs entering the USA. To cite an example, through the Merida Initiative, the USA gave Mexico monetary aid of US$3.5 billion between 2008 and 2021 to counter the smuggling of illegal drugs across borders.

In the second half of 2021, the Biden government announced synthetic-opioid peddling a national emergency. The federal government also signed two executive orders that allowed the Biden administration to sanction individuals and bodies involved in the creation and distribution of fentanyl.

The 2022 National Drug Control Strategy also laid down policies to minimize the supply of illegal drugs through domestic and international collaboration.

In the second half of 2023, the federal government sanctioned 25 companies and individuals based in China who were suspected to be associated with the production of fentanyl precursor chemicals. Furthermore, the Biden government added China to the US list of countries involved in the creation and distribution of illegal drugs. This list comprises 22 other countries, such as Colombia, Mexico, and India.

In addition to this, the Biden government has continued to put pressure on Mexico to seize fentanyl precursor chemicals obtained from China and eradicate secret laboratories in Mexico. In November 2023, president Biden agreed with the Chinese and Mexican presidents separately to improve bilateral cooperation to prevent the production and dissemination of illegal fentanyl.

Domestic control measures

Apart from international efforts, federal action is being taken to control illegal opioid dissemination domestically. For instance, regulations have been put in place to revise the limits on opioid prescriptions, to prioritize seizing fentanyl, and to create widespread awareness of fentanyl’s lethality. Compared to 2021, the Drug Enforcement Administration of the USA seized double the quantity of fentanyl in 2022, and it announced that 60% of fake prescription drugs possess a lethal dose of fentanyl.

EOS Perspective

The JEC estimates of the US opioid crisis cost of US$1.5 trillion in 2020 speak volumes about the scope and size of the federal action needed to combat the epidemic. The magnitude of the opioid crisis in the USA calls for concrete action from the federal, state, and local governments to decrease both the death toll and the economic burden.

The federal government should promote the increase of access to evidence-based treatment by eradicating the barriers to healthcare and continue to embrace the “treatment over punishment” approach, focusing on medical attention and support instead of imprisonment. Another step is to enable the Medicaid expansion of the 12 states that have yet to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. This will lead to higher access to treatment, thereby minimizing the fatality rate.

Furthermore, the federal government should fund the Overdose Data to Action program for the expanded opioid data collection on overdose deaths in all US states. This will aid researchers and policymakers in arriving at the socioeconomic cost and aftermath of the opioid epidemic to understand better and resolve the problem. The federal government should also take initiatives to reduce the societal stigma around substance abuse for higher enrollment in treatment services.

Moreover, the federal government needs to address Narcan’s cost and accessibility challenges in the USA for better reach and impact. More R&D, increased border inspection, better overdose prevention, and employee assistance programs are instrumental in controlling the opioid epidemic in a better way.

Allocation of funds, increasing access to treatment, and enhancing the understanding of the scale of the epidemic are crucial steps in decreasing the human and economic toll of the opioid crisis in the USA.

18/01/2024by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Genetic Testing Fraud – The Next Big Concern for the US Healthcare?

361views

Over the past few years, lab fraud has become a concern in the USA with the increase in financial gains obtainable through fraudulent billing practices, unnecessary testing, bundling of expensive tests (such as tests for rare respiratory pathogens or genetic tests) with COVID-19 tests, and increase in the number of genetic testing labs. A recent update in the compliance and regulatory requirements and increased focus on analyzing fraud testing schemes are expected to help curb lab fraud in the country.

Genetic testing, due to its increased use in the healthcare industry, is a particularly lucrative fraud target. Despite the presence of various compliance programs and regulations, several laboratories, together with patient brokers, telemedicine companies, and call centers, commit fraud and defraud Medicare. This strains the healthcare system as it increases healthcare costs and influences the patients’ trust in testing, labs, and other stakeholders.

Clinical labs face less scrutiny than full-service health centers. Thus, they are more frequently involved in lab fraud activities. Some of the most commonly noticed lab fraud cases in the USA include kickback schemes, fraudulent billing, and unnecessary testing, among others. Labs team up with parties such as patient brokers to get patients, doctors to refer patients or prescribe unnecessary tests, telemedicine companies to order tests, and call centers to target Medicare beneficiaries and then defraud Medicare by submitting claims.

Lab fraud in genetic testing has emerged in the USA over the past few years due to sprouting genetic testing labs across the country and the increasing use of such tests in health practices to assist disease diagnosis and predict disease risk. Genetic testing enables healthcare providers to offer personalized medicine based on the individual’s genetic makeup and helps identify how the patient will respond to treatments. Genetic testing fraud, mainly targeting cancer screening, pharmacogenetics, and cardiovascular diseases, is on the rise.

One of many such fraud cases was noted in August 2023, when LabSolutions LLC, based in Georgia, USA, submitted over US$463 million worth of unnecessary genetic and other laboratory tests to Medicare, the national health insurance program, of which Medicare paid over US$187 million. These tests were obtained through kickbacks and bribes. The scale of similar fraud is evident from the fact that in July 2022, the Department of Justice announced criminal charges against 36 defendants in 13 federal districts for more than US$1.2 billion in fraudulent telemedicine, cardiovascular and genetic testing, and durable medical equipment purchases.

The COVID-19 outbreak in 2020 further spiked fraud cases, as it gave an opportunity to bundle COVID-19 testing with other forms of expensive testing that patients did not need, including genetic testing for various diseases and tests for rare respiratory pathogens. Financial incentives offered by the federal government to encourage participation in COVID-19 control-related businesses also attracted fraudsters in the laboratory business. According to the US Department of Health and Human Services report, in May 2023, around 378 labs billed Medicare Part B for add-on COVID-19 tests at high volume and payment amounts. Of these, around 276 labs billed for more add-on tests, such as billing Medicaid for COVID-19 tests alongside respiratory pathogen panels (RPPs), individual respiratory tests (IRTs), allergy tests, and genetic testing. An additional 161 of these 378 labs also reported higher costs than usual for add-on testing.

Lab fraud behind money loss, erosion of trust, and increased insurance premiums

Lab fraud causes a significant adverse effect on the integrity and quality of the healthcare system as unnecessary testing and fraudulent billing practices increase healthcare costs, compromise the accuracy and reliability of diagnostic tests, and erode trust in healthcare providers, including doctors and hospitals, among others. Healthcare providers who unknowingly refer patients to fraudulent labs are also likely to face a reputation hit.

Above all, healthcare fraud can cause tens of billions of dollars in yearly losses. According to the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association, taxpayers are losing over US$100 billion annually to Medicare and Medicaid fraud, including billing for unapproved COVID-19 tests, genetic testing fraud, home healthcare billing, and fraud billing for medical equipment.

Companies manufacturing genetic testing kits may face reputational damage if their products are used in the genetic testing fraud scheme. This is expected to negatively impact their market presence as customers/patients will lose confidence and will likely move to reputed competitors. Also, healthcare providers may stop referring the company products to their patients.

Increasing fraud will likely drive the need for more stringent regulations for genetic companies manufacturing genetic testing kits (requiring compliance in conducting in-depth clinical studies, providing extensive data, maintaining necessary documentation, labeling and packaging requirements, etc.). This is expected to increase the operational costs for genetic testing companies and, thus, the price of genetic testing services. Ever-increasing genetic testing fraud is expected to potentially disrupt the market’s growth trajectory as patients become more cautious. Individuals are likely to receive tests that are not appropriate or required and may become skeptical about the necessity and accuracy of the test result.

Read our related Perspective:
Commentary: The Promise of Comprehensive Genomic Profiling in the USA

Lab fraud also increases insurance premiums as fraudulent activities increase the cost of claims, which in turn increases insurance companies’ expenses. The insurance companies are bound to raise premiums to cover additional costs. Additionally, individuals receiving genetic testing through fraud schemes will likely be denied future coverage. This is because many genetic tests for inherited diseases are offered as a one-time payment for a lifetime of coverage, and fraud schemes can compromise the individual’s access to this benefit.

Regulatory updates and strategies aimed at combating lab fraud

Preventing lab fraud is crucial to maintaining the integrity of scientific research and the functioning of healthcare systems. Lab fraud can be prevented, or at least significantly diminished, by establishing comprehensive compliance programs, stringent licensing and certification requirements for labs and healthcare providers, encouraging employees and stakeholders in labs and healthcare organizations to report any suspected fraud incidences, education, secured data handling, continuous monitoring, improved medical billing processes, and enforcing penalties and legal consequences.

In January 2023, the US government updated compliance and regulatory requirements for laboratories to prevent lab fraud. As per the updates, the laboratories must submit a medical necessity document supporting the ordered test, progress note, and the treating doctor’s signature to support a claim.

Also, providing incentives to physicians to encourage them to refer patients for lab services will be considered a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, and both laboratory and healthcare professionals will face legal consequences.

Laboratories that fail to adhere to lab billing guidelines published through National Coverage Determinations (NCDs) or Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs) will face civil liability and triple damages under the False Claims Act.

The government also continued its scrutiny of medically unnecessary genetic testing schemes, audited genetic labs, and tried to recoup funds where the medical necessity requirement was unmet. Also, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a fraud alert warning the public about the proliferation of COVID-19 testing and genetic testing scams.

Moreover, in June 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) took a crucial measure to regulate an extensive array of laboratory tests, including prenatal genetic screenings, to ensure test result accuracy and prevent unreliable outcomes. The US FDA ensures that the lab test delivers results as claimed by the lab test developer by analyzing the device’s accuracy, specificity, clinical characteristics, and analytical sensitivity. Regulating these laboratory tests will likely reduce the chances of fraud, as laboratories will not be allowed to run specific tests if they are not cleared or approved by the FDA.

EOS Perspective

Increased awareness about genetic testing and its easy accessibility have made it more vulnerable to lab fraud in the country. Genetic testing scams are evolving significantly wherein the scammers (a lab owner or a genetic testing company’s representative) are offering free screening, cheek swabs, or testing kits for genetic testing to get the individual’s Medicare information and submit claims. An increase in the number of genetic testing companies manufacturing direct-to-consumer genetic testing kits is expected to further contribute to genetic testing fraud as it will become easier for lab owners to get access to genetic testing kits and scam Medicare beneficiaries.

Also, the introduction of new tests creates potential opportunities for lab fraud as the lack of proper oversight and safeguards makes it easier for lab fraudsters to exploit gaps while appropriate regulatory norms for those tests are being developed. Thus, there is an increased need to set the regulatory norms for any new tests being developed before they are put to use.

While various compliance and regulatory measures are in place to prevent lab fraud, ethical practices, education, and training for lab employees will likely play a significant role in preventing lab fraud in the country. Many healthcare professionals are often involved between doctors prescribing the test and the persons administering the test. Thus, it becomes challenging to determine whether the referrals are conducted efficiently.

In addition, strong collaboration among healthcare insurers, healthcare providers, and the government can also help prevent this kind of fraud. The government plays a vital role here, as it has the tools to lay more emphasis on continuous monitoring and auditing of genetic testing labs to keep track of lab activities and prevent fraud cases.

22/12/2023by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

The Promise of Comprehensive Genomic Profiling in the USA

Comprehensive Genomic Profiling (CGP) is a diagnostic tool that sequences a patient’s tumor DNA to identify genetic mutations that drive cancer growth. Insurance coverage for CGP varies widely depending on the type of cancer, the patient’s stage of disease, and the specific test being used. Despite CGP’s tremendous potential to transform cancer care and diagnosis, its implementation is hindered by inconsistent insurance coverage policies.

Comprehensive genomic profiling is a cutting-edge technology that is revolutionizing cancer diagnosis and treatment. Unlike standard gene testing, which looks at a small number of genes, CGP analyzes thousands of genes across the entire genome. This provides a much more comprehensive picture of genetic mutations that may be driving a patient’s cancer, thereby leading to more personalized and effective treatment options. Despite the benefits of CGP, access to this technology remains limited due to a variety of factors, which include high costs, limited insurance coverage, and regulatory hurdles.

One of the biggest challenges for CGP has been payer acceptability. Payers tend to be cautious about covering CGP because it is a relatively new technology, and there is still some debate about its clinical value and cost-effectiveness.

Private payers in the USA are more likely to cover CGP for patients with rare or complex cancers or for patients who have failed standard therapies, such as chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

In contrast, public payers, such as Medicare, may have more restrictive criteria for coverage and only cover CGP for certain types of cancer or for patients who meet specific clinical criteria. These criteria could include a requirement that CGP tests be performed in Medicare-accredited labs. Other major public payers in the USA, such as Medicaid and Veterans Affairs (VA) health plans, also cover CGP, but each payer has different criteria for coverage. Generally, they require that the test is ordered by a physician and is deemed medically necessary for the patient’s treatment plan.

The lack of coverage makes it financially inaccessible for many patients, which limits the ability of healthcare providers to consistently offer CGP testing. This presents a significant obstacle to the widespread adoption of this promising diagnostic tool. Some payers are hesitant to reimburse CGP due to concerns about the cost-effectiveness of the test and the lack of long-term data on clinical outcomes. However, major public and private payers such as Medicare, UnitedHealth (UHC), Aetna, and Cigna, among others, have included CGP tests in their health policies in recent years, nonetheless, the coverage remains uneven.

Cost and regulatory hurdles are stifling the growth of CGP

Payers have historically covered traditional testing, such as immunohistochemistry (IHC), fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), and single gene tests, but have been hesitant to provide coverage for CGP. This is mainly because these tests have been around for longer than CGP, so payers are more familiar with them and are more comfortable covering them.

Another reason is that CGP is more expensive than traditional tests. While the exact cost varies depending on the specific test and lab performing it, the cost of CGP tests can range from a few hundred dollars to several thousand dollars, while traditional tests are typically in the range of a few hundred dollars. This is due to the fact that CGP tests are more complex as they analyze a large number of genes, whereas traditional tests focus on analyzing one specific gene at a time, making them less expensive.

According to a study published in 2021 by the Journal of Clinical Oncology, CGP could improve overall survival by about 6% (0.06 years, a relatively small but meaningful amount of time for cancer patients and their families) for US$9,000 per patient, compared with traditional testing strategies. On the other hand, as per a 2022 article by the American Journal of Managed Care, although the cost of CGP tests is high, these tests can help identify the most effective treatment options for each patient, which can lead to better outcomes and fewer unnecessary treatments, which in turn can lower overall healthcare costs.

Read our related Perspective:
 Commentary: Genetic Testing Fraud – The Next Big Concern for the US Healthcare?

To further educate the industry about the benefits associated with CGP, Illumina, a California-based biotechnology company, established Access to Comprehensive Genomic Profiling (ACGP) in 2020, which is an alliance of seven members, including leading molecular diagnostics companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and laboratories. ACGP aims to educate about CGP for advanced cancer patients by engaging directly with the US payers.

Additionally, a few strategies are being adopted by the healthcare industry, such as bundling CGP tests with other diagnostic tests to reduce the overall cost per test. This way, instead of running a CGP test and a separate test for a specific genetic mutation, both tests could be combined into one-panel tests. This could reduce the overall cost per test by eliminating the need to run two separate tests, as well as reducing the need for multiple lab visits and samples. However, it’s important to note that the savings may vary depending on the specific tests and the laboratory.

The ambiguity surrounding reimbursement for CGP tests among the insurers also stems from the FDA’s ongoing debate over proper classification and regulatory framework for these tests. While the FDA recognizes the potential benefits of CGP, concerns linger about its quality, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness. To address these concerns, the FDA has been working with stakeholders to establish reimbursement policies that make CGP tests accessible to patients. These stakeholders range from academic institutions (such as Mayo Clinic and Memorial Sloan Kettering) to health insurance companies (such as UnitedHealthcare and Aetna) to CGP test developers (such as Guardant Health and Foundation Medicine).

Payers’ coverage for CGP is expanding but is highly uneven

Payers, such as Aetna and Cigna, have included CGP tests in their health plans but do not cover all types of cancers. While an increasing number of payers is expanding coverage for CGP, there is a lot of variation in terms of what is covered and for which types or stages of cancer.

For instance, Aetna announced in 2020 that it would cover CGP testing for certain types of breast and colorectal cancer. However, the coverage for each type of cancer gene mutation is different.

While Aetna’s policies for CGP coverage are very nuanced, Cigna’s are complicated. Cigna‘s coverage varies depending on the type of CGP test being ordered, whether the test is considered medically necessary for the patient’s condition, and the patient’s location. Sometimes, the patient needs to meet certain criteria to be eligible for coverage (e.g., only the advanced stage of cancer is considered under coverage).

Similarly, UHC, one of the leading private health plan providers in the USA, also limited its CGP coverage to patients with advanced cancers, such as lung, breast, or colorectal cancer. However, in early 2023, UHC issued a new policy expanding coverage for CGP tests from Foundation Medicine and Guardant Health. The new policy covers CGP tests for a wider range of cancers, including early-stage cancers and other types of tumors. The goal of this policy change is to increase access to CGP testing and to help catch cancer earlier when it is more treatable.

Aetna and Cigna are not far behind in expanding their coverage for CGP tests. In 2023, both companies included additional benefits for members receiving CGP testing, such as on-site care in some facilities and counseling services.

There’s an increasing recognition that CGP can help identify patients who may benefit from targeted therapies. Overall, payers are becoming more open to covering CGP, but there is still variability in their policies and coverage levels.

EOS Perspective

The adoption of CGP is creating a ripple effect throughout the healthcare industry. Payers are increasingly recognizing the value of CGP tests and expanding their coverage. By providing broader coverage for CGP tests, payers can position themselves as offering more cutting-edge care options. This can give them a competitive edge over other insurers who may not provide coverage for these tests. In addition, by broadening the coverage of tests for early-stage cancer, payers can help to identify and treat cancers earlier, which can lead to better outcomes for patients and potentially lower costs in the long run.

Further, the growing adoption of CGP has an impact on healthcare industry stakeholders beyond payers. It is likely to fuel a shift towards precision medicine, where treatments are tailored to the individual patient based on genetic information.

Diagnostic companies are likely to invest in CGP technology to stay competitive and offer more comprehensive tests. For healthcare providers, offering CGP tests allows them to differentiate themselves, improve patient outcomes, and attract more patients. However, it can also add complexity to the treatment process and increase costs if not managed correctly (e.g., wrong interpretation of genetic information due to the large amount of data for individual patients).

For test kit producers and labs, CGP is creating new opportunities for growth and market share but also increased competition and pressure to lower costs and improve accuracy.

Overall, while still not fully embraced by the industry, CGP is shaking up the healthcare landscape, creating both great opportunities and new challenges for all stakeholders.

12/12/2023by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Medicine Shortage in the EU: A Deep-dive into Its Causes and Cures

672views

With the proposal of the deeply revamped new EU pharma legislation in April 2023, the EU initiated an attempt to tackle the medicine shortfall that the union has been experiencing for over two decades now. Europe has witnessed a 20-fold rise in reported drug shortfalls from 2000 to 2018, as per research conducted by the Mediterranean Institute of Investigative Reporting (MIIR).

According to the European Data Journalism Network (EDJNet), the problem of drug inadequacies is not novel, although it got under the spotlight during the 2020-2022 COVID-19 pandemic, the energy crisis that started in early 2022, and the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in early 2022. Ironically, the fundamental reasons responsible for the medicine shortages in the EU are not solely these three events but a mixture of structural, economic, and regulatory factors that the governments often refuse to agree on.

In terms of the magnitude of the shortage during the five-year period from January 2018 to March 2023, Italy experienced the highest inadequacy in absolute terms to the tune of 10,843 medicines, followed by Czechia with 2,699 medicines and Germany with 2,355 medicines. Although Greece witnessed the lowest shortage, with 389 medicines between 2018 and 2023, the median duration for which the shortfall existed was the longest for this country, with 130 days, followed by Germany with 120 days, and Belgium with 103 days. This means that, for instance, in Greece, it is likely to take about four months and eight days for a medicine to be back on the market.

According to a survey regarding medicine shortages in the EU members organized by the Pharmaceutical Group of European Union (PGEU) between mid-November and end-December 2022, all 29 EU countries surveyed recorded drug shortfalls during the past 12 months among community pharmacists (pharmacists in retail pharmacies where the general populations have access to medications). Moreover, around 76% of the respondents agreed that the situation had worsened compared to 2021, and the remaining 24% said the situation remained the same compared to 2021. Not a single country registered any improvement in the situation compared to 2021. Furthermore, the survey also revealed that 83% of the respondents concurred that cardiovascular drugs were in short supply during the last 12 months in community pharmacies, followed by medicines treating nervous system diseases and anti-infectives for systemic use, such as antibiotics (79% each). Owing to the sample size of this survey of 1 response per country covering 29 EU countries, the findings might not be accurate but are likely to illustrate the overall trends correctly.

The problem of medicine shortages is not just limited to EU countries, as the UK is also experiencing acute drug inadequacies, including HRT (hormone replacement therapy) medicines and antibiotics, among other medicines.

In December 2022, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) announced that most EU countries are confronted with drug shortages. The question that arises is what led to the medicine shortfall in the EU and how the EU members can attempt to combat the issue at hand.

Medicine Shortage in the EU: A Deep-dive into Its Causes and Cures by EOS Intelligence

Factors responsible for medicine shortages in the EU

The attributing factors to drug shortages in the EU are mainly a combination of economic, regulatory, and production or supply chain-related causes.

Economic factors

Price cap regulation on generics amidst rising costs hindering production

One of the key reasons for the drug shortfall of medicines, including antibiotics (such as Amoxicillin) in the EU is the fact that generic drug makers are not paid sufficiently for increased production of the medicine to cover the associated costs such as production, logistics, and regulatory compliance costs that are rising steeply.

To add to the woes of most European generic drug makers, the prices of the generics that the respective countries had set have remained unchanged for the past two decades, making the situation much worse.

Additionally, due to regulated prices of generic drugs, numerous European drug producers have shown a lack of interest in boosting their production capacity. This has become particularly relevant during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has caused a rise in energy costs. This cost increase affects the smooth functioning of factories that produce everything from aluminum for medicine bottle caps to cardboard for packaging medicines, indicating a rise in drug insufficiencies in the foreseeable future.

According to a Reuters report, six European generic drug industry groups and trade associations, as well as 13 European producers, revealed that many smaller drug makers are battling to be profitable and, therefore, are contemplating if producing antibiotics would be feasible, let alone expanding production capacity.

Government tenders indirectly force generic producers to cut production

Before inviting quotations or tenders, many European governments tend to weigh the generic drug prices with prices in other regional markets or prices of similar drugs in the home market to establish a reference price point that can be used in negotiating with producers. These governments give contracts to those producers who quote the lowest price, resulting in “further downward pressure on prices in subsequent tenders,” as per generic drug producers.

According to many European generic drug producers, the price cap regulation and the tender system of generics have spurred a ‘race to the bottom’. The European generic drug makers bear the brunt of Asian generic drug producers charging less for the same products. Consequently, some European firms were compelled to either decrease production or choose offshore production (of generics and APIs required to produce them) to low-cost locations such as India and China.

Parallel exports aggravate the shortages in low-price markets

Although some European countries have started prohibiting parallel exports (cross-border sale of medicines within the EU by sellers outside of the producer’s distribution system and without the producer’s permission) to other countries, this practice of buying drugs from low-price markets and selling them in high-price markets has resulted in the exhaustion of medicine supplies in low-price markets. This has been noticed in some EU countries such as Greece, Portugal, and Central and Eastern European member states where legislations have been put into effect that make the re-export of pharmaceuticals harder. For instance, drug shortages in Greece have been attributed to the re-export of imported medicines to regions where these medicines are sold at a higher price point than in Greece, as per a news report by the Turkish news agency, Anadolu Agency.

According to a report published by the Centers for European Policy Network in May 2021, the magnitude of parallel imports of medicines occurring in the European Economic Area (EEA) was to the tune of €5.7 billion in 2019. Furthermore, the share of parallel-imported pharmaceuticals varied considerably across European countries. To cite a few examples, Denmark’s share of parallel-imported pharmaceuticals was around 26.2% in 2018, while the corresponding figure for Austria was 1.9% in the same year. Similarly, in 2018, the share of parallel-imported medicines was around 12% in Sweden and 2% in Poland.

Production and supply chain factors

The current lack of a sufficient number of production facilities in European countries can increase the chances of drug shortfalls in the region at the time of any production problem. To illustrate this, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) cited that drug shortages in the EU are caused by production factors, raw material shortages, distribution issues, and high demand due to respiratory diseases and inadequate manufacturing capacities.

Furthermore, many pharma producers utilize the just-in-time concept of inventory management, which improves efficiency, reduces storage costs, and minimizes waste, thanks to producing goods as needed. Due to this, producers often face challenges such as the inability to adapt to changing demand volumes.

Moreover, owing to the innate reliance of drug producers on APIs, variations in the “supply, quality, and regulation” of APIs have affected medicine supplies, according to a report by the Economist Intelligence Unit. To cite an example, pharmacies in Italy have attributed the decline in the making of APIs in China to the shortfall of medicines in Italy, according to a report by Anatolia Agency, the leading Turkish news agency.

Reactions from various stakeholders in the EU pharma market

Starting from proposing a revision of the EU pharma legislation to banning parallel exports of medicines in some European countries, there are many reactions to drug shortages in the EU from various pharma market stakeholders.

New Pharma legislation in the EU by the European Commission

The proposal of the new pharma legislation in the EU by the European Commission in April 2023 came as a reaction to the acute medicine shortage in the region. It proposes measures for producers to provide early warnings of drug shortfalls and necessitates producers to keep reserve supplies in sufficient quantities for times of crisis, such as acute shortages.

Read our related Perspective:
 New EU Pharma Legislation: Is It a Win-win for All Stakeholders?

Price capping cannot facilitate sustainability

European lobby groups supporting generic medicine makers argue that price limits won’t be effective due to growing production and regulatory expenses. There was no system to review medicine prices and adjust them for inflation or when APIs became scarce in most European countries. Moreover, it is exceedingly complex to continue to keep medicines competitive after 10 years of their launch.

Ramped up production by bigger generic drug producers

The pricing framework in Europe is the primary concern of generic drug makers in the long term, not production costs. According to the global supply chain head of Sandoz, Novartis’s generic division, the current inflexible pricing framework prevents generic drug producers from adjusting prices for essential drugs according to changes in input costs.

To illustrate this, the price of 60ml of pediatric amoxicillin in 2003 in Spain was around €0.98 (US$1.05). In the following ten years, the only change that was made was to reduce the quantity of the medicine to 40ml of pediatric amoxicillin, still pricing it at €0.98 (US$1.05). However, no change has been made since 2013.

Some larger generic drug companies are ramping up the production of certain medicines, such as amoxicillin, that are in short supply. To cite a few examples, Sandoz is planning to add extra shifts in its factory in Austria to meet their increased production target of amoxicillin by a double-digit percentage in 2023 vis-à-vis 2022. Additionally, the company plans to start the operation of another expanded factory by 2024. Similarly, GSK also recruited a new workforce and increased shifts in its amoxicillin factories in the UK and France. However, for companies with smaller market shares, such as Teva, things are different as increasing production capacity is not a viable option for them as they are struggling to be profitable, and thus, there is no way they can ramp up production to bridge the market gap.

National governments and drug regulators making big changes

Some European governments are considering making legal changes to ease the current procurement system of medicines in their respective regions. Additionally, some European governments are also striving to ban the re-export of imported medicines. Germany’s government is set to contemplate making legal changes to its tender system for generic medicines in 2023, whereas the Spanish government is planning to review its pricing scheme for certain medicines, which might cause patients to pay a higher price for medicines, including amoxicillin, on a temporary basis. The Netherlands and Sweden have put in place a law that requires vendors to stock six weeks of reserve supplies to mitigate shortfalls.

Several European countries are taking initiatives to prohibit parallel exports or re-exports of imported medicines to preserve domestic medicine supplies. To cite an example, in November 2022, the medicines regulatory body in Greece expanded the list of drugs whose re-export to other countries is prohibited. Another example is Romania, which halted exports of certain antibiotics and pediatric analgesics for three months in January 2023. Also, in January 2023, Belgium issued an official order allowing the respective authorities to stop the export of medicines to other countries during crises such as shortages.

EOS Perspective

Tender or procurement and pricing strategies of medicines in the EU and the UK must be improved after in-depth analysis. This is the only way to improve production in the European region so that future shortages of drugs can be avoided, in addition to curbing heavy dependence on Asia for essential drugs.

Secondly, there needs to be a centralized EU system in place that is designed to track the supply of essential medicines in all member countries, allowing for the identification of early signs of upcoming risks or shortfalls.

The new pharma legislation in the EU is expected to help improve the availability of drugs in situations of health crises, including drug shortages. The EU could reduce medicine shortages across the region over time as it has awarded the EMA more responsibilities and established a new body called HERA that can purchase medicines for the entire union.

Who We Are

Connect With Us

Work With EOS

Who We Are

Connect With Us

Work With EOS

Adoption of DTx is taking off amid increased investments

Regulatory pitfalls present a major roadblock to DTx adoption

Patient health literacy is a hurdle in the adoption of DTx solutions

Payer reluctance affects many DTx products

DTx offers solutions for managing multiple conditions

The DTx landscape is rife with development

Bankruptcy of Pear and lessons for the industry

EOS Perspective

Healthcare administrative costs hold the lion’s share of total healthcare expenditure

Healthcare services costs, including physicians’ salaries, empty patients’ pockets

Skyrocketing prescription drug prices further inflate healthcare costs

Chronic diseases add fuel to the fire of escalating healthcare costs

Expanding geriatric population contributes to rising healthcare costs

Greed over welfare

EOS Perspective

Molecular testing moving near-patient

Growing demand for self-sampling/at-home sampling

EOS Perspective

Vaccine sovereignty is the need of the hour for the African continent

Significant FDI will aid in driving localized vaccine production in Africa

Desire to ensure vaccine effectiveness is seen as a biased vaccine preference

Technology transfer hub and know-how development initiatives are set

Although significant initiatives are underway, challenges exist

EOS Perspective

Federal action to control the opioid epidemic is underway, but more efforts are needed

EOS Perspective

Lab fraud behind money loss, erosion of trust, and increased insurance premiums

Regulatory updates and strategies aimed at combating lab fraud

EOS Perspective

Cost and regulatory hurdles are stifling the growth of CGP

Payers’ coverage for CGP is expanding but is highly uneven

EOS Perspective

Factors responsible for medicine shortages in the EU

Economic factors

Production and supply chain factors

Reactions from various stakeholders in the EU pharma market

EOS Perspective