Funding Reorientation: Toward Curative and Cost-Effective Medical Treatments

Funding Reorientation: Toward Curative and Cost-Effective Medical Treatments

1. Introduction

The current funding model for pharmaceutical and medical technology in the United States often favors the development and use of medications that require continuous, long-term administration. This paper proposes a revolutionary approach that prioritizes curative and cost-effective treatments over palliative care, challenging the conventional paradigm and advocating for a dynamic allocation of resources to drive innovation and improve patient outcomes.

2. Conventional Funding Models

The conventional approach to funding pharmaceutical and medical technologies in the US has been centered on the development and distribution of medications that require regular, ongoing use. This has led to a focus on the management of symptoms rather than the eradication or control of diseases at their root. This model has raised concerns about its long-term sustainability and its ability to address the growing healthcare needs of the population.

3. Proposal for Funding Reorientation

This paper advocates for a reallocation of funds towards treatments that aim to cure or significantly ameliorate conditions in one or a few sessions. This shift in focus would prioritize treatments that offer a cure or substantial improvement in fewer sessions, such as gene therapy, single-dose vaccines, and advanced surgical techniques with lasting effects. (Muthyala, 2011) Additionally, preference would be given to treatments with fewer negative side effects, promoting patient well-being and reducing long-term healthcare costs. (Muthyala, 2011) (Coller & Califf, 2009)

?? 3.1. Cost-Effectiveness and Medicare Allocation

A key component of the proposed funding model is the dynamic allocation of a portion of Medicare resources based on the cost-effectiveness of treatments. Instead of blanket funding, a percentage of Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance funds would be directed towards treatments that demonstrate substantial long-term cost savings or significant health benefits. This funding would be reviewed annually, ensuring that only the most effective treatments continue to receive support and incentivizing innovation in medical technology.

?? 3.2. Annual Treatment Assessment

Each year, new medical technologies and treatments would be evaluated against those currently funded. If a new treatment proves more effective, funding would shift accordingly. This competitive model would incentivize the development of innovative medical treatments, as only the most cost-effective and impactful therapies would receive continued support.

?

4. Criteria for Funding Priority

The proposed funding model would prioritize the following criteria:

?? 4.1. Short-term, Effective Treatments

Treatments that offer a cure or significant improvement in fewer sessions would be prioritized, as they have the potential to provide long-lasting benefits and reduce the burden on the healthcare system.

?? 4.2. Reduced Side Effects

Treatments with fewer negative side effects would be favored, as they promote patient well-being and reduce long-term healthcare costs associated with managing these side effects.

?? 4.3. Personalized Medicine

The funding model would encourage the use of cutting-edge technology allowing for treatments tailored to individual genetic profiles, as this approach can increase the efficacy of therapies and reduce the one-size-fits-all approach of traditional medicine.

These criteria would help drive innovation in the pharmaceutical and medical technology sectors, ultimately leading to a more cost-effective and patient-centered healthcare system.

?? 4.4 Hackatons for medical issues

Periodic hackathons could be organized to encourage the development of innovative solutions for pressing medical challenges. These events would bring together multidisciplinary teams to collaborate on developing novel treatments, diagnostic tools, or technological advancements that address unmet needs in the healthcare system. (Godman et al., 2018) (Zannad et al., 2014) (Linley & Hughes, 2012) (Volpp et al., 2012)

?? 4.5 penalties for companies benefiting from ongoing treatments

To further incentivize the development of curative treatments, a threshold could be introduced for companies that derive a significant portion of their revenue from ongoing, palliative care. Once a company's revenues from such treatments exceed a certain percentage of their total revenue, they would be subject to increased tax rates.

5. Conclusion

The proposed funding model represents a significant departure from the conventional approach and challenges the status quo. By prioritizing curative and cost-effective treatments, the US healthcare system can shift towards a more sustainable and patient-focused model that incentivizes innovation and improves overall patient outcomes (Volpp et al., 2012) (Linley & Hughes, 2012) (Chernew & Heath, 2019) (Gutowski et al., 2011).

?

?

?

References

Chernew, M. E., & Heath, J. (2019). How Different Payment Models Support (or Undermine) a Sustainable Health Care System: Rating the Underlying Incentives and Building a Better Model. In NEJM Catalyst (Vol. 1, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.1056/cat.19.1084

Coller, B. S., & Califf, R. M. (2009). Traversing the Valley of Death: A Guide to Assessing Prospects for Translational Success. In Science Translational Medicine (Vol. 1, Issue 10). American Association for the Advancement of Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3000265

Godman, B., Bucsics, A., Bonanno, P. V., Oortwijn, W., Rothe, C. C., Ferrario, A., Bosselli, S., Hill, A., Martin, A. P., Simoens, S., Kurdi, A., Gad, M., Gulbinovi?, J., Timoney, A., Bochenek, T., Salem, A., Hoxha, I., Sauermann, R., Massele, A., … Haycox, A. (2018). Barriers for Access to New Medicines: Searching for the Balance Between Rising Costs and Limited Budgets [Review of Barriers for Access to New Medicines: Searching for the Balance Between Rising Costs and Limited Budgets]. Frontiers in Public Health, 6. Frontiers Media. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00328

Gutowski, C. J., Maa, J., Hoo, K. S., Bozic, K. J., & Lee, P. R. (2011). Health Technology Assessment at the University of California-San Francisco. In Journal of Healthcare Management (Vol. 56, Issue 1, p. 15). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. https://doi.org/10.1097/00115514-201101000-00004

Linley, W. G., & Hughes, D. (2012). SOCIETAL VIEWS ON NICE, CANCER DRUGS FUND AND VALUE‐BASED PRICING CRITERIA FOR PRIORITISING MEDICINES: A CROSS‐SECTIONAL SURVEY OF 4118 ADULTS IN GREAT BRITAIN. In Health Economics (Vol. 22, Issue 8, p. 948). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.2872

Muthyala, R. (2011). Orphan/rare drug discovery through drug repositioning. In Drug Discovery Today Therapeutic Strategies (Vol. 8, Issue 3, p. 71). Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ddstr.2011.10.003

Volpp, K. G., Loewenstein, G., & Asch, D. A. (2012). Assessing Value in Health Care Programs. In JAMA (Vol. 307, Issue 20). American Medical Association. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.3619

Zannad, F., Maugendre, P., Audry, A., Avril, C., Blaise, L., Blin, O., Burnel, P., Falise-Mirat, B., Girault, D., Giri, I., Goehrs, J., Lassale, C., Meur, R. L., Leurent, P., Ratignier-Carbonneil, C., Rossignol, P., Satonnet, E., Simon, P., & Tréluyer, L. (2014). Telemedicine: What Framework, What Levels of Proof, Implementation Rules. In Therapies (Vol. 69, Issue 4, p. 347). Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.2515/therapie/2014043