In Washington, the policymakers and legislators are arguing over how to build comparative effectiveness research into the health reform bill.
Eleven miles away in the Maryland suburbs at the Food & Drug Administration’s new White Oak campus, the regulators are figuring out on a case-by-case basis how to apply their new authority to order post-approval education, distribution and testing programs for new drug approvals. under the Risk Evaluation & Mitigation Strategies authority.
But in the private capital markets removed from the political capital, these two issues are already moving from the conceptual, formative stages into real world requirements. Drug and biological entrepreneurs are learning that they better have answers to questions about both requirements when they go into venture capital firms for development funds.
VCs now expect companies seeking funding to bring in plans for comparative research during drug development and to recognize early what level of post-marketing controls FDA will require.
That’s what MPM Capital’s Gary Patou (in the picture above) told a session on successful drug development plans at the recent annual meeting of the Drug Information Association in San Diego. Clear plans for comparative effectiveness testing and post-marketing controls are becoming de rigeur parts of solicitations for funding from VCs, he says. (For a longer examination of the new de facto requirements for drug development plans from venture capital firms, see this story from The RPM Report.)
That means that the funding spigot from private capital will help enforce and establish the new government additions to drug development. Policy is made in DC, but practice is enforced by VCs.
No comments:
Post a Comment