Program | Speakers | Videos

Moderator:
Brian Wood, Managing Director, Investment Banking, Consumer Products Group, Imperial Capital

The trends are clear: aging baby boomers, a new emphasis on preventative and alternative health care, the need to address a growing obesity epidemic, food safety and quality considerations, and increased awareness of the need for fitness and activity throughout life. And businesses are responding, with a diverse range of new products and services that include significant advances in nutrition, a growing array of fitness and leisure alternatives, and the development of innovative functional/specialty food products for consumers with specific dietary needs. This panel of health and wellness experts speaks to people's desire to live healthier and more active lives as well as the ongoing evolution of the "healthy living" market.

Moderator:
Maria Bartiromo, Anchor, CNBC's "Closing Bell With Maria Bartiromo"

Health reform legislation is a positive step toward providing more Americans with insurance, but there's a big omission: The law doesn't do enough to promote prevention, innovation and cures. In a session moderated by CNBC's Maria Bartiromo, panelists discussed taking a broader and more holistic approach to what the concept of health care really means.

At least 70 percent of health spending goes toward preventable diseases, most of which are caused or made worse by lifestyle choices. Obesity is linked to several serious medical conditions — from heart disease to cancer — and its consequences are grave.

Every imperative to lose weight is there. But obesity presents an accumulation of complex socioeconomic factors that influence lifestyle choices. For example, in many communities, especially urban neighborhoods, options for healthy choices are limited, not easily affordable, or in some instances, completely unavailable making healthy choices difficult or impossible.

Prevention, said Wayne Gattinella of WebMD, is a "concept without a champion." Health insurers, pharmaceutical companies and even health-care providers are just not incentivized to promote it. Jay Gellert of Health Net said it's time to wage a war against obesity, the same way we fought the war against smoking. According to Gellert, "right now, we are fighting this war with squirt guns."

Ardis Hoven of the American Medical Association called for educating the public in a meaningful way and ensuring that available information is trustworthy and reliable.

Quickly woven into the conversation were the likely suspects of the ever-expanding waistline — Pepsi, Coca-Cola, McDonalds. Are they to take the brunt of the blame? Perhaps. But the larger question remains: Who's in charge of helping Americans improve their lifestyles, make healthier choices, and enhance productivity?

All panelists underscored that collaboration across sectors — health, policy, business — will be key.

The other side of coin is finding real cures for disease, said Michael Milken, chairman of the Milken Institute and FasterCures. Breakthrough cures will pay tremendous dividends, but we will have to channel capital correctly and streamline the process of translating discoveries into treatments. Milken cited the successful management of polio in the 1950s, and urged policymakers to learn from history.

David Brennan, CEO of AstraZeneca said that it's "about the art of what's possible." The pharmaceutical industry has been treatment-oriented, and for most diseases, there's limited understanding of prevention.

America's leadership in medical innovation is now being challenged on a global scale, and the U.S. should look to science parks in China, a biopolis in Singapore and better science and math education in Asian nations to find best practices. Innovation will thrive in an environment where it's appropriately incentivized and rewarded.

Milken noted that if the U.S. continues to misallocate resources significantly, our future in science will be in question. "What are we as a government going to stand for?"

Moderator:
Debra Lappin, President, Council for American Medical Innovation

A panel of experts from across the medical research spectrum said that one of the biggest hurdles on the path to faster medical cures is a growing disconnect between academia and industry.

Moderator Debra Lappin of the Council for American Medical Innovation set the stage by outlining the tectonic shifts in medical research — from new and emerging interdependence of sectors, to flattening of federal funds through the National Institutes of Health, to a newly risk-averse environment in which high-risk, high-reward research is the first to be cut.

In addition, the "easy" achievements have already been accomplished, so moving the needle becomes that much more complicated, said Chris Coburn of Cleveland Clinic Innovations.

Technology is the linchpin that will decentralize industry, empower consumers and encourage innovation, said Usama Malik of Pfizer. He called open innovation - which assumes that firms can and should use external ideas and paths to market as well as their own - as the model of the future because it allows the system to pick innovations early on that are likely to have the most impact.

Among the factors that have led to an unclear regulatory pathway is a lack of understanding of the relevance of science in commercial marketplace, said Lesa Mitchell of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Bridging that gap is crucial to turning innovations at universities into commercial products.

Scott Johnson of the Myelin Repair Foundation said that academic models must be reframed to produce results that are more relevant to commercial industry. More than 800,000 academic medical papers are published each year, and industry has a hard time wading through them to find gems, he said.

Private-public partnerships are key, the experts agreed.

"Top-down solutions won′t work," Johnson added. "You can′t force progress through policy, but you can (incentivize) collaboration."

Moderator:
Margaret Anderson, Executive Director, FasterCures / The Center for Accelerating Medical Solutions

Where will the capital come from to spur innovation in medical research? This session explores solutions to funding gaps and the evolution of collaborative financing models that involve industry, investors and philanthropy. It also discusses the changing role of VCs, prospects for biotechs in the IPO market and where investors see the best short- and long-term opportunities. Can incentives align to attract and sustain sufficient levels of capital to support R&D and bring new therapies and technologies to patients?

Moderator:
Melissa Stevens, Director of Strategic Initiatives, FasterCures / The Center for Accelerating Medical Solutions

Philanthropic investment accounts for only 3 percent of overall medical research spending, a small fraction of government and industry funding. But philanthropy plays an outsized role in catalyzing high-risk research and building new momentum in neglected disease areas. It can also help to bridge the widening "valley of death" in research, enabling innovations to make the transition from basic discovery to later-stage development. How can we encourage more philanthropists to invest — and invest effectively — in the medical research enterprise? How do you measure impact when the bottom line is curing disease?

Moderator:
Hannah Kettler, Senior Program Officer and Economist, Global Health Policy and Finance, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

This year's conference highlighted the vital need for creativity and innovation in our thinking about how to fund medical R&D targeting diseases of the developing world.

Moderator Hannah Kettler of The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation laid the groundwork by invoking the late C.K. Prahalad, who shaped the world's thinking about the market at the bottom of the wealth pyramid. Although Prahalad, who died last week, did not focus specifically on health, Kettler drew the connection between his broader concept and the market for new medical tools that target diseases disproportionately affecting the poor in developing countries. The question is how to attract more investment of resources, financial and otherwise, from a broader set of actors to help meet the health needs of these vast populations.

Holly Wong of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative pointed to a proposed product development partnership (PDP) that would rely on a donor-backer bond issue to generate upfront funding while reinvesting some of the proceeds from product sales into the development of new products. The idea, according to Wong, would build more sustainability into the model and allow for cross-subsidization by directing proceeds from one disease area to potentially fund R&D in another.

Eric Easom, Program Leader for Neglected Diseases at Anacor Pharmaceuticals, represented the perspective of a small, privately-held biotechnology company that is collaborating with several PDPs. Easom said that, for smaller companies, "push" funding, which provides capital to companies looking to invest in R&D for developing country needs, is preferable to "pull" funding, which rewards companies for their successful investments.

Perhaps the investment climate for neglected diseases should look more like the one for orphan diseases, which are very attractive to investors because of preferential payment and taxation environments and active patient populations. That was the perspective from Stephen Sands of Lazard Healthcare, who felt that the credit markets and venture philanthropy models could provide a source of capital that is better aligned with the high risk nature of investment in medical research than debt instruments such bonds.

Moderator:
Sage Kelly, Managing Director and the Global Head of Healthcare Investment Banking, Jefferies & Company Inc.

With the health reform law in place, leaders in the industry had more questions than answers about its implications.

"Cost comes from price [of health care] and utilization," said Ceci Connolly who covers health policy for The Washington Post. Measures are in place to curb the soaring cost of health-care services, like lowering readmission rates by addressing preventable underlying causes. But, "we have a lot to do" when it comes to utilization, she said. The law starts to modify behavior by changing incentives, but it requires broader public engagement.

Michael McCallister of Humana Inc. said the great power of consumers can be leveraged with the right incentives, accurate information and transparency throughout the health system. The law puts measures in place that will move the country toward "outcomes-driven care," said Billy Tauzin of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRma).

Tauzin said the law contains protections for biopharmaceutical research if implemented right. Connolly said the issue of 12-year exclusivity for biosimilars is one of the ongoing arguments among policymakers.

Tauzin said the law does not address the litigation system to stop "defensive medicine." The fear of liability encourages health-care providers to overutilize unnecessary health-care services, which leads to rising costs that do not necessarily bring better care.

Sandy Beaty of Pfizer Inc. said implementing this complex health reform law is a five- to 10-year process. But Tauzin said had Congress and the president not taken action, it would have taken 10 more years to revisit the issue.

Moderator:
Margaret Anderson, Executive Director, FasterCures / The Center for Accelerating Medical Solutions

Embedded within each patient is information — from a unique medical history to tissue, blood and DNA — that is crucial to understanding and managing disease. But too often that information remains unavailable to researchers. What are some of the strategies to unlock this information? How can we get patients more actively involved in the cure process?

Moderator:
Margaret Anderson, Executive Director, FasterCures / The Center for Accelerating Medical Solutions

It's way past time to increase resources and build scientific capacity at the FDA. That was the consensus of a Tuesday panel, which noted that the FDA suffers from an almost scandalous lack of resources. The agency that regulates 25 cents of every dollar spent by U.S. consumers has a budget that is half what Americans spend every year on potato chips.

Scientific capacity at the agency is very weak and is inhibiting the agency's ability to evaluate new therapies moving through the pipeline. Panelists agreed that the FDA badly needs to be able to collaborate meaningfully with other sectors — what some refer to as the "triple helix" of government, academia and industry — without being constantly "demonized" for conflict of interest.

Garry Neil of Johnson & Johnson detailed the risky, unpredictable and costly pathway to new drug approval, a process that hasn′t changed substantially in 50 years. He reiterated that it costs well over $1 billion to develop an approved drug, and despite exponential increases in investment by government and industry, the number of new therapies approved every year has declined.

Many patients find the FDA impenetrable, said Ellen Sigal of Friends of Cancer Research. She said the patient voice is not being heard on Capitol Hill and concerns (many of them legitimate) about safety are all but drowning out patients' appetite for innovation and willingness to risk-share.

Jonathan Simons of the Prostate Cancer Foundation called for an "honest broker knowledge exchange" within FDA that would facilitate collaboration among stakeholders, evaluate data and create value through transmission of knowledge. He also proposed that the FDA develop a sort of "amicus curiae" process, as in the court system, to allow meaningful input by stakeholders other than regulated industry.

Gail Cassell of Eli Lilly held up a success story: the development of 29 new anti-retroviral therapies for HIV, approved in a relatively short time as stakeholders worked together across sectors with optimal speed. Simons noted that a significant reason for this success was leadership. Can this success be replicated? "It happened with HIV, it can happen again," Neil said.

Moderator:
Howard Soule, Executive Vice President and Chief Science Officer, Prostate Cancer Foundation; Senior Fellow, Milken Institute

We all want to live past our 100th birthdays. But unless we take care of ourselves, the quality of life in our later years is destined to be compromised. This panel of experts outlines the real facts on nutrition, longevity and the prevention of disease, including evidence-based outcomes research on nutritional strategies and supplements. Separating truth from myth, their discussion reveals the secrets of living much longer — and living well.

Moderator:
Greg Simon, Senior Vice President, Worldwide Policy, Pfizer Inc.

Much more than just simple forgetfulness, Alzheimer's disease is a complex neurodegenerative illness causing not only great emotional stress for patients, families and caregivers, but also a serious economic burden for the health-care system. The Alzheimer's Association reported 5.3 million cases in the United States as of 2009; the disease affects 13 percent of those over age 65 and 40 percent of those over age 85. The total costs of treating Alzheimer's and other dementias to Medicare, Medicaid and businesses amount to more than $148 billion each year. As the American population continues to gray, the disease prevalence (and the associated financial burden) will correspondingly swell. How can we respond and prepare? Pharmaceutical executives, economists, employers and other stakeholders discuss the magnitude of the challenge and strategies for containing the personal, social and economic damage caused by this insidious disease.

Moderator:
Wendy Selig, CEO, Melanoma Research Alliance

Some 1,500 Americans die every day from cancer. One out of two men and one out of three women will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetimes. Despite these staggering statistics, a panel of scientists and cancer survivors said today that they've never been more hopeful.

A profound transformation is taking place in the cancer research field. Recent game changers include the identification of molecular pathways driving tumor growth, which provide new targets for drug development. Howard Soule of the Prostate Cancer Foundation and the Milken Institute described this approach as the "molecularization" of oncology. In addition to these so-called molecularly targeted therapies, treatments are in development that will allow the immune system to better target and attack cancers.

While we've made great progress in the scientific understanding and development of new treatments for cancer, the clinical trials and regulatory approval system remains a major hurdle to speeding treatments to patients, according to former FDA commission Andy von Eschenbach. Cutting inefficiencies in the system and increasing resources to the FDA will get medical solutions into the hands of patients when they're needed.

Both the Prostate Cancer Foundation and the Melanoma Research Alliance see themselves as catalysts by fast forwarding research through nontraditional mechanisms. One key example is their focus on investing in early career investigators, which supports not only the next generation of researchers, but also the next generation of cancer treatments. They also provide support to interdisciplinary teams of researchers to address significant challenges in cancer.

Nonprofit disease foundations like these are traditionally willing to take more risk in support of paradigm-shifting ideas. At the same time, they expect both accountability and early sharing of results, pointed out Debra Black, Co-Founder and Chair, Melanoma Research Alliance. This is the essence of "venture philanthropy."

Moderator:
Richard Carmona, 17th Surgeon General of the United States; Distinguished Professor, University of Arizona

The word "diplomacy" conjures up visions of officials negotiating peace treaties and trade agreements. But diplomacy can encompass a wide range of initiatives that promote peace and prosperity around the globe. Policymakers have long used economic development as a building block for international alliances — and today, there is a growing realization that public health initiatives are another effective tool as the U.S. and other developed nations seek to generate goodwill and ensure their own security. Improving global health is much more than a purely humanitarian effort — it is a means for helping other nations build human capital, more stable societies and better economic opportunity, all strategies that tend to stave off terrorism and conflict. This panel focuses on how efforts can be targeted to achieve the greatest payoff.