Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Pharmaceutical Industry Competitive Intelligence’ Category

How to Create a Twitter Space for @pharma_BI for Live Broadcasts

Right now, Twitter Spaces are available on Android and iOS operating systems ONLY.  For use on a PC desktop you must install an ANDROID EMULATOR.  This means best to set up the Twitter Space using your PHONE APP not on the desktop or laptop computer.  Right now, even though there is the ability to record a Twitter Space, that recording is not easily able to be embedded in WordPress as a tweet is (or chain of tweets).  However you can download the recording (takes a day or two) and convert to mpeg using a program like Audacity to convert into an audio format conducible to WordPress.

A while ago I had put a post where I link to a Twitter Space I created for a class on Dissemination of Scientific Discoveries.  The post

“Will Web 3.0 Do Away With Science 2.0? Is Science Falling Behind?”

can be seen at

Will Web 3.0 Do Away With Science 2.0? Is Science Falling Behind?

 

This online discussion was tweeted out and got a fair amount of impressions (60) as well as interactors (50).

 

 

About Twitter Spaces

 

Spaces is a way to have live audio conversations on Twitter. Anyone can join, listen, and speak in a Space on Twitter for iOS and Android. Currently you can listen in a Space on web.

Quick links

How to use Spaces
Spaces FAQ
Spaces Feedback Community
Community Spaces

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How to use Spaces

Instructions for:

How do you start a Space?

 

 

 

Step 1

The creator of a Space is the host. As a host on iOS, you can start a Space by long pressing on the Tweet Composer  from your Home timeline and and then selecting the Spaces  icon.

You can also start a Space by selecting the Spaces tab on the bottom of your timeline.

Step 2

Spaces are public, so anyone can join as a listener, including people who don’t follow you. Listeners can be directly invited into a Space by DMing them a link to the Space, Tweeting out a link, or sharing a link elsewhere.

Step 3

Up to 13 people (including the host and 2 co-hosts) can speak in a Space at any given time. When creating a new Space, you will see options to Name your Space and Start your Space.

Step 4

To schedule a Space, select Schedule for later. Choose the date and time you’d like your Space to go live.

Step 5

Once the Space has started, the host can send requests to listeners to become co-hosts or speakers by selecting the people icon  and adding co-hosts or speakers, or selecting a person’s profile picture within a Space and adding them as a co-host or speaker. Listeners can request permission to speak from the host by selecting the Request icon below the microphone.

Step 6

When creating a Space, the host will join with their mic off and be the only speaker in the Space. When ready, select Start your Space.

Step 7

Allow mic access (speaking ability) to speakers by toggling Allow mic access to on.

Step 8

Get started chatting in your Space.

Step 9

As a host, make sure to Tweet out the link to your Space so other people can join. Select the  icon to Share via a Tweet.

 

Spaces FAQ

Where is Spaces available?

Anyone can join, listen, and speak in a Space on Twitter for iOS and Android. Currently, starting a Space on web is not possible, but anyone can join and listen in a Space.

Who can start a Space?

People on Twitter for iOS and Android can start a Space.

Who can see my Space?

For now, all Spaces are public like Tweets, which means they can be accessed by anyone. They will automatically appear at the top of your Home timeline, and each Space has a link that can be shared publicly. Since Spaces are publicly accessible by anyone, it may be possible for people to listen to a Space without being listed as a guest in the Space.

We make certain information about Spaces available through the Twitter Developer Platform, such as the title of a Space, the hosts and speakers, and whether it is scheduled, in progress, or complete. For a more detailed list of the information about Spaces we make available via the Twitter API, check out our Spaces endpoints documentation.

Can other people see my presence while I am listening or speaking in a Space?

Since all Spaces are public, your presence and activity in a Space is also public. If you are logged into your Twitter account when you are in a Space, you will be visible to everyone in the Space as well as to others, including people who follow you, people who peek into the Space without entering, and developers accessing information about the Space using the Twitter API.

If you are listening in a Space, your profile icon will appear with a purple pill at the top of your followers’ Home timelines. You have the option to change this in your settings.

Instructions for:

Manage who can see your Spaces listening activity

Step 1

On the left nav menu, select the more  icon and go to Settings and privacy.

Step 2

Under Settings, navigate to Privacy and safety.

Step 3

Under Your Twitter activity, go to Spaces.

Step 4

Choose if you want to Allow followers to see which Spaces you’re listening to by toggling this on or off.

Your followers will always see at the top of their Home timelines what Spaces you’re speaking in.

What does it mean that Spaces are public? Can anyone listen in a Space?

Spaces can be listened to by anyone on the Internet. This is part of a broader feature of Spaces that lets anyone listen to Spaces regardless of whether or not they are logged in to a Twitter account (or even have a Twitter account). Because of this, listener counts may not match the actual number of listeners, nor will the profile photos of all listeners necessarily be displayed in a Space.

How do I invite people to join a Space?

Invite people to join a Space by sending an invite via DM, Tweeting the link out to your Home timeline, or copying the invite link to send it out.

Who can join my Space?

For now, all Spaces are public and anyone can join any Space as a listener. If the listener has a user account, you can block their account. If you create a Space or are a speaker in a Space, your followers will see it at the top of their timeline.

Who can speak in my Space?

By default, your Space will always be set to Only people you invite to speak. You can also modify the Speaker permissions once your Space has been created. Select the  icon, then select Adjust settings to see the options for speaker permissions, which include EveryonePeople you follow, and the default Only people you invite to speak. These permissions are only saved for this particular Space, so any Space you create in the future will use the default setting.

Once your Space has started, you can send requests to listeners to become speakers or co-hosts by selecting the  icon and adding speakers or selecting a person’s profile picture within a Space and adding them as a co-host or speaker. Listeners can request to speak from the host.

Hosts can also invite other people outside of the Space to speak via DM.

How does co-hosting work?

Up to 2 people can become co-hosts and speak in a Space in addition to the 11 speakers (including the primary host) at one time. Co-host status can be lost if the co-host leaves the Space. A co-host can remove their own co-host status to become a Listener again.

Hosts can transfer primary admin rights to another co-host. If the original host drops from Space, the first co-host added will become the primary admin. The admin is responsible for promoting and facilitating a healthy conversation in the Space in line with the Twitter Rules.

Once a co-host is added to a Space, any accounts they’ve blocked on Twitter who are in the Space will be removed from the Space.

Can I schedule a Space?

Hosts can schedule a Space up to 30 days in advance and up to 10 scheduled Spaces. Hosts can still create impromptu Spaces in the meantime, and those won’t count toward the maximum 10 scheduled Spaces.

Before you create your Space, select the scheduler  icon and pick the date and time you’d like to schedule your Space to go live. As your scheduled start time approaches, you will receive push and in-app notifications reminding you to start your Space on time. If you don’t have notifications turned on, follow the in-app steps on About notifications on mobile devices to enable them for Spaces. Scheduled Spaces are public and people can set reminders to be notified when your scheduled Space begins.

How do I edit my scheduled Space(s)?

Follow the steps below to edit any of your scheduled Spaces.

Instructions for:

Manage your scheduled Spaces

Step 1

From your timeline, navigate to and long press on the . Or, navigate to the Spaces Tab  at the bottom of your timeline.

Step 2

Select the Spaces  icon.

Step 3

To manage your scheduled Spaces, select the scheduler  icon at the top.

Step 4

You’ll see the Spaces that you have scheduled.

Step 5

Navigate to the more  icon of the Space you want to manage. You can edit, share, or cancel the Space.

If you are editing your Space, make sure to select “Save changes” after making edits.

How do I get notified about a scheduled Space?

Guests can sign up for reminder notifications from a scheduled Space card in a Tweet. When the host starts the scheduled Space, the interested guests get notified via push and in-app notifications.

Can I record a Space?

Hosts can record Spaces they create for replay. When creating a Space, toggle on Record Space.

While recording, a recording symbol will appear at the top to indicate that the Space is being recorded by the host. Once the Space ends, you will see how many people attended the Space along with a link to share out via a Tweet. Under Notifications, you can also View details to Tweet the recording. Under host settings, you will have the option to choose where to start your recording with Edit start time. This allows you to cut out any dead air time that might occur at the beginning of a Space.

If you choose to record your Space, once the live Space ends, your recording will be immediately and publicly available for anyone to listen to whenever they want. You can always end a recording to make it no longer publicly available on Twitter by deleting your recording via the more  icon on the recording itself. Unless you delete your recording, it will remain available for replay after the live Space has ended.* As with live Spaces, Twitter will retain audio copies for 30 after they end to review for violations of the Twitter Rules. If a violation is found, Twitter may retain audio copies for up to 120 days in total. For more information on downloading Spaces, please see below FAQ, “What happens after a Space ends and is the data retained anywhere?

Co-hosts and speakers who enter a Space that is being recorded will see a recording symbol (REC). Listeners will also see the recording symbol, but they will not be visible in the recording.

Recordings will show the host, co-host(s), and speakers from the live Space.

*Note: Hosts on iOS 9.15+ and Android 9.46+ will be able to record Spaces that last indefinitely. For hosts on older app versions, recording will only be available for 30 days. For Spaces that are recorded indefinitely, Twitter will retain a copy for as long as the Space is replayable on Twitter, but for no less than 30 days after the live Space ended.

 

What is clipping?

Clipping is a new feature we’re currently testing and gradually rolling out that lets a limited group of hosts, speakers, and listeners capture 30 seconds of audio from any live or recorded Space and share it through a Tweet if the host has not disabled the clipping function. To start clipping a Space, follow the instructions below to capture the prior 30 seconds of audio from that Space. There is no limit to the number of clips that participants in a Space can create.

When you enter the Space as a co-host or speaker, you will be informed that the Space is clippable through a tool tip notification above the clipping  icon.

Note: Currently, creating a clip is available only on iOS and Android, while playing a clip is available on all platforms to everyone.

Instructions for:

Host instructions: How to turn off clipping

 

When you start your Space, you’ll receive a notification about what a clip is and how to turn it off, as clipping is on by default. You can turn off clipping at any time. To turn it off, follow the instructions below.

Step 1

Navigate to the more  icon.

Step 2

Select Adjust settings .

Step 3

Under Clips, toggle Allow clips off.

Instructions for:

Host and speaker instructions: How to create a clipping

Step 1

In a recorded or live Space that is recorded, navigate to the clipping  icon. Please note that, for live Spaces, unless the clipping function is disabled, clips will be publicly available on your Twitter profile after your live Space has ended even though the Space itself will no longer be available.

Step 2

On the Create clip pop-up, go to Next.

Step 3

Preview the Tweet and add a comment if you’d like, similarly to a Quote Tweet.

Step 4

Select Tweet to post it to your timeline.

Why is my clip not displaying captions?

What controls do hosts have over existing clips?

What controls do clip creators have over clips they’ve created?

Other controls over clips: how to report, block, or mute

What controls do I have over my Space?

The host and co-host(s) of a Space have control over who can speak. They can mute any Speaker, but it is up to the individual to unmute themselves if they receive speaking privileges. Hosts and co-hosts can also remove,  report, and block others in the Space.

Speakers and listeners can report and block others in the Space, or can report the Space. If you block a participant in the Space, you will also block that person’s account on Twitter. If the person you blocked joins as a listener, they will appear in the participant list with a Blocked label under their account name. If the person you blocked joins as a speaker, they will also appear in the participant list with a Blocked label under their account name and you will see an in-app notification stating, “An account you blocked has joined as a speaker.” If you are entering a Space that already has a blocked account as a speaker, you will also see a warning before joining the Space stating, “You have blocked 1 person who is speaking.”

If you are hosting or co-hosting a Space, people you’ve blocked can’t join and, if you’re added as a co-host during a Space, anyone in the Space who you blocked will be removed from the Space.

What are my responsibilities as a Host or Co-Host of a Space?

As a Host, you are responsible for promoting and supporting a healthy conversation in your Space and to use your tools to ensure that the Twitter Rules are followed. The following tools are available for you to use if a participant in the Space is being offensive or disruptive:

  • Revoke speaking privileges of other users if they are being offensive or disruptive to you or others
  • Block, remove or report the user.

Here are some guidelines to follow as a Host or Co-Host:

  • Always follow the Twitter Rulesin the Space you host or co-host. This also applies to the title of your Space which should not include abusive slurs, threats, or any other rule-violating content.
  • Do not encourage behavior or content that violates the Twitter Rules.
  • Do not abuse or misuse your hosting tools, such as arbitrarily revoking speaking privileges or removing users, or use Spaces to carry out activities that break our rules such as following schemes.

How can I block someone in a Space?

How can I mute a speaker in a Space?

How can I see people in my Space?

Hosts, speakers, and listeners can select the  icon to see people in a Space. Since Spaces are publicly accessible by anyone, it may also be possible for an unknown number of logged-out people to listen to a Space’s audio without being listed as a guest in the Space.

How can I report a Space?

How can I report a person in a Space?

Can Twitter suspend my Space while it’s live?

How many people can speak in a Space?

How many people can listen in a Space?

 

What happens after a Space ends and is the data retained anywhere?

Hosts can choose to record a Space prior to starting it. Hosts may download copies of their recorded Spaces for as long as we have them by using the Your Twitter Data download tool.

For unrecorded Spaces, Twitter retains copies of audio from recorded Spaces for 30 days after a Space ends to review for violations of the Twitter Rules. If a Space is found to contain a violation, we extend the time we maintain a copy for an additional 90 days (a total of 120 days after a Space ends) to allow people to appeal if they believe there was a mistake. Twitter also uses Spaces content and data for analytics and research to improve the service.

Links to Spaces that are shared out (e.g., via Tweet or DM) also contain some information about the Space, including the description, the identity of the hosts and others in the Space, as well as the Space’s current state (e.g., scheduled, live, or ended). We make this and other information about Spaces available through the Twitter Developer Platform. For a detailed list of the information about Spaces we make available, check out our Spaces endpoints documentation.

For full details on what data we retain, visit our Privacy Policy.

Who can end a Space?

Does Spaces work for accounts with protected Tweets?

Following the Twitter Rules in Spaces

 

Spaces Feedback Community

We’re opening up the conversation and turning it over to the people who are participating in Spaces. This Community is a dedicated place for us to connect with you on all things Spaces, whether it’s feedback around features, ideas for improvement, or any general thoughts.

Who can join?

Anyone on Spaces can join, whether you are a host, speaker, or listener.

How do I join the Community?

You can request to join the Twitter Spaces Feedback Community here. By requesting to join, you are agreeing to our Community rules.

Learn more about Communities on Twitter.

 

Community Spaces

As a Community admin or moderator, you can create and host a Space for your Community members to join.

Note:

Currently, creating Community Spaces is only available to some admins and moderators using the Twitter for iOS and Twitter for Android apps.

Instructions for:

Admins & moderators: How to create a Space

Step 1

Navigate to the Community landing page.

Step 2

Long press on the Tweet Composer  and select the Spaces  icon.

Step 3

Select Spaces and begin creating your Space by adding in a title, toggling on record Space (optional), and adding relevant topics.

Step 4

Invite admins, moderators, and other people to be a part of your Space.

Members: How to find a Community Space

If a Community Space is live, you will see the Spacebar populate at the top of your Home timeline. To enter the Space and begin listening, select the live Space in the Spacebar.

Community Spaces FAQ

What are Community Spaces?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spaces Social Narrative


A social narrative is a simple story that describes social situations and social behaviors for accessibility.

Twitter Spaces allows me to join or host live audio-only conversations with anyone.

Joining a Space

  1. When I join a Twitter Space, that means I’ll be a listener. I can join any Space on Twitter, even those hosted by people I don’t know or follow.
  2. I can join a Space by selecting a profile photo with a purple, pulsing outline at the top of my timeline, selecting a link from someone’s Tweet, or a link in a Direct Message (DM).
  3. Once I’m in a Space, I can seethe profile photos and names of some people in the Space, including myself.
  4. I can hearone or multiple people talking at the same time. If it’s too loud or overwhelming, I can turn down my volume.
  5. As a listener, I am not able to speak. If I want to say something, I can send a request to the host. The host might not approve my request though.
  6. If the host accepts my request, I will become a speaker. It may take a few seconds to connect my microphone, so I’ll have to wait.
  7. Now I can unmute myself and speak. Everyone in the Space will be able to hear me.
  8. When someone says something I want to react to, I can choosean emoji to show everyone how I feel. I will be able to see when other people react as well.
  9. I can leave the Space at any time. After I leave, or when the host ends the Space, I’ll go back to my timeline.

Hosting a Space

  1. When I start a Space, that means I’ll be the host. Anyone can join my Space, even people I don’t know and people I don’t follow.
  2. Once I start my space, it may take a few seconds to be connected, so I’ll have to wait.
  3. Now I’m in my Space and I can seemy profile photo. If other logged-in, people have joined, I will be able to see their profile photos, too.
  4. I will start out muted, which is what the microphone with a slash through it means. I can mute and unmute myself, and anyone in my Space, at any time.
  5. I can invitepeople to join my Space by sending them a Direct Message (DM), sharing the link in a Tweet, and by copying the link and sharing it somewhere else like in an email.
  6. Up to 10 other people can have speaking privileges in my Space at the same time, and I can choosewho speaks and who doesn’t. People can also request to speak, and I can choose to approve their request or not.

 

Read Full Post »

 

The Vibrant Philly Biotech Scene: Recent Happenings & Deals

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

 

As the office and retail commercial real estate market has been drying up since the COVID pandemic, commercial real estate developers in the Philadelphia area have been turning to the health science industry to suit their lab space needs.  This includes refurbishing old office space as well as new construction.

Gattuso secures $290M construction loan for life sciences building on Drexel campus

Source: https://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/news/2022/12/19/construction-loan-gattuso-drexel-life-sciences.html?utm_source=st&utm_medium=en&utm_campaign=BN&utm_content=pl&ana=e_pl_BN&j=30034971&senddate=2022-12-20

 

By Ryan Mulligan  –  Reporter, Philadelphia Business Journal

Dec 19, 2022

Gattuso Development Partners and Vigilant Holdings of New York have secured a $290 million construction loan for a major life sciences building set to be developed on Drexel University’s campus.

The funding comes from Houston-based Corebridge Financial, with an additional equity commitment from Boston-based Baupost Group, which is also a partner on the project. JLL’s Capital Markets group arranged the loan.

Plans for the University City project at 3201 Cuthbert St. carry a price tag of $400 million. The 11-story building will total some 520,000 square feet, making it the largest life sciences research and lab space in the city when it comes online.

The building at 3201 Cuthbert will rise on what had served as a recreation field used by Drexel and is located next to the Armory. Gattuso Development, which will lease the parcel from Drexel, expects to to complete the project by fall 2024. Robert A.M. Stern Architects designed the building.

 

A rendering of a $400 million lab and research facility Drexel University and Gattuso Development Partners plan to build at 3201 Cuthbert St. in Philadelphia.

Enlarge

A rendering of a $400 million lab and research facility Drexel University and Gattuso Development Partners plan to build at 3201 Cuthbert St. in Philadelphia.

The building is 45% leased by Drexel and SmartLabs, an operator of life sciences labs. Drexel plans to occupy about 60,000 square feet, while SmartLabs will lease two floors totaling 117,000 square feet.

“We believe the project validates Philadelphia’s emergence as a global hub for life sciences research, and we are excited to begin construction,” said John Gattuso, the co-founder and president of Philadelphia-based Gattuso Development.

Ryan Ade, Brett Segal and Christopher Peck of JLL arranged the financing.

The project is another play in what amounts to an arms race for life sciences space and tenants in University City. Spark Therapeutics plans to build a $575 million, 500,000-square-foot gene therapy manufacturing plant on Drexel’s campus. One uCity Square, a $280 million, 400,000-square-foot life sciences building, was recently completed at 38th and Market streets. At 3151 Market St., a $307 million, 417,000-square-foot life sciences building is proposed as part of the Schuylkill Yards development.

Tmunity CEO Usman Azam departing to lead ‘stealth’ NYC biotech firm

 

By John George  –  Senior Reporter, Philadelphia Business Journal

Feb 7, 2022

The CEO of one of Philadelphia’s oldest cell therapy companies is departing to take a new job in the New York City area.

Usman “Oz” Azam, who has been CEO of Tmunity Therapeutics since 2016, will lead an unnamed biotechnology company currently operating in stealth mode.

In a posting on his LinkedIn page, Azam said, “After a decade immersed in cell therapies and immuno-oncology, I am now turning my attention to a new opportunity, and will be going back to where I started my life sciences career in neurosciences.”

Tmunity, a University of Pennsylvania spinout, is looking to apply CAR T-cell therapy, which has proved to be successful in treating liquid cancers, for the treatment of solid tumors.

Last summer, Tmunity suspended clinical testing of its lead cell therapy candidate targeting prostate cancer after two patients in the study died. Azam, in an interview with the Business Journal in June, said the company, which had grown to about 50 employees since its launch in 2015, laid off an undisclosed number of employees as a result of the setback.

Azam said on LinkedIn he is still a big believer in CAR T-cell therapy, noting Tmunity co-founder Dr. Carl June and his colleagues at Penn just published in Nature the 10-year landmark clinical outcomes study with the first CD19 CAR-T patients and programs.

“It’s just the beginning,” he stated. “I’m excited about the prospect of so many new cell- and gene-based therapies emerging in the next five to 10 years to tackle many solid and liquid tumors, and I hope we all continue to see the remarkable impact this makes on patients and families around the world.”

Azam could not be reached for comment Monday. Tmunity has engaged a search firm to identify his successor.

Tmunity, which is based in Philadelphia, has its own manufacturing operations in East Norriton. Tmunity’s founders include June and fellow Penn cell therapy pioneer Bruce Levine, who led the development of a CAR T-cell therapy now marketed by Novartis as Kymriah, a treatment for certain types of blood cancers.

In therapy using CAR-T cells, a patient’s T cells — part of their immune system — are removed and genetically modified in the laboratory. After they are re-injected into a patient, the T cells are better able to attack and destroy tumors. CAR is an acronym for chimeric antigen receptor. Chimeric antigen receptors are receptor proteins that have been engineered to give T cells their improved ability to target tumors.

Source: https://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/news/2022/02/07/tmunity-therapeutics-philadelphia-cell-azam-oz.html?utm_source=st&utm_medium=en&utm_campaign=BN&utm_content=pl&ana=e_pl_BN&j=30034971&senddate=2022-12-20

 

PIDC names U.S. Department of Treasury veteran, Philadelphia native as next president

 
By   –  Reporter, Philadelphia Business Journal

 

The Philadelphia Industrial Development Corp. has tapped U.S. Department of Treasury veteran Jodie Harris to be its next president.

Harris succeeds Anne Bovaird Nevins, who spent 15 years in the organization and took over as president in January 2020 before stepping down at the end of last year. Executive Vice President Sam Rhoads has been interim president.

Harris, a Philadelphia native who currently serves as director of the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund for the Department of Treasury, was picked after a regional and national search and will begin her tenure as president on June 1. She becomes the 12th head of PIDC and the first African-American woman to lead the organization.

PIDC is a public-private economic development corporation founded by the city and the Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadelphia in 1958. It mainly uses industrial and commercial real estate projects to attract jobs, foster business opportunities and spur overall community growth. The organization has spurred over $18.5 billion in financing across its 65 years.

PIDC has its hand in development projects spanning the city, including master planning roles in expansive campuses like the Philadelphia Navy Yard and the Lower Schuylkill Biotech Campus in Southwest Philadelphia.

In a statement, Harris said that it is “a critical time for Philadelphia’s economy.”

“I’m especially excited for the opportunity to lead such an important and impactful organization in my hometown of Philadelphia,” Harris said. “As head of the CDFI Fund, I know first-hand what it takes to drive meaningful, sustainable, and equitable economic growth, especially in historically underserved communities.”

Harris is a graduate of the University of Maryland and received an MBA and master of public administration from New York University. In the Treasury Department, Harris’ most recent work aligns with PIDC’s economic development mission. At the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, she oversaw a $331 million budget, mainly comprised of grant and administrative funding for various economic programs. Under Harris’ watch, the fund distributed over $3 billion in pandemic recovery funding, its highest level of appropriated grants ever.

Harris has been a part of the Treasury Department for 15 years, including as director of community and economic development policy.

In addition to government work, Harris has previously spent time in the private, academia and nonprofit sectors. In the beginning of her career, Harris worked at Meridian Bank and Accenture before turning to become a social and education policy researcher at New York University. She also spent two years as president of the Urban Business Assistance Corporation in New York.

Mayor Jim Kenney said that Philadelphia is “poised for long-term growth” and Harris will help drive it.

Source: https://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/news/2023/02/23/pidc-names-next-president-treasury.html 

$250M life sciences conversion planned for Philadelphia’s historic Quartermaster site

 
By   –  Reporter, Philadelphia Business Journal

Listen to this article     3 min

Real estate company SkyREM plans to spend $250 million converting the historic Quartermaster site in South Philadelphia to a life sciences campus with restaurants and a hotel.

The redevelopment would feature wet and dry lab space for research, development and bio-manufacturing.

The renamed Quartermaster Science + Technology Park is near the southwest corner of Oregon Avenue and South 20th Street in the city’s Girard Estates neighborhood. It’s east of the Quartermaster Plaza retail center, which sold last year for $100 million.

The 24-acre campus is planned to have six acres of green space, an Aldi grocery store opening by March and already is the headquarters for Indego, the bicycle share program in Philadelphia.

Six buildings totaling 1 million square feet of space would be used for research and development labs. There’s 500,000 square feet of vacant space available for life sciences and high technology companies with availabilities as small as 1,000 square feet up to 250,000 square feet contiguous. There’s also 150,000 square feet of retail space available.

The office park has 200,000 square feet already occupied by tenants. The Philadelphia Job Corps Center and Delaware Valley Intelligence Center are tenants at the site.

The campus was previously used by the military as a place to produce clothing, footwear and personal equipment during World War I and II. The clothing factory closed in 1994. The Philadelphia Quartermaster Depot was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2010.

“We had a vision to preserve the legacy of this built-to-last historic Philadelphia landmark and transform it to create a vibrant space where the best and brightest want to innovate, collaborate, and work,” SkyREM CEO and Founder Alex Dembitzer said in a statement.

SkyREM, a real estate investor and developer, has corporate offices in New York and Philadelphia. The company acquired the site in 2001.

Vered Nohi, SkyREM’s regional executive director of new business development, called the redevelopment “transformational” for Philadelphia.

 
 

Quartermaster would join a wave of new life sciences projects being developed in the surrounding area and across the region.

The site is near both interstates 76 and 95 and is about 2 miles north of the Philadelphia Navy Yard, which has undergone a similar transformation from a military hub to a major life sciences and mixed-use redevelopment project. The Philadelphia Industrial Development Corp. is also in the process of selecting a developer to create a massive cell and gene therapy manufacturing complex across two sites totaling about 40 acres on Southwest Philadelphia’s Lower Schuylkill riverfront.

At 34th Street and Grays Ferry Avenue, the University of Pennsylvania is teaming with Longfellow Real Estate Partners on proposed a $365 million, 455,000-square-foot life sciences and biomanufacturing building at Pennovation Works.

 

SkyREM is working with Maryland real estate firm Scheer Partners to lease the science and technology space. Philadelphia’s MPN Realty will handle leasing of the retail space. Architecture firm Fifteen is working on the project’s design.

Scheer Partners Senior Vice President Tim Conrey said the Quartermaster conversion will help companies solve for “speed to market” as demand for life science space in the region has been strong.

Brandywine pauses new spec office development, continues to bet big on life sciences

By   –  Reporter, Philadelphia Business Journal

 

Brandywine Realty Trust originally planned to redevelop a Radnor medical office into lab and office space, split 50-50 between the two uses.

After changes in demand for lab and office space, Brandywine (NYSE: BDN) recently completed the 168,000-square-foot, four-story building at 250 King of Prussia Road in Radnor fully for life sciences.

“The pipeline is now 100% life sciences, which, while requiring more capital, is also generating longer term leases at a higher return on cost,” Brandywine CEO Jerry Sweeney of the project said during the company’s fourth-quarter earnings call on Thursday.

At the same time, Brandywine is holding off on developing new office buildings unless it has a tenant lined up in advance.

The shift reflects how Philadelphia-based Brandywine continues to lean into — and bet big — on life sciences.

Brandywine is the city’s largest owner of trophy office buildings and has several major development projects in the works. The company is planning to eventually develop 3 million square feet of life sciences space. For now, 800,000 square feet of life sciences space is under development, including a 12-story, 417,000-square-foot life sciences building at 3151 Market St. and a 29-story building with 200,000 square feet of life sciences space at 3025 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Both are part of the multi-phase Schuylkill Yards project underway near 30th Street Station in University City.

Once its existing projects are completed, Brandywine would have 800,000 square feet of life sciences space, making up 8% of its portfolio.Sweeney said the company wants to grow that figure to 21%.

Brandywine is developing a 145,000-square-foot, build-to-suit office building at 155 King of Prussia Road in Radnor for Arkema, a France-based global supplier of specialty materials. The building will be Arkema’s North American headquarters. Construction began in January and is scheduled to be completed in late 2024.

Brandywine reported that since November it raised over $705 million through fourth-quarter asset sales, an unsecured bond transaction and a secured loan. The company has “complete availability” on its $600 million unsecured line of credit, Sweeney said.

Brandywine sold a 95% leased, 86,000-square-foot office building at 200 Barr Harbor Drive in West Conshohocken for $30.5 million. The company also sold its 50% ownership interest in the 1919 Market joint venture for $83.2 million to an undisclosed buyer. 1919 Market St. is a 29-story building with apartments, office and commercial space. Brandywine co-developed the property with LCOR and the California State Teacher’s Retirement System.

Brandywine declined to comment and LCOR could not be reached.

Brandywine’s core portfolio is 91% leased.

The project at 250 King of Prussia Road cost $103.7 million and was recently completed. The renovation included 12-foot high floor-to-ceiling glass on the second floor, a new roof, lobby, elevator core, common area with a skylight and an added structured parking deck.

Located in the Radnor Life Science Center, a new campus with nearly 1 million square feet of lab, research and office space, Sweeney said it’s a “magnet” for biotech companies. Avantor, a global manufacturer and distributor of life sciences products, is headquartered in the complex.

 

Sweeney said Brandywine is “very confident” demand will stay strong for life sciences in Radnor. The building at 250 King of Prussia Road is projected to be fully leased by early 2024.

“Larger users we’re talking to, they just tend to take a little bit more time than we would like as they go through technical requirements and space planning requirements,” Sweeney said.

While Brandywine is aiming to increase its life sciences footprint, the company is being selective about what it builds next. The company may steer away from developments other than life sciences. The Schuylkill Yards project, for example, features a significant life sciences portion in University City.

“Other than fully leased build-to-suit opportunities, our future development starts are on hold,” Sweeney said, “pending more leasing on the existing joint venture pipeline and more clarity on the cost of debt capital and cap rates.”

 

Brandywine said about 70% to 75%of suburban tenants have returned to offices while that number has been around 50% in Philadelphia. At this point, though, it hasn’t yet affected demand when leasing space. Some tenants, for example, have moved out of the city while others have moved in.

In the fourth quarter, Brandywine had $55.7 million funds from operations, or 32 cents per share. That’s down from $60.4 million, or 35 cents per share, in the fourth quarter of 2021. Brandywine generated $129 million in revenue in the fourth quarter, up slightly from $125.5 in the year-ago period.

Brandywine stock is up 6.4% since the start of the year to $6.70 per share on Monday afternoon.

Many of Brandywine’s properties are in desirable locations, which have seen demand remain strong despite challenges facing offices, on par with industry trends.

Brandywine’s 12-story, 417,000-square-foot building at 3151 Market St. is on budget for $308 million and on schedule to be completed in the second quarter of 2024. Sweeney said Brandywine anticipates entering a construction loan in the second half of 2023, which would help complete the project. The building, being developed along with a global institutional investor,would be used for life sciences, innovation and office space as part of the larger Schuylkill Yards development in University City.

The company’s 29-story building at 3025 John F. Kennedy Blvd. with 200,000 square feet of life sciences space and 326 luxury apartments, is also on budget, costing $287.3 million, and on time, eyeing completion in the third quarter of this year.

Source: https://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/news/2023/02/06/brandywine-realty-life-sciences-development.html

Read Full Post »

AI enabled Drug Discovery and Development: The Challenges and the Promise

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Early Development

Caroline Kovac (the first IBM GM of Life Sciences) is the one who started in silico development of drugs in 2000 using a big db of substances and computer power. She transformed an idea into $2b business. Most of the money was from big pharma. She was asking what is are the new drugs they are planning to develop and provided the four most probable combinations of substances, based on in Silicon work. 

Carol Kovac

General Manager, Healthcare and Life Sciences, IBM

from speaker at conference on 2005

Carol Kovac is General Manager of IBM Healthcare and Life Sciences responsible for the strategic direction of IBM′s global healthcare and life sciences business. Kovac leads her team in developing the latest information technology solutions and services, establishing partnerships and overseeing IBM investment within the healthcare, pharmaceutical and life sciences markets. Starting with only two employees as an emerging business unit in the year 2000, Kovac has successfully grown the life sciences business unit into a multi-billion dollar business and one of IBM′s most successful ventures to date with more than 1500 employees worldwide. Kovac′s prior positions include general manager of IBM Life Sciences, vice president of Technical Strategy and Division Operations, and vice president of Services and Solutions. In the latter role, she was instrumental in launching the Computational Biology Center at IBM Research. Kovac sits on the Board of Directors of Research!America and Africa Harvest. She was inducted into the Women in Technology International Hall of Fame in 2002, and in 2004, Fortune magazine named her one of the 50 most powerful women in business. Kovac earned her Ph.D. in chemistry at the University of Southern California.

SOURCE

https://www.milkeninstitute.org/events/conferences/global-conference/2005/speaker-detail/1536

 

In 2022

The use of artificial intelligence in drug discovery, when coupled with new genetic insights and the increase of patient medical data of the last decade, has the potential to bring novel medicines to patients more efficiently and more predictably.

WATCH VIDEO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7N3ijnv6lk

SOURCE

https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/promise-and-challenges-relying-ai-drug-development?utm_source=Stanford+ALL

Conversation among three experts:

Jack Fuchs, MBA ’91, an adjunct lecturer who teaches “Principled Entrepreneurial Decisions” at Stanford School of Engineering, moderated and explored how clearly articulated principles can guide the direction of technological advancements like AI-enabled drug discovery.

Kim Branson, Global head of AI and machine learning at GSK.

Russ Altman, the Kenneth Fong Professor of Bioengineering, of genetics, of medicine (general medical discipline), of biomedical data science and, by courtesy, of computer science.

 

Synthetic Biology Software applied to development of Galectins Inhibitors at LPBI Group

 

The Map of human proteins drawn by artificial intelligence and PROTAC (proteolysis targeting chimeras) Technology for Drug Discovery

Curators: Dr. Stephen J. Williams and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Using Structural Computation Models to Predict Productive PROTAC Ternary Complexes

Ternary complex formation is necessary but not sufficient for target protein degradation. In this research, Bai et al. have addressed questions to better understand the rate-limiting steps between ternary complex formation and target protein degradation. They have developed a structure-based computer model approach to predict the efficiency and sites of target protein ubiquitination by CRNB-binding PROTACs. Such models will allow a more complete understanding of PROTAC-directed degradation and allow crafting of increasingly effective and specific PROTACs for therapeutic applications.

Another major feature of this research is that it a result of collaboration between research groups at Amgen, Inc. and Promega Corporation. In the past commercial research laboratories have shied away from collaboration, but the last several years have found researchers more open to collaborative work. This increased collaboration allows scientists to bring their different expertise to a problem or question and speed up discovery. According to Dr. Kristin Riching, Senior Research Scientist at Promega Corporation, “Targeted protein degraders have broken many of the rules that have guided traditional drug development, but it is exciting to see how the collective learnings we gain from their study can aid the advancement of this new class of molecules to the clinic as effective therapeutics.”

Literature Reviewed

Bai, N. , Riching K.M. et al. (2022) Modeling the CRLRA ligase complex to predict target protein ubiquitination induced by cereblon-recruiting PROTACsJ. Biol. Chem.

The researchers NanoBRET assays as part of their model validation. Learn more about NanoBRET technology at the Promega.com website.

SOURCE

https://www.promegaconnections.com/protac-ternary-complex/?utm_campaign=ms-2022-pharma_tpd&utm_source=linkedin&utm_medium=Khoros&utm_term=sf254230485&utm_content=030822ct-blogsf254230485&sf254230485=1

Read Full Post »

A laboratory for the use of AI for drug development has been launched in collaboration with Pfizer, Teva, AstraZeneca, Mark and Amazon

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

AION Labs unites pharma, technology and funds companies including IBF to invest in startups to integrate developments in cloud computing and artificial intelligence to improve drug development capabilities. An alliance of four leading pharmaceutical companies –  
AION Labs
 , the first innovation lab of its kind in the world and a pioneer in the process of adopting cloud technologies, artificial intelligence and computer science to solve the R&D challenges of the pharma industry, today announces its launch.
AstraZeneca ,  
Mark ,  
Pfizer  and 
Teva  – and two leading companies in the field of high-tech and biotech investments, respectively – AWS ( 
Amazon Web Services Inc ) and the Israeli investment fund IBF ( 
Israel Biotech Fund ) – which joined together to establish groundbreaking ventures Through artificial intelligence and computer science to change the way new therapies are discovered and developed.  “We are excited to launch the new innovation lab in favor of discoveries of drugs and medical devices using groundbreaking computational tools,” said Matti Gil, CEO of AION Labs. We are prepared and ready to make a difference in the process of therapeutic discoveries and their development. 
With a strong pool of talent from Israel and the world, cloud technology and artificial intelligence at the heart of our activities and a significant commitment by the State of Israel, we are ready to contribute to the health and well-being of the human race and promote industry in Israel. 
I thank the partners for the trust, and it is an honor for me to lead such a significant initiative. ” 
In addition, AION Labs has announced a strategic partnership with X  
BioMed  , an independent biomedical research institute operating in Heidelberg, Germany. 
BioMed X has a proven track record in advancing research innovations in the field of biomedicine at the interface between academic research and the pharmaceutical industry. 
BioMed X’s innovation model, based on global mass sourcing and incubators to cultivate the most brilliant talent and ideas, will serve as the R & D engine to drive AION Labs’ enterprise model.

SOURCE

Read Full Post »

NCCN Shares Latest Expert Recommendations for Prostate Cancer in Spanish and Portuguese

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

Currently many biomedical texts and US government agency guidelines are only offered in English or only offered in different languages upon request. However Spanish is spoken in a majority of countries worldwide and medical text in that language would serve as an under-served need. In addition, Portuguese is the main language in the largest country in South America, Brazil.

The LPBI Group and others have noticed this need for medical translation to other languages. Currently LPBI Group is translating their medical e-book offerings into Spanish (for more details see https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/vision/)

Below is an article on The National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s decision to offer their cancer treatment guidelines in Spanish and Portuguese.

Source: https://www.nccn.org/home/news/newsdetails?NewsId=2871

PLYMOUTH MEETING, PA [8 September, 2021] — The National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®)—a nonprofit alliance of leading cancer centers in the United States—announces recently-updated versions of evidence- and expert consensus-based guidelines for treating prostate cancer, translated into Spanish and Portuguese. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) feature frequently updated cancer treatment recommendations from multidisciplinary panels of experts across NCCN Member Institutions. Independent studies have repeatedly found that following these recommendations correlates with better outcomes and longer survival.

“Everyone with prostate cancer should have access to care that is based on current and reliable evidence,” said Robert W. Carlson, MD, Chief Executive Officer, NCCN. “These updated translations—along with all of our other translated and adapted resources—help us to define and advance high-quality, high-value, patient-centered cancer care globally, so patients everywhere can live better lives.”

Prostate cancer is the second most commonly occurring cancer in men, impacting more than a million people worldwide every year.[1] In 2020, the NCCN Guidelines® for Prostate Cancer were downloaded more than 200,000 times by people outside of the United States. Approximately 47 percent of registered users for NCCN.org are located outside the U.S., with Brazil, Spain, and Mexico among the top ten countries represented.

“NCCN Guidelines are incredibly helpful resources in the work we do to ensure cancer care across Latin America meets the highest standards,” said Diogo Bastos, MD, and Andrey Soares, MD, Chair and Scientific Director of the Genitourinary Group of The Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG). The organization has worked with NCCN in the past to develop Latin American editions of the NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer, Colon Cancer, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Prostate Cancer, Multiple Myeloma, and Rectal Cancer, and co-hosted a webinar on “Management of Prostate Cancer for Latin America” earlier this year. “We appreciate all of NCCN’s efforts to make sure these gold-standard recommendations are accessible to non-English speakers and applicable for varying circumstances.”

NCCN also publishes NCCN Guidelines for Patients®, containing the same treatment information in non-medical terms, intended for patients and caregivers. The NCCN Guidelines for Patients: Prostate Cancer were found to be among the most trustworthy sources of information online according to a recent international study. These patient guidelines have been divided into two books, covering early and advanced prostate cancer; both have been translated into Spanish and Portuguese as well.

NCCN collaborates with organizations across the globe on resources based on the NCCN Guidelines that account for local accessibility, consideration of metabolic differences in populations, and regional regulatory variation. They can be downloaded free-of-charge for non-commercial use at NCCN.org/global or via the Virtual Library of NCCN Guidelines App. Learn more and join the conversation with the hashtag #NCCNGlobal.


[1] Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin, in press. The online GLOBOCAN 2018 database is accessible at http://gco.iarc.fr/, as part of IARC’s Global Cancer Observatory.

About the National Comprehensive Cancer Network

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®) is a not-for-profit alliance of leading cancer centers devoted to patient care, research, and education. NCCN is dedicated to improving and facilitating quality, effective, efficient, and accessible cancer care so patients can live better lives. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) provide transparent, evidence-based, expert consensus recommendations for cancer treatment, prevention, and supportive services; they are the recognized standard for clinical direction and policy in cancer management and the most thorough and frequently-updated clinical practice guidelines available in any area of medicine. The NCCN Guidelines for Patients® provide expert cancer treatment information to inform and empower patients and caregivers, through support from the NCCN Foundation®. NCCN also advances continuing educationglobal initiativespolicy, and research collaboration and publication in oncology. Visit NCCN.org for more information and follow NCCN on Facebook @NCCNorg, Instagram @NCCNorg, and Twitter @NCCN.

Please see LPBI Group’s efforts in medical text translation and Natural Language Processing of Medical Text at

Read Full Post »

Can the Public Benefit Company Structure Save US Healthcare?

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

UPDATED 3/15/2023

According to Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services (CMS.gov) healthcare spending per capita has reached 17.7 percent of GDP with, according to CMS data:

From 1960 through 2013, health spending rose from $147 per person to $9,255 per person, an average annual increase of 8.1 percent.

the National Health Expenditure Accounts (NHEA) are the official estimates of total health care spending in the United States. Dating back to 1960, the NHEA measures annual U.S. expenditures for health care goods and services, public health activities, government administration, the net cost of health insurance, and investment related to health care. The data are presented by type of service, sources of funding, and type of sponsor.

Graph: US National Healthcare Expenditures as a percent of Gross Domestic Product from 1960 to current. Recession periods are shown in bars. Note that the general trend has been increasing healthcare expenditures with only small times of decrease for example 2020 in year of COVID19 pandemic. In addition most of the years have been inflationary with almost no deflationary periods, either according to CPI or healthcare costs, specifically.

U.S. health care spending grew 4.6 percent in 2019, reaching $3.8 trillion or $11,582 per person.  As a share of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, health spending accounted for 17.7 percent.

And as this spending grew (demand for health care services) associated costs also rose but as the statistical analyses shows there was little improvement in many health outcome metrics during the same time. 

Graph of the Growth of National Health Expenditures (NHE) versus the growth of GDP. Note most years from 1960 growth rate of NHE has always been higher than GDP, resulting in a seemingly hyperinflationary effect of healthcare. Also note how there are years when this disconnect is even greater, as there were years when NHE grew while there were recessionary periods in the general economy.

It appears that US healthcare may be on the precipice of a transformational shift, but what will this shift look like? The following post examines if the corporate structure of US healthcare needs to be changed and what role does a Public Benefit Company have in this much needed transformation.

Hippocratic Oath

I swear by Apollo the physician, and Asclepius, and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses as my witnesses, that, according to my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and this contract:

To hold him who taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents, to be a partner in life with him, and to fulfill his needs when required; to look upon his offspring as equals to my own siblings, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or contract; and that by the set rules, lectures, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to students bound by this contract and having sworn this Oath to the law of medicine, but to no others.

I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgement, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

In purity and according to divine law will I carry out my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, even upon those suffering from stones, but I will leave this to those who are trained in this craft.

Into whatever homes I go, I will enter them for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any voluntary act of impropriety or corruption, including the seduction of women or men, whether they are free men or slaves.

Whatever I see or hear in the lives of my patients, whether in connection with my professional practice or not, which ought not to be spoken of outside, I will keep secret, as considering all such things to be private.

So long as I maintain this Oath faithfully and without corruption, may it be granted to me to partake of life fully and the practice of my art, gaining the respect of all men for all time. However, should I transgress this Oath and violate it, may the opposite be my fate.

Translated by Michael North, National Library of Medicine, 2002.

Much of the following information can be found on the Health Affairs Blog in a post entitled

Public Benefit Corporations: A Third Option For Health Care Delivery?

By Soleil Shah, Jimmy J. Qian, Amol S. Navathe, Nirav R. Shah

Limitations of For Profit and Non-Profit Hospitals

For profit represent ~ 25% of US hospitals and are owned and governed by shareholders, and can raise equity through stock and bond markets.

According to most annual reports, the CEOs incorrectly assume they are legally bound as fiduciaries to maximize shareholder value.  This was a paradigm shift in priorities of companies which started around the mid 1980s, a phenomenon discussed below.  

A by-product of this business goal, to maximize shareholder value, is that CEO pay and compensation is naturally tied to equity markets.  A means for this is promoting cost efficiencies, even in the midst of financial hardships.

A clear example of the failure of this system can be seen during the 2020- current COVID19 pandemic in the US. According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, four large US hospitals were able to decrease their operating expenses by $2.3 billion just in Q2 2020.  This amounted to 65% of their revenue; in comparison three large NONPROFIT hospitals reduced their operating expense by an aggregate $13 million (only 1% of their revenue), evident that in lean times for-profit will resort to drastic cost cutting at expense of service, even in times of critical demands for healthcare.

Because of their tax structure and perceived fiduciary responsibilities, for-profit organizations (unlike non-profit and public benefit corporations) are not legally required to conduct community health need assessments, establish financial assistance policies, nor limit hospital charges for those eligible for financial assistance.  In addition to the difference in tax liability, for-profit, unlike their non-profit counterparts, at least with hospitals, are not funded in part by state or local government.  As we will see, a large part of operating revenue for non-profit university based hospitals is state and city funding.

Therefore risk for financial responsibility is usually assumed by the patient, and in worst case, by the marginalized patient populations on to the public sector.

Tax Structure Considerations of for-profit healthcare

Financials of major for-profit healthcare entities (2020 annual)

Non-profit Healthcare systems

Nonprofits represent about half of all hospitals in the US.  Most of these exist as a university structure, so retain the benefits of being private health systems and retaining the funding and tax benefits attributed to most systems of higher education. And these nonprofits can be very profitable.  After taking in consideration the state, local, and federal tax exemptions these nonprofits enjoy, as well as tax-free donations from contributors (including large personal trust funds), a nonprofit can accumulate a large amount of revenue after expenses.  In fact 82 nonprofit hospitals had $33 billion of net asset increase year-over-year (20% increase) from 2016 to 2017.  The caveat is that this revenue over expenses is usually spent on research or increased patient services (this may mean expanding the physical infrastructure of the hospital or disseminating internal grant money to clinical investigators, expanding the hospital/university research assets which could result in securing even larger amount of external funding from government sources.

And although this model may work well for intercity university/healthcare systems, it is usually a struggle for the rural nonprofit hospitals.  In 2020, ten out of 17 rural hospitals that went under were nonprofits.  And this is not just true in the tough pandemic year.  Over the past two decades multitude of nonprofit rural hospitals had to sell and be taken over by larger for-profit entities. 

Hospital consolidation has led to a worse patient experience and no real significant changes in readmission or mortality data.  (The article below is how over 130 rural hospitals have closed since 2010, creating a medical emergency in rural US healthcare)

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/appalachian-hospitals-are-disappearing

 

And according to the article below it is only to get worse

The authors of the Health Affairs blog feel a major disadvantage of both the for-profit and non-profit healthcare systems is “that both face limited accountability with respect to anticompettive mergers and acquisitions.”

More hospital consolidation is expected post-pandemic

Aug 10, 2020

By Rich Daly, HFMA Senior Writer and Editor

News | Coronavirus

More hospital consolidation is expected post-pandemic

  • Hospital deal volume is likely to accelerate due to the financial damage inflicted by the coronavirus pandemic.
  • The anticipated increase in volume did not show up in the latest quarter, when deals were sharply down.
  • The pandemic may have given hospitals leverage in coming policy fights over billing and the creation of “public option” health plans.

Hospital consolidation is likely to increase after the COVID-19 pandemic, say both critics and supporters of the merger-and-acquisition (M&A) trend.

The financial effects of the coronavirus pandemic are expected to drive more consolidation between and among hospitals and physician practices, a group of policy professionals told a recent Washington, D.C.-based web briefing sponsored by the Alliance for Health Policy.

“There is a real danger that this could lead to more consolidation, which if we’re not careful could lead to higher prices,” said Karyn Schwartz, a senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF).

Schwartz cited a recent KFF analysis of available research that concluded “provider consolidation leads to higher health care prices for private insurance; this is true for both horizontal and vertical consolidation.”

Kenneth Kaufman, managing director and chair of Kaufman Hall, noted that crises tend to push financially struggling organizations “further behind.”

“I wouldn’t be surprised at all if that happens,” Kaufman said. “That will lead to further consolidation in the provider market.”

The initial rounds of federal assistance from the CARES Act, which were based first on Medicare revenue and then on net patient revenue, may fuel consolidation, said Mark Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare for Arnold Ventures. That’s because the funding formulas favored organizations that already had higher revenues, he said, and provided less assistance to low-revenue organizations.

HHS has distributed $116.2 billion from the $175 billion in provider funding available through the CARES Act and the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act. The largest distributions used the two revenue formulas cited by Miller.

No surge in M&A yet

The expected burst in hospital M&A activity has yet to occur. Kaufman Hall identified 14 transactions in the second quarter of 2020, far fewer than in the same quarter in any of the four preceding years, when second-quarter transactions totaled between 19 and 31. The latest deals were not focused on small hospitals, with average seller revenue of more than $800 million — far larger than the previous second-quarter high of $409 million in 2018.

Six of the 14 announced transactions were divestitures by major for-profit health systems, including Community Health Systems, Quorum and HCA.

Kaufman Hall’s analysis of the recent deals identified another pandemic-related factor that may fuel hospital M&A: closer ties between hospitals. The analysis cited the example of  Lifespan and Care New England, which had suspended merger talks in 2019. More recently, in a joint announcement, the CEOs of the two systems noted that because of the COVID-19 crisis, the two systems “have been working together in unprecedented ways” and “have agreed to enter into an exploration process to understand the pros and cons of what a formal continuation of this collaboration could look like in the future.”

The M&A outlook for rural hospitals

The pandemic has had less of a negative effect on the finances of rural hospitals that previously joined larger health systems, said Suzie Desai, senior director of not-for-profit healthcare for S&P Global.

A CEO of a health system with a large rural network told Kaufman the federal grants that the system received for its rural hospitals were much larger than the grants paid through the general provider fund.

“If that was true across the board, then the federal government recognized that many rural hospitals could be at risk of not being able to make payroll; actually running out of money,” Kaufman said. “And they seem to have bent over backwards to make sure that didn’t happen.”  

Other CARES Act funding distributed to providers included:

  • $12.8 billion for 959 safety net hospitals
  • $11 billion to almost 4,000 rural healthcare providers and hospitals in urban areas that have certain special rural designations in Medicare

Telehealth has helped rural hospitals but has not been sufficient to address the financial losses inflicted by the pandemic, Desai said.

Other coming trends include a sharper cost focus

Desai expects an increasing focus “over the next couple years” on hospital costs because of the rising share of revenue received from Medicare and Medicaid. She expects increased efforts to use technology and data to lower costs.

Billy Wynne, JD, chairman of Wynne Health Group, expects telehealth restrictions to remain relaxed after the pandemic.

Also, the perceptions of the public and politicians about the financial health of hospitals are likely to give those organizations leverage in coming policy fights over changes such as banning surprise billing and creating so-called public-option health plans, Wynne said. As an example, he cited the Colorado legislature’s suspension of the launch of a public option “in part because of sensitivities around hospital finances in the COVID pandemic.”

“Once the dust settles, it’ll be interesting to see if their leverage has increased or decreased due to what we’ve been through,” Wynne said.

About the Author

Rich Daly, HFMA Senior Writer and Editor,

is based in the Washington, D.C., office. Follow Rich on Twitter: @rdalyhealthcare

Source: https://www.hfma.org/topics/news/2020/08/more-hospital-consolidation-is-expected-post-pandemic.html

From Harvard Medical School

Hospital Mergers and Quality of Care

A new study looks at the quality of care at hospitals acquired in a recent wave of consolidations

By JAKE MILLER January 16, 2020 Research

Two train tracks merge in a blurry sunset.

Image: NirutiStock / iStock / Getty Images Plus       

The quality of care at hospitals acquired during a recent wave of consolidations has gotten worse or stayed the same, according to a study led by Harvard Medical School scientists published Jan. 2 in NEJM.

The findings deal a blow to the often-cited arguments that hospital consolidation would improve care. A flurry of earlier studies showed that mergers increase prices. Now after analyzing patient outcomes after hundreds of hospital mergers, the new research also dashes the hopes that this more expensive care might be of higher quality.

Get more HMS news here

“Our findings call into question claims that hospital mergers are good for patients—and beg the question of what we are getting from higher hospital prices,” said study senior author J. Michael McWilliams, the Warren Alpert Foundation Professor of Health Care Policy in the Blavatnik Institute at HMS and an HMS professor of medicine and a practicing general internist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

McWilliams noted that rising hospital prices have been one of the leading drivers of unsustainable growth in U.S. health spending.   

To examine the impact of hospital mergers on quality of care, researchers from HMS and Harvard Business School examined patient outcomes from nearly 250 hospital mergers that took place between 2009 and 2013. Using data collected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, they analyzed variables such as 30-day readmission and mortality rates among patients discharged from a hospital, as well as clinical measures such as timely antibiotic treatment of patients with bacterial pneumonia. The researchers also factored in patient experiences, such as whether those who received care at a given hospital would recommend it to others. For their analysis, the team compared trends in these indicators between 246 hospitals acquired in merger transactions and unaffected hospitals.

The verdict? Consolidation did not improve hospital performance, and patient-experience scores deteriorated somewhat after the mergers.

The study was not designed to examine the reasons behind the worsening in patient experience. Weakening of competition due to hospital mergers could have contributed, the researchers said, but deeper exploration suggested other potential mechanisms. Notably, the analysis found the decline in patient-experience scores occurred mainly in hospitals acquired by hospitals that already had a poor patient-experience score—a finding that suggests acquisitions facilitate the spread of low quality care but not of high quality care.

The researchers caution that isolated, individual mergers may have still yielded positive results—something that an aggregate analysis is not powered to capture. And the researchers could only examine measurable aspects of quality. The trend in hospital performance on these standard measures, however, appears to point to a net effect of overall decline, the team said.

“Since our study estimated the average effects of mergers, we can’t rule out the possibility that some mergers are good for patient care,” said first author Nancy Beaulieu, research associate in health care policy at HMS. “But this evidence should give us pause when considering arguments for hospitals mergers.”

The work was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (grant no. U19HS024072).

Co-investigators included Bruce Landon and Jesse Dalton from HMS, Ifedayo Kuye, from the University of California, San Francisco, and Leemore Dafny from Harvard Business School and the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Source: https://hms.harvard.edu/news/hospital-mergers-quality-care

Public Benefit Corporations (PBC)

     Public benefit corporations (versus Benefit Corporate status, which is more of a pledge) are separate legal entities which exist as a hybrid, for-profit/nonprofit company but is mandated to 

  1. Pursue a general or specific public benefit
  2. Consider the non-financial interests of its shareholders and other STAKEHOLDERS when making decision
  3. report how well it is achieving its overall public benefit objectives
  4. Have limited fiduciary responsibility to investors that remains IN SCOPE of public benefit goal

In essence, the public benefit corporations executives are mandated to run the company for the benefit of STAKEHOLDERS first, if those STAKEHOLDERS are the public beneficiary of the company’s goals.  This in essence moves the needle away from the traditional C-Corp overvaluing the needs of shareholders and brings back the mission of the company and in the case of healthcare, the needs of its stakeholders, the consumers of healthcare.

     PBCs are legal entities recognized by states rather than by the federal government.  So far, in 2020 about 37 states allow companies to incorporate as a PBC.  Stipulations of the charter include semiannual reporting of the public benefits bestowed by the company and how well it is achieving its public benefit mandate.  There are about 3,000 US PBCs. Some companies have felt it was in their company mission and financial interest to change incorporation as a PBC.

Some well known PBCs include

  1. Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream
  2. American Red Cross
  3. Susan B. Komen Foundation
  4. Allbirds (a shoe startup valued at $1.7 billion when made switch)
  5. Bombas (the sock company that donates extra socks when you buy a pair)
  6. Lemonade (a publicly traded insurance PBC that has beneficiaries select a nonprofit that the company will donate to)

Although the number of PBCs in the healthcare arena is increasing

  1. Not many PBCs are in the area of healthcare delivery 
  2. Noone is quite sure what the economic model would look like for a healthcare delivery PBC

Some example of hospital PBC include NYC Health + Hospitals and Community First Medical Center in Chicago.

Benefits of moving a hospital to PBC Status

  1. PBCs are held legally accountable to a predefined public benefit.  For hospitals this could be delivering cost-effective quality of care and affordable to a local citizenry or an economically disadvantaged population.  PBCs must produce at least an annual report on the public benefits it has achieved contrasted against a third party standard.  For example a hospital could include data of Medicaid related mortality risks, data neither the C-corp nor the nonprofit 501c would have to report on.  Most nonprofits and charities report their taxes on a schedule H or Form 990, which only has to report the officer’s compensation as well as monies given to charitable organizations, or other 501 organizations.  The nonprofit would show a balance of zero as the donated money for that year would be allocated out for various purposes. Hospitals, even as nonprofits, are not required to submit all this data.  Right now in US the ACA just requires any hospital that receives government or ACA insurance payments to report certain outcome statistics.  Although varying state by state, a PBC should have a “benefit officer” to make sure the mandate is being met.  In some cases a PBC benefit officer could sue the board for putting shareholder interest over the public benefit mandate.
  2. A PBC can include community stakeholders in the articles of incorporation thus giving a voice to local community members.  This would be especially beneficial for a hospital serving, say, a rural community.
  3. PBCs do have advantages of the for-profit companies as they are not limited to non-equity forms of investment.  A PBC can raise money in the equity markets or take on debt and finance it.  These financial instruments are unavailable to the non-profit.  Yet one interesting aspect is that PBCs require a HIGHER voting threshold by shareholders than a traditional for profit company in the ability to change their public benefit or convert their PBC back to a for-profit.

Limitations of the PBC

  1. Little incentive financially for current and future hospitals to incorporate as a PBC.  Herein lies a huge roadblock given the state of our reimbursement structure in this country.  Although there may be an incentive with regard to hiring and retention of staff drawn to the organization’s social purpose.  There have been, in the past, suggestions to allow hospitals that incorporate at PBC to receive some tax benefit, but this legislation has not gone through either at state or federal level. (put link to tax article).  
  2. In order for there to be value to constituents (patients) there must be strong accountability measures.  This will require the utmost in ethical behavior by a board and executives.  We have witnessed, through M&A by large health groups, anticompetitive and near monopoly behavior.
  3. There are no federal guidelines but varying guidelines from state to state.  There must be some federal recognition of the PBC status when it comes to healthcare, such as that the government is one of the biggest payers of US healthcare.

This is a great interview with ArcHealth, a PBC healthcare system.

Source: https://www.archealthjustice.com/arc-health-as-public-benefit-company-and-social-enterprise-what-is-the-difference/

Arc Health as a Public Benefit Company and Social Enterprise – What is the difference?

Mar 3, 2021 | Healthcare

Arc Health PBC is a public benefit corporation, a mission-driven for-profit company that utilizes a market-driven approach to achieving our short and long-term social goals. As a public benefit corporation, Arc Health is also a social enterprise working to further our mission of providing healthcare to rural, underserved, and indigenous communities through business practices that improve the recruitment and retention of quality healthcare providers.

What is a Social Enterprise?

While there is no one exact definition, according to the Social Enterprise Alliance, a social enterprise is an “organization that addresses a basic unmet need or solves a social or environmental problem through a market-driven approach.” A social enterprise is not a distinct legal entity, but instead, an “ideological spectrum marrying commercial approaches with social good.” Social enterprises foster a dual-bottom-line – simultaneously seeking profits and social impact. Arc Health, like many social enterprises, seeks to be self–sustainable. 

Two primary structures fall under the social enterprise umbrella: nonprofits and for-profit organizations. There are also related entities within both structures that could be considered social enterprises. Any of these listed structures can be regarded as a social enterprise depending on if and how involved they are with socially beneficial programs.

What is a Public Benefit Corporation?

Public Benefit Corporations (PBCs), also known as benefit corporations, are “for-profit companies that balance maximizing value to stakeholders with a legally binding commitment to a social or environmental mission.” PBCs operate as for-profit entities with no tax advantages or exemptions. Still, they must have a “purpose of creating general public benefit,” such as promoting the arts or science, preserving the environment, or providing benefits to underserved communities. PBCs must attain a higher degree of corporate purpose, expanded accountability, and expected transparency. 

There are now  over 3,000 registered PBCs, comprising approximately 0.1% of American businesses.

 As a PBC, Arc Health expects to access capital through individual investors who seek financial returns, rather than through donations. Arc Health’s investors make investments with a clear understanding of the balance the company must strike between financial returns (I.e., profitability) and social purpose. Therefore, investors expect the company to be operationally profitable to ensure a financial return on their investments, while also making clear to all stakeholders and the public that generating social impact is the priority. 

What is the difference between a Social Enterprise and PBC?

Social enterprises and PBCs emulate similar ideals that value the importance and need to invoke social change vis-a-vis working in a market-driven industry. Public benefit corporations fall under the social enterprise umbrella. An organization may choose to use a social enterprise model and incorporate itself as either a not-for-profit, C-Corp, PBC, or other corporate structure.  

How did Arc Health Become a Public Benefit Corporation?

Arc Health was initially formed as a C-Corp. In 2019, Arc Health’s CEO and Co-Founder, Dave Shaffer, guided the conversion from a C-Corp to a PBC, incorporated in Delaware. Today, Arc Health follows guidelines and expectations for PBCs, including adhering to the State of Delaware’s requirements for PBCs. 

Why is Arc Health a Social Enterprise and Public Benefit Corporation?

Arc Health believes it is essential to commit ourselves to our mission and demonstrate our dedication through our actions. We work to adhere to the core values of accountability, transparency, and purpose. As a registered public benefit company and a social enterprise, we execute our drive to achieve health equity in tangible and effective ways that the communities we work with, our stakeholders, and our providers expect of us.  

90% of Americans say that companies must not only say a product or service is beneficial, but they also need to prove its benefit.

When we partner with health clinics and hospitals, we aim to provide services that enact lasting change. For example, we work with healthcare providers who desire to contribute both clinical and non-clinical skills. In 2020, Arc Health clinicians developed COVID-19 response protocols and educational materials about the vaccines. They participated in pain management working groups. They identified and followed up with kids in the community who were overdue for a well-child check. Arc Health providers should be driven by a desire to develop a long-term relationship with a healthcare service provider and participate in its successes and challenges.   

Paradigm Shift in the 1980’s: Companies Start to Emphasize Shareholders Over Stakeholders

So earlier in this post we had mentioned about a shift in philosophy at the corporate boardroom that affected how comparate thought, value, and responsibility: Companies in the 1980s started to shift their focus and value only the needs of corporate ShAREHOLDERS at the expense of their  traditional STAKEHOLDERS (customers, clients).  Many movies and books have been written on this and debatable if deliberate or a by-product of M&A, hostile takeovers, and the stock market in general but the effect was that the consumer was relegated as having less value, even though marketing budgets are very high.  The fiduciary responsibility of the executive was now defined in terms of satisfying shareholders, who were now  big huge and powerful brokerage houses, private equity, and hedge funds.  A good explanation by Medium.com Tyler Lasicki is given below.

From the Medium.com

Source: https://medium.com/swlh/the-shareholder-v-stakeholder-contrast-a-brief-history-c5a6cfcaa111

The Shareholder V. Stakeholder Contrast, a Brief History

Tyler Lasicki

Follow

May 26, 2020 · 14 min read

Introduction

In a famous 1970 New York Times Article, Milton Friedman postulated that the CEO, as an employee of the shareholder, must strive to provide the highest possible return for all shareholders. Since that article, the United States has embraced this idea as the fundamental philosophy supporting the ultimate purpose of businesses — The Shareholders Come First.

In August of 2019, the Business Roundtable, a group made up of the most influential U.S CEOs, published a letter shifting their stance on the purpose of a corporation. Regardless of whether this piece of paper will actually result in any systematic changes has yet to be seen, however this newly stated purpose of business is a dramatic shift from the position Milton Friedman took in 1970. According to the statement, these corporations will no longer prioritize maximizing profits for shareholders, but instead turn their focus to benefiting all stakeholders — including citizens, customers, suppliers, employees, on par with shareholders. 

Now the social responsibility of a company and the CEO was to maxiimize the profits even at the expense of any previous social responsibility they once had.

Small sample of the 181 Signatures attached to the Business Roundtable’s letter

What has happened over the past 50 years that has led to such a fundamental change in ideology? What has happened to make the CEO’s of America’s largest corporations suddenly change their stance on such a foundational principle of what it means to be an American business?

Since diving into this subject, I have come to find that the “American fundamental principle” of putting shareholders first is one that is actually not all that fundamental. In fact, for a large portion of our nation’s history this ideology was actually seen as the unpopular position.

Key ideological shifts in U.S. history

This post dives into a brief history of these two contrasting ideological viewpoints in an attempt to contextualize the forces behind both sides — specifically, the most recent shift (1970–2019). This basic idea of what is most important; the stakeholder or the shareholder, is the underlying reason as to why many things are the way they are today. A corporation’s priority of shareholder or stakeholder ultimately impacts employee salaries, benefits, quality of life within communities, environmental conditions, even the access to education children can receive. It affects our lives in a breadth and depth of ways and now that corporations may be changing positions (yet again) to focus on a model that prioritizes the stakeholder, it is important to understand why.

Looking forward, if stakeholder priority ends up being the popular position among American businesses, how long will it last for? What could lead to its downfall? And what will managers do to ensure a long term stakeholder-friendly business model?

It is clear to me the reasons that have led to these shifts in ideology are rather nuanced, however I want to highlight a few trends that have had a major impact on businesses changing their priorities while also providing context as to why things have shifted.

The Ascendancy of Shareholder Value

Following the 1929 stock market crash and the Great Depression, stakeholder primacy became the popular perspective within corporate America. Stakeholder primacy is the idea that corporations are to consider a wider group of interested parties (not just shareholders) whose positions need to be taken into consideration by corporate governance. According to this point of view, rather than solely being an agent for shareholders, management’s responsibilities were to be dispersed among all of its constituencies, even if it meant a reduction in shareholder value. This ideology lasted as the dominant position for roughly 40 years, in part due to public opinion and strong views on corporate responsibility, but also through state adoption of stakeholder laws.

By the mid-1970s, falling corporate profitability and stagnant share prices had been the norm for a decade. This poor economic performance influenced a growing concern in the U.S. regarding the perceived divergence between manager and shareholder interest. Many held the position that profits and share prices were suffering as a result of corporation’s increased attention on stakeholder groups.

This noticeable divergence in interests sparked many academics to focus their research on corporate management’s motivations in decision making regarding their allocation of resources. This branch of research would later be known as agency theory, which focused on the relationship between principals (shareholders) and their agents (management). Research at the time outlined how over the previous decades corporate management had pursued strategies that were not likely to optimize resources from a shareholder’s perspective. These findings were part of a seismic shift of corporate philosophy, changing priority from the stakeholders of a business to the shareholders.

By 1982, the U.S. economy started to recover from a prolonged period of high inflation and low economic growth. This recovery acted as a catalyst for change in many industries, leaving many corporate management teams to struggle in response to these changes. Their business performance suffered as a result. These distressed businesses became targets for a group of new investors…private equity firms.

Now the paradigm shift had its biggest backer…. private equity!  And private equity care about ONE thing….. THEIR OWN SHARE VALUE and subsequently meaning corporate profit, which became the most important directive for the CEO.

So it is all hopeless now? Can there be a shift back to the good ‘ol days?  

Well some changes are taking place at top corporate levels which may help the stakeholders to have a voice at the table, as the following IRMagazine article states.

And once again this is being led by the Business Roundtable, the same Business Roundtable that proposed the shift back in the 1970s.

Andrew Holt

Andrew Holt

REPORTER

  •  
  •  
  •  

SHAREHOLDER VALUE

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Shift from shareholder value to stakeholder-focused model for top US firms

AUG 23, 2019

Business Roundtable reveals corporations to drop idea they function to serve shareholders only

Source: https://www.irmagazine.com/esg/shift-shareholder-value-stakeholder-focused-model-top-us-firms

Andrew Holt

Andrew Holt

REPORTER

n a major corporate shift, shareholder value is no longer the main objective of the US’ top company CEOs, according to the Business Roundtable, which instead emphasizes the ‘purpose of a corporation’ and a stakeholder-focused model.

The influential body – a group of chief executive officers from major US corporations – has stressed the idea of a corporation dropping the age-old notion that corporations function first and foremost to serve their shareholders and maximize profits.

Rather, the focus should be on investing in employees, delivering value to customers, dealing ethically with suppliers and supporting outside communities as the vanguard of American business, according to a Business Roundtable statement.

‘While each of our individual companies serves its own corporate purpose, we share a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders,’ reads the statement, signed by 181 CEOs. ‘We commit to deliver value to all of them, for the future success of our companies, our communities and our country.’

Gary LaBranche, president and CEO of NIRI, tells IR Magazine that this is part of a wider trend: ‘The redefinition of purpose from shareholder-focused to stakeholder-focused is not new to NIRI members. For example, a 2014 IR Update article by the late Professor Lynn Stout urges a more inclusive way of thinking about corporate purpose.’ 

NIRI has also addressed this concept at many venues, including the senior roundtable annual meeting and the NIRI Annual Conference, adds LaBranche. This trend was further seen in the NIRI policy statement on ESG disclosure, released in January this year. 

Analyzing the meaning of this change in more detail, LaBranche adds: ‘The statement is a revolutionary break with the Business Roundtable’s previous position that the purpose of the corporation is to create value for shareholders, which was a long-held position championed by Milton Friedman.

‘The challenge is that Friedman’s thought leadership helped to inspire the legal and regulatory regime that places wealth creation for shareholders as the ‘prime directive’ for corporate executives.

‘Thus, commentators like Mike Allen of Axios are quick to point out that some shareholders may actually use the new statement to accuse CEOs of worrying about things beyond increasing the value of their shares, which, Allen reminds us, is the CEOs’ fiduciary responsibility.

‘So while the new Business Roundtable statement reflects a much-needed rebalancing and modernization that speaks to the comprehensive responsibilities of corporate citizens, we can expect that some shareholders will push back on this more inclusive view of who should benefit from corporate efforts and the capital that makes it happen. The new statement may not mark the dawn of a new day, but it perhaps signals the twilight of the Friedman era.’

In a similarly reflective way, Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co and chairman of the Business Roundtable, says: ‘The American dream is alive, but fraying. Major employers are investing in their workers and communities because they know it is the only way to be successful over the long term. These modernized principles reflect the business community’s unwavering commitment to continue to push for an economy that serves all Americans.’

Note:  Mr Dimon has been very vocal for many years on corporate social responsibility, especially since the financial troubles of 2009.

Impact of New Regulatory Trends in M&A Deals

The following podcast from Pricewaterhouse Cooper Health Research Institute (called Next in Health) discusses some of the trends in healthcare M&A and is a great listen. However from 6:30 on the podcast discusses a new trend which is occuring in the healthcare company boardroom, which is this new focus on integrating companies that have proven ESG (or environmental, social, governance) functions within their organzations. As stated, doing an M&A deal with a company with strong ESG is looked favorably among regulators now.

Please click on the following link to hear a Google Podcast Next in Health episode

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5idXp6c3Byb3V0LmNvbS8xMjgyNjQ2LnJzcw?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwil9sua2cf5AhUErXIEHaoTBQoQ9sEGegQIARAC

 

UPDATED 3/15/2023

Should There Be More Public Benefit Corporations in Health Care?

In a post by Heather Landi  in Fierce Healthcare entitled

 

Health tech unicorn Aledade recently announced that it made the strategic decision to become a public benefit corporation (PBC).

 
 

The company joins just a handful of others in healthcare that are structured this way.

So what exactly is a PBC, and why does it matter?

PBCs are a type of for-profit corporate entity that has also adopted a public benefit purpose and is currently authorized by 35 states and the District of Columbia. A PBC must consider the nonfinancial interests of its shareholders and other stakeholders when making decisions. As a public benefit corporation, companies have to weigh their social/environmental objectives alongside maximizing value for shareholders.

 

While PBC and B Corp. are often used interchangeably, they are not the same. A B Corp. is a certification provided to eligible companies by the nonprofit, B Lab. A PBC is an actual legal entity that bakes into its certificate of incorporation a “public benefit,” according to Rubicon Law Group.

“I don’t think that there is a trade-off between either you do things that are good for society or you make profits in your business.” —Farzad Mostashari, M.D.

PBCs also are required to provide a report to shareholders every two years that detail how well the company is achieving its overall public benefit objectives. In some states, the report must be assessed against a third-party standard and be made publicly available. Delaware PBCs are not required to report publicly or against a third-party standard.

Aledade launched in 2014 and uses data analytics to help independent doctors’ offices transition to value-based care models. The company currently partners with more than 1,000 independent primary care practices comprising over 11,000 physicians and has nearly 150 contracts covering more than 1.7 million patients and $17 billion in total healthcare spending. Last June, the company raised $123 million in a series E round, boosting its valuation to $3.1 billion.

 

In a blog post, Aledade CEO and co-founder Farzad Mostashari, M.D., explained the company’s reasoning behind the move and said the corporate structure of a PBC is “well suited to mission-oriented companies where alignment with stakeholders is a key driver of the business model.”

“Aledade’s public benefit purpose means that we must weigh the interests of our primary care practice partners, their patients, our employees, and those who bear the burden of rising health care costs, alongside those of our shareholders, when we make decisions,” Mostashari said in an interview. This duty extends to all significant board decisions, including decisions on whether to go public, to make acquisitions or to sell the company, he noted.

The PBC structure helps create alignment among stakeholders and build trust, he said. “I don’t think that there is a trade-off between either you do things that are good for society or you make profits in your business. That might be true for fee-for-service businesses. It’s not true for Aledade,” he said.

He added, “For businesses that are built on trust and alignment, not considering stakeholder benefits gets you neither social good nor profits. If you’re in a business like our business where it’s actually really important that everybody have faith and belief that you are doing what’s best for patients, that you are actually in it for the long-term for practices, that’s what makes us successful as a business.”

Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs, which launched in January 2022 to offer low-cost rivals to overpriced generic drugs, also is structured as a public benefit corporation. The company’s founder and CEO Alexander Oshmyansky started the company in 2015 as a nonprofit, according to a feature story in D Magazine. Through Y Combinator, investors told Oshmyansky that the nonprofit model wouldn’t be able to raise the needed funds. He then reworked the business model to a PBC and launched Osh’s Affordable Pharmaceuticals in 2018.

Some other companies that are biotech drug development companies that operate under the PBC model include

rural healthcare startup Homeward Health,

Perlara, the first biotech PBC,

Rarebase, also a biotech company,

Sage Health At-Home,

Savvy Cooperative, which is described as “the first and only patient-owned public benefit co-op,”

OWP Pharmaceuticals,

Medicaid-focused company Waymark and

Trial Library, a cancer precision medicine company.

The pros and cons
 

Even a traditional for-profit C corporation can work toward a public mission without becoming a PBC. But, in an industry like healthcare, too often the duty to maximize financial returns for shareholders or investors can be in conflict with what is best for patients, executives say.

“With a startup, it might limit the ability to sell their business to a larger company in the future because there might be some limitations on what the larger company could do with the organization.”—Jodi Daniel, a partner in Crowell & Moring’s Health Care Group

According to some healthcare experts, PBCs offer a promising alternative as a business model for healthcare companies by providing a “North Star” by which a company can navigate critical business decisions.

“I think it really helps to drive accountability,” Huang, Osmind’s chief executive, said. “I think that’s important, especially in healthcare where it’s easy sometimes to get misaligned with all the different stakeholders that are involved in the industry. We wanted to make sure we had something to be accountable to. Second, it’s ingrained in the culture. The third element of why it was so helpful for us from the beginning is just on focus and alignment. I think we can be much more clear and transparent about what we’re focused on, our values, how we try to use that transparently to influence our decisions and how we can build a business that really ties all of that together.”

In a Health Affairs article, medical researchers at Stanford, including Jimmy Qian, a co-founder of Osmind, laid out the case for why PBCs may simultaneously improve individual patient outcomes and collective benefit without sacrificing institutions’ financial stability.

PBCs are held legally accountable to a predefined public benefit, which, for hospitals, could involve delivering high-quality, affordable care to local populations. PBCs are required to produce annual benefits reports that are assessed against a third-party standard. “These reports could be used by regulatory agencies such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) or local health authorities to evaluate whether the PBC is making progress toward its stated mission and respond accordingly,” the researchers wrote.

But are there any trade-offs?

Having a public benefit obligation could potentially “tie the hands” of board members who can’t just focus on profits and must focus on those dual responsibilities, noted Jodi Daniel, a partner in Crowell & Moring’s Health Care Group.

“Companies that transition to being a public benefit corporation are intentionally trying to ensure that that the company’s mission doesn’t get diminished over time because it’s in their charter. So it helps [the mission] to endure. But there are pros and cons to that. It is somewhat binding the future board members and executives to follow that mission,” she said.

Daniel said she has spoken with several healthcare companies recently that are weighing the possibility of transitioning to a PBC. “Companies often don’t want to necessarily limit their options in their decision-making in the future. With a startup, it might limit the ability to sell their business to a larger company in the future because there might be some limitations on what the larger company could do with the organization,” she said in an interview. 

By making decisions based on interests outside of financial ones, organizations may put themselves at a margin disadvantage as compared to pure for-profit players in the space, wrote Hospitalogy founder Blake Madden.

Faddis with Veeva said the company hasn’t seen any financial or performance trade-off as a result of operating as a PBC. He noted that the move has been good for recruiting, spurred more long-term conversations with customers and has been a source of new ideas.

“Prior to the conversion, you had employees who were thinking of new products or new functionality with the mindset of getting to be commercially successful,” Faddis said. “Now, you also have people thinking about it from the angle of, ‘Does it further one of our PBC purposes and then maybe it’s also going to be commercially successful?'”

Converting to a PBC also can be a tactic to build trust, Daniel noted, especially in healthcare, and that holds the potential to drive business. 

One factor that isn’t clear is whether there is sufficient oversight to hold these companies accountable to their stated public mission. Who checks to make sure companies are making progress toward their objectives to improve healthcare?

Osmind publishes its benefit corporation report on its website to make it available to the public even though it is not required to do so. “I think that really highlights the accountability piece of you need to tell the world or at least tell your shareholders how you’re really trying to uphold your public benefit,” Huang said.

Other related articles published on this Open Access Online Scientific Journal on Healthcare Issues include the following:

Opportunity Mapping of the E-Health Sector prior to COVID19 Outbreak
mHealth market growth in America, Europe, & APAC
Ethics Behind Genetic Testing in Breast Cancer: A Webinar by Laura Carfang of survivingbreastcancer.org
The Inequality and Health Disparity seen with the COVID-19 Pandemic Is Similar to Past Pandemics
Live Notes from @HarvardMed Bioethics: Authors Jerome Groopman, MD & Pamela Hartzband, MD, discuss Your Medical Mind
COVID-related financial losses at Mass General Brigham
Personalized Medicine, Omics, and Health Disparities in Cancer:  Can Personalized Medicine Help Reduce the Disparity Problem?

Read Full Post »

Global Tert-Amylbenzene Market Size by Application (Pharmaceuticals, Chemical Intermediaries, Batteries), Industry Analysis Report, Regional Outlook, Application Development Potential, Price Trend, Competitive Market Share & Forecast, 2020 – 2026

Published Date: Dec 2020  |  Report ID: GMI4883  |  Authors: Kunal Ahuja, Harneet Mehar

Report Format:  PDF   |   Pages: 140   |   Base Year: 2019

https://www.gminsights.com/toc/detail/tert-amylbenzene-market

 

Guest Authors: Kunal Ahuja, Harneet Mehar

 

From: Devesh Billore <devesh.b@gminsights.com>

Date: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 at 11:22 AM

To: “Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN” <AvivaLev-Ari@alum.berkeley.edu>

Subject: RE: Editorial Inquiry For Exclusive Content on Tert-Amylbenzene Market

 

Hello,

 

Thanks for your response. Yes you can publish the TABLE of CONTENTS of Tert-Amylbenzene Market. Please provide report hyperlink also.

 

Report link: https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/tert-amylbenzene-market

 

It would be great if you can share the URL of the article once you publish it on the website.

Regards,

Devesh Billore

Global Market Insights

E-mail:devesh.b@gminsights.com| Web: www.gminsights.com 

 

Report Content

Chapter 1   Methodology & Scope

1.1    Market definitions

1.2    Base estimates & calculations

1.3    Forecast calculations

1.4    Data Sources

1.4.1    Primary

1.4.2    Secondary

1.4.2.1    Paid Sources

1.4.2.2    Public Sources

Chapter 2   Executive Summary

2.1    Global Tert-Amylbenzene Industry 3600 synopsis, 2020-2026

2.1.1    Business trends

2.1.2    Regional trends

2.1.3    Application trends

Chapter 3   Global Tert-Amylbenzene Industry Insights

3.1    Industry segmentation

3.2    COVID-19 overview of the world economy

3.3    Industry ecosystem analysis

3.3.1    Distribution channel analysis

3.3.1.1    Distributors

3.3.1.2    Technology Providers

3.3.2    Vendor matrix

3.3.3    Impact of COVID-19 on industry value chain

3.4    Raw Material Analysis

3.4.1    Benzene

3.4.2    Tertiary Amylalcohol

3.4.3    Cumene

3.4.4    Propene

3.5    Regulatory landscape

3.5.1    U.S.

3.5.1.1    Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory

3.5.1.1.1    OSHA 1910.1200

3.5.2    Europe

3.5.2.1    REACH (EC 1907/2006)

3.5.3    Product purity certification analysis

3.6    Industry impact forces

3.6.1    Growth drivers

3.6.1.1    Rising demand from electronics industry

3.6.1.2    Pharmaceutical industry growth

3.6.2    Industry pitfalls & challenges

3.6.2.1    High health and environmental effects

3.7    Technology landscape

3.8    Innovation & Sustainability

3.9    Growth potential analysis, 2019

3.9.1    Emerging business models

3.9.1.1    Collaboration/Joint ventures

3.9.1.2    Distribution partnership

3.9.1.3    Digital platform

3.10    Cost structure analysis, 2019

3.11    Porter’s analysis

3.11.1    Bargaining power of suppliers

3.11.2    Bargaining power of buyers

3.11.3    Threat of new entrants

3.11.4    Threat of substitutes

3.12    Pricing Analysis, 2015-2026

3.12.1    North America

3.12.2    Europe

3.12.3    Asia Pacific

3.12.4    Latin America

3.12.5    Middle East & Africa

3.13    Competitive landscape, 2019

3.13.1    Company market share analysis, 2019

3.13.2    Strategy dashboard

3.13.3    List of potential customers/end-users

3.14    PESTEL analysis

3.15    Impact of COVID-19 on tert-amylbenzene demand, by application

3.15.1    Pharmaceuticals

3.15.2    Chemical Intermediates

3.15.3    Battery

Chapter 4   Global Tert-Amylbenzene Market, By Application

4.1    Key application trends

4.2    Pharmaceuticals

4.2.1    Global Tert-Amylbenzene market from pharmaceuticals application, 2015 – 2026

4.2.2    Global Tert-Amylbenzene market from pharmaceuticals application, by region, 2015 – 2026

4.3    Chemical intermediaries

4.3.1    Global Tert-Amylbenzene market from chemical intermediaries application, 2015 – 2026

4.3.2    Global Tert-Amylbenzene market from chemical intermediaries application, by region, 2015 – 2026

4.4    Batteries

4.4.1    Global Tert-Amylbenzene market from batteries application, 2015 – 2026

4.4.2    Global Tert-Amylbenzene market from batteries application, by region, 2015 – 2026

Chapter 5   Global Tert-Amylbenzene Market, By Region

5.1    Key regional trends

5.2    North America

5.2.1    North America Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.2.2    North America Tert-Amylbenzene market, by application, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.2.3    U.S.

5.2.3.1    U.S. Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.2.3.2    U.S. Tert-Amylbenzene market, by application, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.2.4    Canada

5.2.4.1    Canada Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.2.4.2    Canada Tert-Amylbenzene market, by application, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.2.5    Mexico

5.2.5.1    Mexico Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.2.5.2    Mexico Tert-Amylbenzene market, by application, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.3    Europe

5.3.1    Europe Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.3.2    Europe Tert-Amylbenzene market, by application, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.3.3    Germany

5.3.3.1    Germany Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.3.3.2    Germany Tert-Amylbenzene market, by application, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.3.4    UK

5.3.4.1    UK Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.3.4.2    UK Tert-Amylbenzene market, by application, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.3.5    France

5.3.5.1    France Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.3.5.2    France Tert-Amylbenzene market, by application, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.3.6    Italy

5.3.6.1    Italy Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.3.6.2    Italy Tert-Amylbenzene market, by application, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.3.7    Spain

5.3.7.1    Spain Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.3.7.2    Spain Tert-Amylbenzene market, by application, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.3.8    Russia

5.3.8.1    Russia Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.3.8.2    Russia Tert-Amylbenzene market, by application, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.4    Asia Pacific

5.4.1    Asia Pacific Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.4.2    Asia Pacific Tert-Amylbenzene market, by application, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.4.3    China

5.4.3.1    China Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.4.3.2    China Tert-Amylbenzene market, by application, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.4.4    India

5.4.4.1    India Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.4.4.2    India Tert-Amylbenzene market, by application, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.4.5    Japan

5.4.5.1    Japan Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.4.5.2    Japan Tert-Amylbenzene market, by application, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.4.6    South Korea

5.4.6.1    South Korea Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.4.6.2    South Korea Tert-Amylbenzene market, by application, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.4.7    Australia

5.4.7.1    Australia Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.4.7.2    Australia Tert-Amylbenzene market, by application, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.4.8    Malaysia

5.4.8.1    Malaysia Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.4.8.2    Malaysia Tert-Amylbenzene market, by application, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.5    LATAM

5.5.1    LATAM Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.5.2    LATAM Tert-Amylbenzene market, by application, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.5.3    Brazil

5.5.3.1    Brazil Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.5.3.2    Brazil Tert-Amylbenzene market, by application, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.6    MEA

5.6.1    MEA Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.6.2    MEA Tert-Amylbenzene market, by application, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.6.3    Saudi Arabia

5.6.3.1    Saudi Arabia Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.6.3.2    Saudi Arabia Tert-Amylbenzene market, by application, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.6.4    UAE

5.6.4.1    UAE Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.6.4.2    UAE Tert-Amylbenzene market, by application, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.6.5    South Africa

5.6.5.1    South Africa Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

5.6.5.2    South Africa Tert-Amylbenzene market, by application, 2015 – 2026, (Tons) (USD Thousand)

Chapter 6   Company Profiles

6.1    Jiujiang Pro High Technology Materials Co., Ltd.

6.1.1    Business Overview

6.1.2    Financial Data

6.1.3    Product Landscape

6.1.4    Swot Analysis

6.2    Hunan Jinxi Chemical Co. Ltd.

6.2.1    Business Overview

6.2.2    Financial Data

6.2.3    Product Landscape

6.2.4    Swot Analysis

6.3    Zhenjiang Haitong Chemical industry Co., Ltd.

6.3.1    Business Overview

6.3.2    Financial Data

6.3.3    Product Landscape

6.3.4    Swot Analysis

6.4    Solvay

6.4.1    Business Overview

6.4.2    Financial Data

6.4.3    Product Landscape

6.4.4    Strategic Outlook

6.4.5    Swot Analysis

6.5    Sigma Aldrich

6.5.1    Business Overview

6.5.2    Financial Data

6.5.3    Product Landscape

6.5.4    Swot Analysis

6.6    Frontier Scientific, Inc.

6.6.1    Business Overview

6.6.2    Financial Data

6.6.3    Product Landscape

6.6.4    Swot Analysis

6.7    Alfa Chemistry

6.7.1    Business Overview

6.7.2    Financial Data

6.7.3    Product Landscape

6.7.4    Swot Analysis

6.8    TCI Chemical Trading

6.8.1    Business Overview

6.8.2    Financial Data

6.8.3    Product Landscape

6.8.4    Swot Analysis

6.9    Alfa Aesar (part of Thermo Fisher Scientific)

6.9.1    Business Overview

6.9.2    Financial Data

6.9.3    Product Landscape

6.9.4    Swot Analysis
Data Tables

TABLE 1      Global Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 2      Global  Tert-Amylbenzene market volume, by region, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 3      Global  Tert-Amylbenzene market revenue, by region, 2015 – 2026 (USD thousand)

TABLE 4      Global  Tert-Amylbenzene market volume, by application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 5      Global  Tert-Amylbenzene market revenue, by application, 2015 – 2026 (USD Thousand)

TABLE 6      Projections of GDP growth (%) in 2020 based on three scenarios

TABLE 7      Global tert amyl benzene distribution channel analysis

TABLE 8      Vendor matrix

TABLE 9      Purity of tert-amylbenzene offered by global companies

TABLE 10     Industry impact forces

TABLE 11     Cost elements

TABLE 12     List of potential customers/end-users

TABLE 13     Global  Tert-Amylbenzene demand, by region, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 14     Global  Tert-Amylbenzene supply, by region, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 15     Global  Tert-Amylbenzene  market from pharmaceuticals application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 16     Global  Tert-Amylbenzene market volume from pharmaceuticals application, by region, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 17     Global  Tert-Amylbenzene market revenue from pharmaceuticals application, by region, 2015 – 2026 (USD thousand)

TABLE 18     Global  Tert-Amylbenzene  market from chemical intermediaries application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 19     Global  Tert-Amylbenzene market volume from chemical intermediaries application, by region, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 20     Global  Tert-Amylbenzene market revenue from chemical intermediaries application, by region, 2015 – 2026 (USD thousand)

TABLE 21     Global  Tert-Amylbenzene  market from batteries application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 22     Global  Tert-Amylbenzene market volume from batteries application, by region, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 23     Global  Tert-Amylbenzene market revenue from batteries application, by region, 2015 – 2026 (USD thousand)

TABLE 24     North America Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 25     North America  Tert-Amylbenzene market volume, by application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 26     North America  Tert-Amylbenzene market revenue, by application, 2015 – 2026 (USD Thousand)

TABLE 27     U.S.  Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 28     U.S.   Tert-Amylbenzene market volume, by application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 29     U.S.   Tert-Amylbenzene market revenue, by application, 2015 – 2026 (USD Thousand)

TABLE 30     Canada   Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 31     Canada    Tert-Amylbenzene market volume, by application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 32     Canada Tert-Amylbenzene market revenue, by application, 2015 – 2026 (USD Thousand)

TABLE 33     Mexico Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 34     Mexico  Tert-Amylbenzene market volume, by application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 35     Mexico  Tert-Amylbenzene market revenue, by application, 2015 – 2026 (USD Thousand)

TABLE 36     Europe  Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 37     Europe  Tert-Amylbenzene market volume, by application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 38     Europe  Tert-Amylbenzene market revenue, by application, 2015 – 2026 (USD Thousand)

TABLE 39     Germany     Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 40     Germany Tert-Amylbenzene market volume, by application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 41     Germany Tert-Amylbenzene market revenue, by application, 2015 – 2026 (USD Thousand)

TABLE 42     UK   Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 43     UK Tert-Amylbenzene market volume, by application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 44     UK Tert-Amylbenzene market revenue, by application, 2015 – 2026 (USD Thousand)

TABLE 45     France     Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 46     France Tert-Amylbenzene market volume, by application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 47     France Tert-Amylbenzene market revenue, by application, 2015 – 2026 (USD Thousand)

TABLE 48     Italy Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 49     Italy Tert-Amylbenzene  market volume, by application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 50     Italy Tert-Amylbenzene  market revenue, by application, 2015 – 2026 (USD Thousand)

TABLE 51     Spain Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 52     Spain Tert-Amylbenzene  market volume, by application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 53     Spain Tert-Amylbenzene  market revenue, by application, 2015 – 2026 (USD Thousand)

TABLE 54     Russia Tert-Amylbenzene  market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 55     Russia  Tert-Amylbenzene  market volume, by application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 56     Russia  Tert-Amylbenzene  market revenue, by application, 2015 – 2026 (USD Thousand)

TABLE 57     Asia Pacific  Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 58     Asia Pacific   Tert-Amylbenzene market volume, by application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 59     Asia Pacific   Tert-Amylbenzene market revenue, by application, 2015 – 2026 (USD Thousand)

TABLE 60     China Tert-Amylbenzene  market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 61     China  Tert-Amylbenzene  market volume, by application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 62     China  Tert-Amylbenzene  market revenue, by application, 2015 – 2026 (USD Thousand)

TABLE 63     India  Tert-Amylbenzene  market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 64     India Tert-Amylbenzene market volume, by application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 65     India Tert-Amylbenzene market revenue, by application, 2015 – 2026 (USD Thousand)

TABLE 66     Japan  Tert-Amylbenzene  market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 67     Japan Tert-Amylbenzene market volume, by application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 68     Japan Tert-Amylbenzene market revenue, by application, 2015 – 2026 (USD Thousand)

TABLE 69     South Korea  Tert-Amylbenzene  market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 70     South Korea Tert-Amylbenzene market volume, by application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 71     South Korea Tert-Amylbenzene market revenue, by application, 2015 – 2026 (USD Thousand)

TABLE 72     Australia  Tert-Amylbenzene  market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 73     Australia Tert-Amylbenzene market volume, by application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 74     Australia Tert-Amylbenzene market revenue, by application, 2015 – 2026 (USD Thousand)

TABLE 75     Malaysia  Tert-Amylbenzene  market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 76     Malaysia Tert-Amylbenzene market volume, by application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 77     Malaysia Tert-Amylbenzene market revenue, by application, 2015 – 2026 (USD Thousand)

TABLE 78     LATAM  Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 79     LATAM   Tert-Amylbenzene market volume, by application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 80     LATAM   Tert-Amylbenzene market revenue, by application, 2015 – 2026 (USD Thousand)

TABLE 81     Brazil  Tert-Amylbenzene  market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 82     Brazil Tert-Amylbenzene market volume, by application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 83     Brazil Tert-Amylbenzene market revenue, by application, 2015 – 2026 (USD Thousand)

TABLE 84     MEA  Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 85     MEA   Tert-Amylbenzene market volume, by application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 86     MEA   Tert-Amylbenzene market revenue, by application, 2015 – 2026 (USD Thousand)

TABLE 87     Saudi Arabia  Tert-Amylbenzene  market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 88     Saudi Arabia Tert-Amylbenzene market volume, by application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 89     Saudi Arabia Tert-Amylbenzene market revenue, by application, 2015 – 2026 (USD Thousand)

TABLE 90     UAE  Tert-Amylbenzene  market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 91     UAE Tert-Amylbenzene market volume, by application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 92     UAE Tert-Amylbenzene market revenue, by application, 2015 – 2026 (USD Thousand)

TABLE 93     South Africa Tert-Amylbenzene market, 2015 – 2026, (Tons)  (USD Thousand)

TABLE 94     South Africa Tert-Amylbenzene market volume, by application, 2015 – 2026 (Tons)

TABLE 95     South Africa Tert-Amylbenzene market revenue, by application, 2015 – 2026 (USD Thousand)

 

Charts & Figures

FIG. 1     Global Tert-Amylbenzene industry 3600 synopsis

FIG. 2     Europe Pulp & Paper Industry Revenue, 2015 – 2019 (USD Billion)

FIG. 3     Confirmed COVID-19 cases in Europe, by cases, as of 30 November 2020 (Number of cases)

FIG. 4     Demand for Lithium-ion batteries from Electric Vehicles, 2015-2030 (Gwh)

FIG. 5     Industry segmentation

FIG. 6     Industry ecosystem analysis

FIG. 7     Global Benzene Production, 2015-2022, (Million Metric Tons)

FIG. 8     China Benzene Production Capacities, 2015-2025 (Million Metric Tons)

FIG. 9     U.S. Benzene Production, 2016-2019, (Thousand Metric Tons)

FIG. 10    Global Cumene Consumption, By Region, 2019, (%)

FIG. 11    U.S. Cumene Prices, 2017-2020, (USD/barrel)

FIG. 12    Global Propylene Production and Consumption, 2018, (Mn MT)

FIG. 13    U.S. Propene Demand, 2016-2019, (Mn MT)

FIG. 14    Consumer electronics revenue in Western Europe, Q4 2015 – Q1 2020 (USD Billion)

FIG. 15    Growth of the middle class population, by region,  2015 – 2030 (Million persons)

FIG. 16    Global pharmaceutical industry revenue, 2014-19, (USD Billion)

FIG. 17    Share of population aged 65 years and above in Europe, major countries, 2019, (%)

FIG. 18    Production Technique of Tert.-Amylbenzene

FIG. 19    Growth Potential Analysis, 2019

FIG. 20    Cost structure analysis, 2019

FIG. 21    Porter’s analysis

FIG. 22    Company market share analysis, 2019

FIG. 23    PESTEL analysis

 

 

Read Full Post »

Danny Bar-Zohar, MD –  New R&D Leader for new pipelines at Merck KGaA as Luciano Rossetti steps out

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Danny Bar-Zohar, MD – A Pharmaceutical Executive Profile in R&D: Ex-Novastis, Ex-Teva

Experience

Education

SOURCE

https://www.linkedin.com/in/danny-bar-zohar-513904a/

 

Novartis vet Danny Bar-Zohar leaps back into R&D, taking over the development team at Merck KGaA as Luciano Rossetti steps out

John Carroll
Editor & Founder

After a brief stint as a biotech investor at Syncona, Novartis vet Danny Bar-Zohar is back in R&D, and he’s taking the lead position at Merck KGaA’s drug division.

Bar-Zohar had led late-stage clinical development across a variety of areas — neuroscience, immunology, oncology and ophthalmology, among others — before joining the migration of talent out of the Basel-based multinational. He had been at Novartis for 7 years, which followed an earlier chapter in research at Teva.

Luciano Rossetti
The scientist is taking the lead on development at Merck KGaA, in place of Luciano Rossetti, who had a mixed record in R&D that nevertheless marked a big improvement over the dismal run the company had endured earlier. Joern-Peter Halle will continue on as global head of research. Rossetti is retiring after 6 years of running the research group, which has extensive operations in Germany as well as Massachusetts.

Their PD-L1 Bavencio — allied with Pfizer — has had a few successes, and a whole slate of failures. Sprifermin was touted as a big potential advance in osteoarthritis, but Merck KGaA is now auctioning off that part of the portfolio. One of the few late-stage bright spots has been their MET inhibitor tepotinib, which won breakthrough status and now is under priority review. That drug faces a rival at Novartis — capmatinib — that won an accelerated OK at the FDA in May.

advertisement

advertisement
There’s also a BTK inhibitor, evobrutinib, that’s being developed for MS. But that’s a very crowded field, and Sanofi has been bullish about its prospects in the same research niche after buying out Principia.

Moving back into mid-stage development, there’s a major program underway for bintrafusp alfa, a bifunctional fusion protein targeting TGF-β and PD-L1, which Merck KGaA has high hopes for.

That all marks some bright, though limited, prospects for Merck KGaA, highlighting the need to find something new to beef up the pipeline. Bar-Zohar will get a say in that.

AUTHOR
John Carroll

SOURCE

https://endpts.com/novartis-vet-danny-bar-zohar-leaps-back-into-rd-taking-over-the-team-at-merck-kgaa-as-luciano-rossetti-steps-out/

Read Full Post »

CAR T-CELL THERAPY MARKET: 2020 – 2027

G L O B A L  M A R K E T  A N A L Y S I S  A N D

I N D U S T R Y  F O R E C A S T

 

DISCLAIMER

LPBI Group’s decision to publish the Table of Contents of this Report does not imply endorsement of the Report

Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN, Founder 1.0 & 2.0 LPBI Group

Guest Reporter: MIKE WOOD

Marketing Executive
BIOTECH FORECASTS

 

ABOUT BIOTECH FORECASTS

BIOTECH FORECASTS is a full-service market research and business- consulting firm primarily focusing on healthcare, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology industries. BIOTECH FORECASTS provides global as well as medium and small Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology businesses with unmatched quality of “Market Research Reports” and “Business Intelligence Solutions”. BIOTECH FORECASTS has a targeted view to provide business insights and consulting to assist its clients to make strategic business decisions, and achieve sustainable growth in their respective market domain.

UPDATED on 10/13/2020

CAR T-CELL THERAPY MARKET

Mike Wood

Mike Wood

Marketing Executive at Biotech Forecasts

CAR T-cell therapy as a part of adoptive cell therapy (ACT), has become one of the most rapidly growing and promising fields in the Immuno-oncology. As compared to the conventional cancer therapies, CAR T-cell therapy is the single-dose solution for the treatment of various cancers, significantly for some lethal forms of hematological malignancies.

CAR T-cell therapy mainly involves the use of engineered T-cells, the process starts with the extraction of T-cells through leukapheresis, either from the patient (autologous) or a healthy donor (allogeneic). After the expression of a synthetic receptor (Chimeric Antigen Receptor) in the lab, the altered T-cells are expanded to the right dose and administered into the patient’s body. where they target and attach to a specific antigen on the tumor surface, to kill the cancerous cells by igniting the apoptosis.

The global CAR T-cell therapy market was valued at $734 million in 2019 and is estimated to reach $4,078 million by 2027, registering a CAGR of 23.91% from 2020 to 2027.

Factors that drive the market growth involve, (1) Increased in funding for R&D activities pertaining to cell and gene therapy. By H1 2020 cell and gene therapy companies set new records in the fundraising despite the pandemic crisis. For Instance, by June 2020 totaled $1,452 Million raised in Five IPOs including, Legend Biotech ($487M), Passage Bio ($284M), Akouos ($244M), Generation Bio ($230M), and Beam Therapeutics ($207M), which is 2.5 times the total IPO of 2019.

Moreover, in 2019 cell therapy companies specifically have raised $560 million of venture capital, including Century Therapeutics ($250M), Achilles Therapeutics Ltd. ($121M in series B), NKarta Therapeutics Inc. ($114M), and Tmunity Therapeutics ($75M in Series B).

(2) Increased in No. of Approved Products, By July 2020, there are a total of 03 approved CAR T-cell therapy products, including KYMRIAH®, YESCARTA®, and the most recently approved TECARTUS™ (formerly KTE-X19). Furthermore, two CAR T-cell therapies BB2121, and JCAR017 are expected to get the market approval by the end of 2020 or in early 2021.

Other factors that boost the market growth involves; (3) increase in government support, (4) ethical acceptance of Cell and Gene therapy for cancer treatment, (5) rise in the prevalence of cancer, and (6) an increase in awareness regarding the CAR T-cell therapy.

However, high costs associated with the treatment (KYMRIAH® cost around $475,000, and YESCARTA® costs $373,000 per infusion), long production hours, obstacles in treating solid tumors, and unwanted immune responses & potential side effects might hamper the market growth.

The report also presents a detailed quantitative analysis of the current market trends and future estimations from 2020 to 2027.

The forecasts cover 2 Approach Types, 5 Antigen Types, 5 Application Types, Regions, and 14 Countries.

The report comes with an associated file covering quantitative data from all numeric forecasts presented in the report, as well as with a Clinical Trials Data File.

KEY FINDINGS

The report has the following key findings:

  • The global CAR T-cell therapy market accounted for $734 million in 2019 and is estimated to reach $4,078 million by 2027, registering a CAGR of 23.91% from 2020 to 2027.
  • By approach type the autologous segment was valued at $655.26 million in 2019 and is estimated to reach $ 3,324.52 million by 2027, registering a CAGR of 22.51% from 2020 to 2027.
  • By approach type, the allogeneic segment exhibits the highest CAGR of 32.63%.
  • Based on the Antigen segment CD19 was the largest contributor among the other segments in 2019.
  • The Acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) segment generated the highest revenue and is expected to continue its dominance in the future, followed by the Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) segment.
  • North America dominated the global CAR T-cell therapy market in 2019 and is projected to continue its dominance in the future.
  • China is expected to grow the highest in the Asia-Pacific region during the forecast period.

TOPICS COVERED

The report covers the following topics:

  • Market Drivers, Restraints, and Opportunities
  • Porters Five Forces Analysis
  • CAR T-Cell Structure, Generations, Manufacturing, and Pricing Models
  • Top Winning Strategies, Top Investment Pockets
  • Analysis of by Approach Type, Antigen Type, Application, and Region
  • 51 Company Profiles, Product Portfolio, and Key Strategies
  • Approved Products Profiles, and list of Expected Approvals
  • COVID-19 Impact on the Cell and Gene Therapy Industry
  • CAR T-cell therapy clinical trials analysis from 1997 to 2019
  • Market analysis and forecasts from 2020 to 2027

FORECAST SEGMENTATION

By Approach Type

  • Autologous
  • Allogeneic

By Antigen Type

  • CD19
  • CD20
  • BCMA
  • MSLN
  • Others

By Application

  • Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL)
  • Diffuse large B-Cell lymphoma (DLBCL)
  • Multiple Myeloma (MM)
  • Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)
  • Other Cancer Indications

By Region

  • North America: USA, Canada, Mexico
  • Europe: UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Rest of Europe
  • Asia-Pacific: China, Japan, India, South Korea, Rest of Asia-Pacific
  • LAMEA: Brazil, South Africa, Rest of LAMEA

Contact at info@biotechforecasts.com for any Queries or Free Report Sample

Report this

Published by

Mike Wood
Marketing Executive at Biotech Forecasts
1 article
The global CAR T-cell therapy market was valued at $734 million in 2019 and is estimated to reach $4,078 million by 2027, registering a CAGR of 23.91% from 2020 to 2027. hashtagcelltherapy hashtaggenetherapy hashtagimmunotherapy hashtagcancertreatment hashtagcartcell hashtagregenerativemedicine hashtagbiotech hashtagcancer

 

Table of Contents

 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 REPORT DESCRIPTION 17
1.2 TOPICS COVERED 19
1.3 KEY MARKET SEGMENTS 20
1.4 KEY BENEFITS 21
1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 21
1.6 TARGET AUDIENCE 22
1.7 COMPANIES MENTIONED 23

CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 26
2.2 CXO PROSPECTIVE 29

CHAPTER 3: MARKET OVERVIEW

3.1 MARKET DEFINITION AND SCOPE 30
3.2 KEY FINDINGS 31
3.3 TOP INVESTMENT POCKETS 32
3.4 TOP WINNING STRATEGIES 33
3.4.1.Top winning strategies, by year, 2017-2019* 34
3.4.2.Top winning strategies, by development, 2017-2019*(%) 34
3.4.3.Top winning strategies, by company, 2017-2019* 35
3.5 TOP PLAYER POSITIONING, BY PIPELINE VOLUME, 2019 38
3.6 PORTERS FIVE FORCES ANALYSIS 39
3.7 COVID19 IMPACT ON CELL AND GENE THERAPY (CGT) INDUSTRY 41
3.8 MARKET DYNAMICS 46
3.8.1    Drivers 46
3.8.1.1   Increase in funding for R&D activities of CAR T-cell therapy 46
3.8.1.2   The rise in the prevalence of cancer 47
3.8.1.3   Increase in awareness regarding CAR T-cell therapy 47

 

3.8.2    Restrains 48
3.8.2.1   The high cost of CAR T-cell therapy treatment 48
3.8.2.2   Unwanted immune responses and side effects 48
3.8.2.3   Long production time 48
3.8.2.4   Obstacles in treating solid tumors 49
3.8.3    Opportunities 49
3.8.3.1   Untapped potential for emerging markets 49

CHAPTER 4: CAR T-CELL THERAPY, A BRIEF INTRODUCTION

4.1 OVERVIEW 50
4.2 SIXTY YEARS HISTORY OF CAR T-CELL THERAPY 51
4.3 CAR T-CELL STRUCTURE AND GENERATIONS 53
4.4 CAR T-CELL MANUFACTURING PROCESSES 56
4.5 PRICING AND PAYMENT MODELS FOR CAR T-CELL THERAPIES 59

CHAPTER 5: CAR T-CELL THERAPY MARKET, BY APPROACH TYPE

5.1 OVERVIEW 61
5.1.1    Market size and forecast 62
5.2 AUTOLOGOUS 63
5.2.1    Key market trends 63
5.2.2    Key growth factors and opportunities 64
5.2.3    Market size and forecast 64
5.2.4    Market size and forecast by country 65
5.3 ALLOGENEIC 66
5.3.1    Key market trends 67
5.3.2    Key growth factors and opportunities 68
5.3.3    Market size and forecast 68
5.3.4    Market size and forecast by country 69

CHAPTER 6: CAR T-CELL THERAPY MARKET, BY ANTIGEN TYPE

6.1 OVERVIEW 70
6.1.1         Market size and forecast 71
6.2 CD19 72
6.2.1         Market size and forecast 73
6.2.2         Market size and forecast by country 74

 

6.3 CD20 75
6.3.1 Market size and forecast 76
6.3.2 Market size and forecast by country 77
6.4 BCMA 78
6.4.1 Market size and forecast 79
6.4.2 Market size and forecast by country 80
6.5 MSLN 81
6.5.1 Market size and forecast 82
6.5.2 Market size and forecast by country 83
6.6 OTHERS 84
6.6.1 Market size and forecast 85
6.6.2 Market size and forecast by country 86

CHAPTER 7: CAR T-CELL THERAPY MARKET, BY APPLICATION

7.1 OVERVIEW 87
7.1.1       Market size and forecast 88
7.2 ACUTE LYMPHOBLASTIC LEUKEMIA (ALL) 89
7.2.1       Market size and forecast 90
7.2.2       Market size and forecast by country 91
7.3 DIFFUSE LARGE B-CELL LYMPHOMA (DLBCL) 92
7.3.1       Market size and forecast 93
7.3.2       Market size and forecast by country 94
7.4 MULTIPLE MYELOMA (MM) 95
7.4.1       Market size and forecast 96
7.4.2       Market size and forecast by country 97
7.5 ACUTE MYELOID LEUKEMIA (AML) 98
7.5.1       Market size and forecast 99
7.5.2       Market size and forecast by country 100
7.6 OTHERS 101
7.6.1       Market size and forecast 102
7.6.2       Market size and forecast by country 103

CHAPTER 8: CAR T-CELL THERAPY MARKET, BY REGION

8.1 OVERVIEW 104
8.1.1       Market size and forecast 104
8.2 NORTH AMERICA 105
8.2.1       Key market trends 105
8.2.2       Key growth factors and opportunities 105

 

8.2.3       Market size and forecast, by country 106
8.2.4       Market size and forecast, by approach type 106
8.2.5       Market size and forecast, by antigen type 107
8.2.6 Market size and forecast, by application 107
8.2.6.1 U.S. market size and forecast, by approach type 108
8.2.6.2 U.S. market size and forecast, by antigen type 108
8.2.6.3 U.S. market size and forecast, by application 109
8.2.6.4 Canada market size and forecast, by approach type 110
8.2.6.5 Canada market size and forecast, by antigen type 110
8.2.6.6 Canada market size and forecast, by application 111
8.2.6.7 Mexico market size and forecast, by approach type 112
8.2.6.8 Mexico market size and forecast, by antigen type 112
8.2.6.9 Mexico market size and forecast, by application 113
8.3 EUROPE 114
8.4.1 Key market trends 114
8.4.2 Key growth factors and opportunities 114
8.4.3 Market size and forecast, by country 115
8.4.4 Market size and forecast, by approach type 115
8.4.5 Market size and forecast, by antigen type 116
8.4.6 Market size and forecast, by application 116
8.3.6.1 UK market size and forecast, by approach type 117
8.3.6.2 UK market size and forecast, by antigen type 117
8.3.6.3 UK market size and forecast, by application 118
8.3.6.4 Germany market size and forecast, by approach type 119
8.3.6.5 Germany market size and forecast, by antigen type 119
8.3.6.6 Germany market size and forecast, by application 120
8.3.6.7 France market size and forecast, by approach type 121
8.3.6.8 France market size and forecast, by antigen type 121
8.3.6.9 France market size and forecast, by application 122
8.3.6.10 Spain market size and forecast, by approach type 123
8.3.6.11 Spain market size and forecast, by antigen type 123
8.3.6.12 Spain market size and forecast, by application 124
8.3.6.13 Italy market size and forecast, by approach type 125
8.3.6.14 Italy market size and forecast, by antigen type 125
8.3.6.15 Italy market size and forecast, by application 126
8.3.6.16 Rest of Europe market size and forecast, by approach type 127
8.3.6.17 Rest of Europe market size and forecast, by antigen type 127
8.3.6.18 Rest of Europe market size and forecast, by application 128
8.4 ASIA-PACIFIC 129
8.4.1 Key market trends 129
8.4.2 Key growth factors and opportunities 129
8.4.3 Market size and forecast, by country 130
8.4.4 Market size and forecast, by approach type 130

 

8.4.5       Market size and forecast, by antigen type 131
8.4.6 Market size and forecast, by application 131
8.4.6.1 China market size and forecast, by approach type 132
8.4.6.2 China market size and forecast, by antigen type 132
8.4.6.3 China market size and forecast, by application 133
8.4.6.4 Japan market size and forecast, by approach type 134
8.4.6.5 Japan market size and forecast by antigen type 134
8.4.6.6 Japan market size and forecast, by application 135
8.4.6.7 India market size and forecast, by approach type 136
8.4.6.8 India market size and forecast, by antigen type 136
8.4.6.9 India market size and forecast, by application 137
8.4.6.10 South Korea market size and forecast, by approach type 138
8.4.6.11 South Korea market size and forecast, by antigen type 138
8.4.6.12 South Korea market size and forecast, by application 139
8.4.6.13 Rest of Asia-Pacific market size and forecast, by approach type 140
8.4.6.14 Rest of Asia-Pacific market size and forecast, by antigen type 140
8.4.6.15 Rest of Asia-Pacific market size and forecast, by application 141
8.5 LAMEA 142
8.5.1 Key market trends 142
8.5.2 Key growth factors and opportunities 142
8.5.3 Market size and forecast, by country 143
8.5.4 Market size and forecast, by approach type 143
8.5.5 Market size and forecast, by antigen type 144
8.5.6 Market size and forecast, by application 144
8.5.6.1 Brazil market size and forecast by approach type 145
8.5.6.2 Brazil market size and forecast, by antigen type 145
8.5.6.3 Brazil market size and forecast, by application 146
8.5.6.4 South Africa market size and forecast, by approach type 147
8.5.6.5 South Africa market size and forecast, by antigen type 147
8.5.6.6 South Africa market size and forecast, by application 148
8.5.6.7 Rest of LAMEA market size and forecast by approach type 149
8.5.6.8 Rest of LAMEA market size and forecast, by antigen type 149
8.5.6.9 Rest of LAMEA market size and forecast, by application 150

CHAPTER 9: CLINICAL TRIALS ANALYSIS & PRODUCT PROFILES

9.1 OVERVIEW 151
9.1.1      No. of Clinical Trials from 1997 to 2019 151
9.1.2      Clinical Trials from 1997 to 2019: Based on Approach Type 152
9.1.3      Clinical Trials from 1997 to 2019: Based on Antigen Type 153
9.1.4      Clinical Trials from 1997 to 2019: Based on Application 154
9.1.5      Clinical Trials from 1997 to 2019: Based on Region 155

 

9.2 EXPECTED APPROVALS 156
9.3 APPROVED PRODUCTS PROFILES 157
9.3.1      KYMRIAH® 157
9.3.2      YESCARTA® 159
9.3.3      TECARTUS™ 161

CHAPTER 10: COMPANY PROFILES

10.1       Abbvie Inc. 162
10.2       Adaptimmune Therapeutics Plc 164
10.3 Allogene Therapeutics, Inc. 166
10.4 Amgen, Inc 168
10.5 Anixa Biosciences, Inc. 170
10.6 Arcellx, Inc. 172
10.7 Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc. 173
10.8 Autolus Therapeutics Plc. 175
10.9 Beam Therapeutics, Inc. 177
10.10 Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 179
10.11 BioNtech SE 181
10.12 Bluebird Bio, Inc. 183
10.13 Carsgen Therapeutics, Ltd 185
10.14 Cartesian Therapeutics, Inc. 187
10.15 Cartherics Pty Ltd. 188
10.16 Celgene Corporation 189
10.17 Cellectis SA 191
10.18 Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc. 193
10.19 Celularity, Inc. 195
10.20 Celyad SA 196
10.21 CRISPR Therapeutics AG 198
10.22 Eureka Therapeutics, Inc. 200
10.23 Fate Therapeutics, Inc. 201
10.24 Fortress Biotech, Inc 203
10.25 Gilead Sciences, Inc. 205
10.26 Gracell Biotechnology Ltd 207
10.27 icell Gene Therapeutics 208
10.28 Johnson & Johnson 209
10.29 Juventas Cell Therapy Ltd. 211
10.30 Kuur Therapeutics 212
10.31 Legend Biotech Corp. 213
10.32 Leucid Bio Ltd. 214
10.33 Minerva Biotechnologies Corp. 215

 

10.34     Molecular Medicine SPA (Molmed) 216
10.35     Nanjing Bioheng Biotech Co., Ltd. 218
10.36     Noile-Immune Biotech Inc. 219
10.37     Novartis AG 220
10.38     Oxford Biomedica PLC 222
10.39     Persongen Biotherapeutics (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. 224
10.40     Poseida Therapeutics, Inc. 226
10.41     Precigen, Inc. 227
10.42     Precision Biosciences, Inc. 229
10.43     Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. 231
10.44     Takara Bio Inc. 233
10.45     Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. 235
10.46     TC Biopharm Ltd. 237
10.47     Tessa Therapeutics Pte Ltd. 238
10.48     Tmunity Therapeutics, Inc. 239
10.49     Unum Therapeutics Inc. 240
10.50     Xyphos Inc. 242
10.51     Ziopharm Oncology, Inc. 243

CHAPTER 11: CONCLUSION & STRATEGIC RECOMMENTATIONS

11.1     STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS 245
11.2     CONCLUSION 247

 

CONTACT

info@biotechforecasts.com

MIKE WOOD

Marketing Executive

BIOTECH FORECASTS

Read Full Post »

Tweet Collection by @pharma_BI and @AVIVA1950 and Re-Tweets for e-Proceedings 14th Annual BioPharma &amp; Healthcare Summit, Friday, September 4, 2020, 8 AM EST to 3-30 PM EST – Virtual Edition

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Real Time Press Coverage: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

e-Proceedings 14th Annual BioPharma & Healthcare Summit, Friday, September 4, 2020, 8 AM EST to 3-30 PM EST – Virtual Edition

Real Time Press Coverage: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Founder & Director, LPBI Group

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2020/07/28/14th-annual-biopharma-healthcare-summit-friday-september-4-2020-8-am-est-to-3-30-pm-est-virtual-edition/

 

Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950

#USAIC20 Dr. Hal Barron, Chief Scientific Officer and President R&D, GlaxoSmithKline GWAS not easy to find which gene drives the association  Functional Genomics gene by gene with phenotypes using machine learning significant help

Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950

#USAIC20 Dr. Hal Barron, Chief Scientific Officer and President R&D, GSK GWAS not easy to find which gene drives the association  Functional Genomics gene by gene with phenotypes using machine learning significant help

Srihari Gopal
@sgopal2

Enjoyed hearing enthusiasm for Neuroscience R&D by Roy Vagelos at #USAIC20. Wonderful interview by Mathai Mammen

Image

1
2
Show this thread

Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950

#USAIC20 Nina Kjellson, General Partner, Canaan Data science is a winner in Healthcare Women – Data Science is an excellent match

Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950

#USAIC20 Arpa Garay, President, Global Pharmaceuticals, Commercial Analytics, Merck & Co. Data on Patients and identification who will benefit fro which therapy  cultural bias risk aversion

Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950

#USAIC20 Dr. Najat Khan, Chief Operating Officer, Janssen R&D Data Sciences, Johnson & Johnson Data Validation  Deployment of algorithms embed data by type early on in the crisis to understand the disease

Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950

#USAIC20 Sastry Chilukuri, President, Acorn AI- Medidata Opportunities in Data Science in Paharma COVID-19 and Data Science

Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950

#USAIC20 Dr. Maya Said, Chief Executive Officer, Outcomes4Me Cancer patients taking change of their care Digital Health – consumerization of Health, patient demand to be part of the decision, part the information FDA launched a Program Project Patient Voice

USAIC
@USAIC

We’re taking a quick break at #USAIC20 before our next panel on rare diseases starts at 12:20pm EDT. USAIC would like to thank our Sponsors and Partners for supporting this year’s digital event.

Image

Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950

#USAIC20 Dr. Roy Vagelos, Chairman of the Board, Regeneron HIV-AIDS: reverse transcriptase converted a lethal disease to a chronic disease, tried hard to make vaccine – the science was not there

Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950

#USAIC20 Dr. Roy Vagelos, Chairman of the Board, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Congratulates Big Pharma for taking the challenge on COVID-19 Vaccine, Antibody and anti-viral Government funding Merck was independent from Government – to be able to set the price

1

Dr Kapil Khambholja
@kapilmk

Christopher Viehbacher, Gurnet Point Capital touches very sensitive topic at #USAIC20 He claims that we are never going to have real innovation out of big pharma! Well this isn’t new but not entirely true either… any more thoughts?
1
1
Show this thread

Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950

#USAIC20 Daphne Zohar, Founder & CEO, PureTech Health Disease focus, best science is the decision factors

1

Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950

#USAIC20 Christopher Viehbacher, Managing Partner, Gurnet Point Capital Dream of every Biotech – get Big Pharma coming to acquire and pay a lot Morph and adapt

anju ghangurde
@scripanjug

Biogen’s chair Papadopoulos big co mergers is an attempt to solve problems; typically driven by patent expirations.. #usaic20

2

anju ghangurde
@scripanjug

Chris Viehbacher/Gurnet Point Capital on US election: industry will work with whoever wins; we’ll have to ‘morph & adapt’ #usaic20

1

Dr Kapil Khambholja
@kapilmk

of

talks about various philosophies and key reasons why certain projects/molecules are killed early. My counter questions- What are chances of losing hope little early? Do small #biopharma publish negative results to aid to the knowledge pool? #USAIC20

Image

2
2
Show this thread

Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950

#USAIC20 Dr. Laurie Glimcher, President & CEO, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute DNA repair and epignetics are the future of medicine

Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950

#USAIC20 Dr. Laurie Glimcher, President & CEO, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute COlonorectal cancer is increasing immuno therapy 5 drugs marketed 30% cancer patients are treated early detection key vs metastatic 10% of cancer are inherited treatment early

Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950

#USAIC20 Rehan Verjee, President, EMD Serono Charities funding cancer research – were impacted and resources will come later and in decreased amount New opportunities support access to Medicine improve investment across the board

Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950

#USAIC20 Dr. Philip Larsen, Global Head of Research, Bayer AG Repurposing drugs as antiviral from drug screening innovating methods Cytokine storm in OCVID-19 – kinase inhibitors may be antiviral data of tested positive allows research of pathway in new ways

Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950

#USAIC20 Dr. Laurie Glimcher, President & CEO, Dana-Farber 3,000 Telemedicine session in the first week of the Pandemic vs 300 before – patient come back visits patient happy with Telemedicine team virtually need be reimbursed same rate working remotely

Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950

#USAIC20 Dr. Raju Kucherlapati, Professor of Genetics, Harvard Medical School New normal as a result of the pandemic role of personalized medicine

Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950

#USAIC20 Rehan Verjee, President, EMD Serono entire volume of clinical trials at Roche went down same at EMD delay of 6 month, some were to be initiated but was put on hold Charities funding cancer research were impacted and resources will come later smaller

Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950

#USAIC20 Dr. Laurie Glimcher, President & CEO, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Dana Farber saw impact of COVID-19 on immunosuppressed patients coming in for Cancer Tx – switch from IV Tx to Oral 96% decrease in screenings due to Pandemic – increase with Cancer

Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950

#USAIC20 Kenneth Frazier, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Merck & Co. Pharma’s obligation for next generations requires investment in R&D vs Politicians running for 4 years Patients must come first vs shareholders vs R&D investment in 2011

Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950

#USAIC20 Kenneth Frazier, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Merck & Co. Antibiotic research at Merck – no market incentives on pricing for Merck to invest in antibiotics people will die from bacterial resistance next pandemic be bacterial

Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950

#USAIC20 Kenneth Frazier, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Merck & Co. Strategies of Merck = “Medicine is for the People not for Profit” – Ketruda in India is not reembureable in India and million are in need it Partnership are encouraged

Dr Kapil Khambholja
@kapilmk

Chairman Stelios Papadopoulos asks #KennethFrazier if wealthy nations will try to secure large proportion of #COVID19 drugs/vaccines. #KennethFrazie rightly mentions: pharma industry’s responsibility to balance the access to diff countries during pandemic. #USAIC20

1
3
Show this thread

Dr Kapil Khambholja
@kapilmk

Almost 60% participants at #USAIC20 feel that MNCs are more likely to run their #clinicalTrials in #INDIA seeing changing environment here, reveals the poll. Exciting time ahead for scientific fraternity as this can substantially increase the speed of #DrugDevelopment globally

Clapping hands sign

Image

1
1
Show this thread

Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950

#USAIC20 Dr. Barry Bloom, Professor & former Dean, Harvard School of Public Health Vaccine in clinical trials, public need to return for 2nd shot, hesitancy Who will get the Vaccine first in the US  most vulnerable of those causing transmission Pharma’s risk

4

Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950

#USAIC20 Dr. Barry Bloom, Professor & former Dean, Harvard School of Public Health Testing – PCR expensive does not enable quick testing is expensive result come transmission occurred Antibody testing CRISPR test based Vaccine in clinical trials

1

Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950

#USAIC20 Dr Andrew Plump, President of R&D, Takeda Pharmaceuticals COllaboration effort around the Globe in the Pandemic therapy solutions including Vaccines

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: