Category: Biotechnology

Are Massachusetts’ Medical Records Good Enough to Help Fight Ebola?

  By , ,

Electronic medical records are meant to be helpful for all medical professionals. However, if we look at the case of the first person to die from Ebola in America, some of these records are clearly not up to snuff . When Thomas Eric Duncan went into the hospital complaining of not feeling well, he noted that he had been to West Africa. Hospital staff did not blink an eye, and his medical records did not flag him as a health risk. This incident illustrates the point that a gap in the system exists, and that this must be addressed in all medical facilities across the state and the nation.

When medical professionals are accessing electronic medical records, they need to be presented with system alerts that will tell them what the best protocol dictates. If you put a dangerous travel location into the system, it should warn you of imminent danger. People who have traveled to Africa during the Ebola epidemic should be flagged immediately, and the medical system should be prepared to warn doctors and nurses of travel advisories.

These advisories should be no different than the travel advisories issued by the State Department. These records can help doctors and nurses treat people more quickly, but they are useless if they are not noted properly. Perhaps, if Thomas Eric Duncan had gone to another hospital, it is possible that properly notated medical records could have saved his life. Also, it is possible that the system could have saved people who might have been exposed inside the hospital.

Electronic medical records in Massachusetts are very clever, but they are not quite strong enough to protect all doctors, nurses and patients. These medical record systems need to be fitted with travel advisories and other alerts that will warn medical professionals of a potential threat. This could save further lives and prevent an epidemic here in America.

AbbVie-Shire Deal Dies, Causes Fallout for Massachusetts

  By ,

Last month, the U.S. Treasury took action to make tax inversion deals less profitable. This is cited as a primary reason AbbVie reportedly dropped plans to acquire Shire. This decision calls into question another deal similarly based on tax inversion involving Medtronic and Covidien.

In the wake of the news, Shire’s stock price dropped by roughly a third. The odds are poor that Shire will get a similarly lucrative offer again. Analysts suggest this may be an opportunity for local biotech firms, such as Acceleron, a Cambridge firm currently in partnership with Shire.

In addition to that angle, there is speculation that Shire may move its U.S. headquarters from its current location in Pennsylvania to Massachusetts. This is due in part to its local growth. Their employee base here has reached 1425 in total.

On the other hand, the failure of this deal may throw up obstacles to such a move by putting more attention on Shire’s own drug pipeline. It was recently announced that the FDA wants more pediatric data on the ADHD medication they are currently developing. This represents yet another delay in the approval process. Like so many drugs aimed at children, this one has already had a drawn out process filled with setbacks and delays.

In spite of some mixed opinions among industry analysts, the general consensus seems to be that the deal involving Covidien and Medtronic will still go through. Even after the U.S. Treasury made such deals less profitable, Medtronic continued to develop its financing plans for the deal. Based on that fact, that deal looks pretty solid and unlikely to fail. However, it is on less firm ground than it first enjoyed. Therefore, should there be further tax law developments or other changes that undermine such deals, it could still fall through. Still, the strategic underpinnings of the deal have been called “compelling” by Jefferies analyst Raj Denhoy.

With the expected closing just a few short months away in early 2015, each passing day will make it all the harder for either party to pull out of the deal.

Did the $525,000,000 Massachusetts Poured Into Biotech Generate 571 or 17,994 Jobs?

  By , , ,

Yes? No? Maybe? The state of Massachusetts has spent $525 million encouraging the development of the state’s biotech industry, just over half of the $1 billion budgeted for this purpose. This public investment is being applied to grants, tax breaks and business loans for companies planning on moving to Massachusetts or expanding their operations in the state, and is intended to encourage a healthier state economy. But, just how many jobs are really being created by this taxpayer investment?

One academic study by Pioneer Institute claims that Massachusetts’ $525 million directly created only 571 new jobs in life science industries. This figure applies to a period starting in 2009 and ending in 2013. In contrast, consider a study from Northeastern University that claims that between 2006 and 2012, life sciences and related industries added 17,944 jobs in the state. While Northeastern’s period of study doesn’t exactly match Pioneer Institute’s, the astounding variance of the results illustrate that questions remain about public investment Massachusetts biotech industry.

Questions need to be answered. Should the government of Massachusetts take tax dollars collected from businesses and individuals and give them to other businesses? Should government be picking industry winners and consequently with businesses that pay taxes but don’t receive tax breaks and cash investment by government losers? If government should take money from some businesses and give it to other businesses, should the alleged investment be made from politicians who are being lobbied by special interests or independent professionals?

Creating new jobs isn’t the only way public incentives can aid select businesses and potentially the economy of Massachusetts. Specifically for a more complete picture of how biotech incentives are working, other questions should be answered. For example, one could ask how much private capital biotech firms have attracted and what kinds of returns backers have seen on their investments.

It is also useful to ask how much extra tax revenues the state may see from capital gains. Until questions like these are answered, it will remain impossible to know just how much Massachusetts has received for its $525 million biotech investment.