Reprogramming mature human cells so they can become any cell type in the body is a key focus of the new Pluripotent Stem Cell Facility at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
Read the full story »Get the latest news on lifescience topics.
Advice on how to obtain funding for your company.
Expert guidance on a wide-array of topics.
Sources that can help your company succeed.
Video snippets on a range of lifescience topics.
According to a recent survey of more than 700 health care executives conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers Health Industries Group, 76 percent indicated that the information gathered in electronic health records (EHRs) will be their biggest asset in the next five years. Unfortunately, as is discussed in a January 27, 2010 article in Advance for Health Information Executives, “few organizations are establishing processes to effectively use the massive amount of data being collected. As the amount of waste created by poor databases and outdated technology systems draws increased scrutiny, and as the baby boomer generation draws closer to the critical age of increased care, it must become a top priority for health care entities to invest in improving overall system efficiencies. It is time to correct the high cost of poor patient data.”
Hundreds to thousands of data silos exist within a hospitals technology infrastructure. Unfortunately, not all are able to talk with each other or can provide consistent, standardized data that can be effectively shared across the network. The challenge is exacerbated by the fact that traditional legacy databases employed by most health care systems simply don’t have the capacity or capability to keep up with the amount of data being processed today. As a result, in many cases, data errors and inconsistencies are prevalent across the data repositories.
One example shared in the Advance for HIE article was of a hospital that had a database of more than 1.1 million patient records on file. The marketing department would use the database for direct mail efforts. An analysis of the database found more than “437,000 duplicate records as defined by the organization. With each mailing, the marketing department ran the risk of sending more than 11,000 undeliverable pieces and delivering the same piece twice to more than 218,000 households. By simply executing recommended first-class and standard-rate drops, the hospital would begin saving between $111,000 and $154,000 per mailing.”
The article points out that the costs of poor data extend beyond the costs of a postage stamp,impacting department efficiencies, patient satisfaction, and hospital performance. Poor patient data actually reduces the likelihood that donor requests, and patient bills and collection notices actually reach their intended recipients.
The example in the article is likely played out in hospitals across the country. While poor patient data is an industry challenge, it also presents a variety of opportunities for health care information technology professionals, entrepreneurs and start-up organizations to provide services and develop solutions to aid an industry that has been slow to embrace IT innovation. Improving patient data and overall business intelligence will have a positive impact on health care providers ability to effectively service their patients, as well as promote industry-wide adoption of EHRs.
Visit http://health-care-it.advanceweb.com to read the entire article, The High Cost of Poor Patient Data.
Recently, BIOSTART launched a new health services initiative. In a Fall 2009 press release, Carol Frankenstein, president of BIOSTART, commented on the initiative, “In the U.S., companies and governments are focusing intensely on controlling health care costs. Due to economic globalization, this trend is likely to continue for the foreseeable future – regardless of the shape that health care reform takes. As efficiency becomes a driving force in our health care system, there will be an increasing demand for innovative companies that deliver better outcomes for patients while controlling costs. BIOSTART is employing the model it has successfully used to create drug and medical device companies to jump start young technology-driven Ohio companies to capitalize on demand for these services.”
BIOSTART empowers young life science companies with a proven mix of business and scientific know-how, effective services, and cutting edge laboratory facilities.
Lisa Kurek, Managing Partner at BBC Etc., provides you high-level overview of SBIR and STTR grants in the 8 minute video interview.
In his January article on Xconomy Boston, David R. Walt, Robinson Professor of Chemistry at Tufts University, and a co-founder, director, and chairman of the scientific advisory board of San Diego-based Illumina, briefly touched on “five transformational biotechnologies coming in the future.”
Ask anyone who has worked in marketing or sales for a pharmaceutical manufacturer what the greatest obstacle is to gaining market share and you’ll hear ‘habit’. In fact, changing physicians’ prescribing habits has not become easier despite the advent of technological strategies (i.e. e-detailing), or the myriad of creative sales force configurations.
Title: Medical Device IP: Making Successful calls from the IP Playbook
Location: Columbus, Ohio
THE PATH TO COMMERCIALIZATION: 2010 SEMINAR SERIES
GCIC takes it seminar series on the road in 2010. It provides a forum for members of …
When it comes to starting and building a life science company, founders and early employees are often focused exclusively on research and development and the next round of funding. They have a firm understanding of their product vision, what that product will do, who it will help and the market they are trying to reach. Unfortunately, few understand the importance, effort and costs associated with commercialization, or getting a finished product to market. All too often, they approach the commercialization process with a false sense of confidence, taking the Field of Dreams approach, “If I build it, they will come.”
When it comes to starting and building a life science company, founders and early employees are often focused exclusively on research and development and the next round of funding. They have a firm understanding of their product vision, what that product will do, who it will help and the market they are trying to reach. Unfortunately, few understand the importance, effort and costs associated with commercialization, or getting a finished product to market. All too often, they approach the commercialization process with a false sense of confidence, taking the Field of Dreams approach, “If I build it, they will come.”
When it comes to starting and building a life science company, founders and early employees are often focused exclusively on research and development and the next round of funding. They have a firm understanding of their product vision, what that product will do, who it will help and the market they are trying to reach. Unfortunately, few understand the importance, effort and costs associated with commercialization, or getting a finished product to market. All too often, they approach the commercialization process with a false sense of confidence, taking the Field of Dreams approach, “If I build it, they will come.”
