Biotech companies today are looking for nimble, community-focused campaigns that can reach multiple, discrete audiences who can drive change at the local and state level. This strategy is often the best chance companies have to ladder their messaging up through the competitive national policy landscape.

More proactive, localized stakeholder engagement will be essential on nearly every major policy and perception issue the industry is confronting, from restoring trust in science and protecting access to critical therapies and medicines to managing the growing role of AI in healthcare, maintaining pandemic preparedness, and capturing NIH funding.

Industry members that can demonstrate a strong capability to reach into diverse communities and understand the nuances among diaspora groups in key markets will be better positioned to navigate the policy and behavioral changes that must accompany innovation for the potential of that innovation to be realized.

Healthcare and biotechnology industry leaders at BIO 2024 had some advice for those looking to effect policy and behavioral change: the days of large, expensive, national public relations efforts are just about over.

Biotech companies today are looking for nimble, community-focused campaigns that can reach multiple, discrete audiences who can drive change at the local and state level. This strategy is often the best chance companies have to ladder their messaging up through the competitive national policy landscape.

A recurring theme during the conference was the belief that national PR health awareness campaigns relying on a single concept and a few major influencers may no longer be effective. With diverse communities receiving information from numerous sources and deep partisan divides on various issues, companies need to consider community-based campaigns with tailored messaging and hyper-local influencers instead of targeting more general audiences like “Seniors” or “Suburban Moms.”

The consensus of many policy experts was that public information campaigns in the future will need to be won state by state, city by city, and community by community. This is especially true on the issue that is keeping just about every innovative healthcare and biotechnology company up at night: How do we build back trust in science?

Inoculating Stakeholders against the “Infodemic”

One heavily attended panel tackled the issue of public mistrust in science with the question: Are we in the middle of an “infodemic?” Research has shown a widespread increase of misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes a lack of trust in physicians and scientists, an increase in conspiracy-mindedness, and the proliferation of various information sources. These factors affect the decisions about vaccinations and potentially lead to the use of non-evidence-based treatments.

Furthermore, the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on underrepresented communities has likely deepened mistrust in our country's medical infrastructure among those populations.

Several factors contribute to this infodemic, but panelists believe the two largest are media political agendas and Big Tech/social media companies' rolling back guardrails so vast proliferation of misinformation is becoming easier and faster.

A social media audit by #Unidos US also found that most misinformation originated from outside the U.S.

Panelists concurred we need to train a new generation of diverse healthcare professionals to deal with misinformation and help patients navigate the maze of health misinformation.

The Coalition for Trust in Health and Science has seen great success with a community-focused approach, where health experts and community leaders work together to create customized messaging and activities to change minds. In short, “The war on misinformation will not be won in the air; it's going to be won in the trenches, community to community.”

Protecting Therapies for Rare Diseases in Context of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)

The IRA created risk for rare disease treatments in a number of ways:

There is strong support for protecting rare disease treatments through the orphan drug exemption in the IRA, but there is a feeling that the exemption is too narrow. A rare disease drug may lose its exemption if it has broader implications.

Although the Administration has emphasized equity in healthcare policy, policymakers did not consider equity when designing the IRA, potentially negatively affecting some populations.

There was consensus on the need to more effectively involve the patient voice in Medicare drug negotiations, particularly as it concerns access to treatments for rare diseases. The current use of “listening sessions” has been ineffective, so there's a call for CMS to develop a more robust patient engagement program to ensure diverse patient voices are included in the discussion.

More needs to be done on the state and local level to raise the voice of those managing rare diseases to preserve access to a range of treatment options. Partnering these voices with medical researchers and healthcare professionals to drive policy on the local, state, and federal level will be critical to ensure these treatment options continue to grow.

Integrating Generative AI into the U.S. Healthcare System

Healthcare companies using generative AI to increase innovation continue to face several regulatory challenges. Perhaps the biggest barrier is the fragmentation of the US regulatory system. The FDA, FTC, and OCR, among other federal agencies, regulate our healthcare system, and states like California and Colorado also have their own requirements. This patchwork of regulatory frameworks only serves to exacerbate the core challenges of AI in healthcare: safety, identity protection, bias problems, and trust.

Another major concern is how to approve a technology that is constantly evolving. For instance, the FDA may determine that a medical device using generative AI is safe today, but as the device continues to evolve, will it still be safe next year, next month, or next week?

In addressing these issues, healthcare innovators are emphasizing to regulators and the public that generative AI is ultimately a tool and should never be viewed as a replacement for healthcare professionals. However, neither policymakers nor healthcare consumers are likely to simply take the industry at its word that AI is safe, effective, and drives better outcomes for patients. Along with investing in AI-driven innovation, industry members need to be investing in proactive stakeholder education to mitigate the potential for policy and reputational backlash as AI becomes more pervasive in healthcare.

Preparing for the Next Health Crisis

More needs to be done to stop the cycle of panic and neglect and prepare for the next pandemic. COVID-19 revealed gaps in international health tracking and security, highlighting the importance of international partnerships.

However, international regulatory harmonization remains challenging, including finding better ways to streamline and integrate supply chains and share information. Additionally, as time passes after the pandemic, policymakers may prioritize other issues over pandemic readiness.

Trust is a major barrier to success in preparing for the next health crisis—trust that public officials have the public’s best interest at heart while developing and enforcing policies that affect their daily lives. When it comes to public health, we are learning that the messenger is just as important as the message. While the science may be sound, public health officials and industry leaders need to be thinking through who the most trusted voices are to carry these messages at a community level.

The U.S. has made significant progress in improving our pandemic response system, including:

Bringing manufacturing for vital PPE and medical supplies back into the U.S.
Restocking and expanding our Strategic National Stockpile of medical supplies
Strengthening our international partnerships on the R&D side

Unless the public sees and understands the value of these efforts and advocates for continued investment in strengthening our pandemic readiness, the necessary political will is likely to decline as voter attention focuses on other issues. Stakeholders need to see other members of their communities engaging in the conversation and actively working to move pandemic preparedness forward.

NIH Support for Minority Health

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) will roll out several programs in the next 24 months to increase representation and inclusion of historically underserved communities, from assisting minority-owned biotech companies in driving health innovations to increasing participation of diverse communities in clinical trials and more:

NIH aims to fund more geographically diverse companies beyond Northern California and the Northeast to ensure that innovators across the country have the opportunity to develop their technology and therapeutics.

Companies in research-heavy centers that have successfully completed Phase 1 trials are encouraged to contact NIH for funding to bring trials to underserved groups, including LGBTQ, Middle Eastern, and Native American populations.

Companies seeking NIH funding for AI-based technologies should be prepared to answer a fundamental question: “Where are you sourcing your data?” NIH has growing concerns about AI bias, especially concerning minority groups, and will closely examine the datasets used to develop new technologies.

Industry members that can demonstrate a strong capability to reach into diverse communities and understand the nuances among diaspora groups in key markets will be better positioned to benefit from these programs. They will also be better positioned to cultivate trust with key stakeholder audiences as they navigate the policy and behavioral changes that must accompany innovation.

DDC has unique expertise, approaches, and capabilities for engaging diverse local audiences on healthcare policy, reputational issues, and innovations. Contact us to learn more.

The Future of Healthcare Hinges on Local Community Engagement