08 Jun 2022
'The working models are very different in the US and EU'
To give you the inside track in digital health, we speak to some of the most interesting voices in the sector to get a sense of what they see in the market.
This week, we spoke to Francesca Wuttke, founder and chief executive of nen and a member of our DTx community advisory board, which sets the agenda for our meetings.
As someone who has moved 'across the table' from pharma to digital entrepreneurship, what are the biggest differences between the two approaches?
Speed. Without a doubt, the pace at which things move in a startup has nothing to do with pharma. In four months we have achieved more than we could have in two years in pharma or any corporate in my experience.
What are the main misconceptions within pharma about working with digital health entrepreneurs?
That they are just 'techie' and don’t understand anything about solving their problems. I have found digital health startups to be far more in tune with their customers (patients, providers).
However, startups tend not to understand how pharma works - long sales cycles, compliance, the need for multiple sign-offs at various meetings and committees, pace of progress, and most importantly your champion may not hold the budget and then your collaboration is likely dead in the water. That frustrates them and makes for poor and short-lived partnerships.
Another problem with pharm and digital health collaborations is the high turnover in pharma often kills the momentum of projects. When one person leaves, the projects tend to be side-lined.
Vice-versa, what are the main misconceptions within digital health about pharma?
That pharma has all the answers.
The role and importance of clinical evidence is a constant question within digital health, particularly in areas such as oncology. How do you think digital startups should look at gathering evidence when compared with a more traditional pharmaceutical approach?
I think the completeness of pharma-level data capture and clinical trial management should be something that startups could learn from Pharma.
However, as with everything in life, both parties can share their approaches, and maybe a happy medium could be established. It also is very dependent on the start-up's offering. For example, if it is a wellness tool then it will not require the same degree of scientific rigor as say a DTx.
With experience working in both Europe and the US, what are the most relevant differences between the two when it comes to digital health? Is it possible to create a strategy that can serve both?
The working models and paying models are very different in the US and EU.
In the US there is more of a willingness to pay for healthcare costs and in the EU the assumption is that it should all be paid for.
The importance of value-based care is starting to take precedence in the US but groups such as NICE are still more prevalent in the EU. The pharmacoeconomic burden will continue to be a hurdle for digital health solutions and will be something that startups will have to plan for and take into account.
If you want to take part in this Q+A or would like to recommend someone, please email [email protected]