OECD “ Nanotech for Health ” case study - Flanders – intermediate status May 10, 2012 OECD Conference Ce

1. 2nd TIP Workshop on Smart Specialization strategies for innovation-driven growth OECD “Nanotech for Health” case study - Flanders – intermediate status May 10, 2012 OECD Conference Center Paris

2. Structure of the presentation Short positioning Nanotech for Health: an emerging and promising market NfH in Flanders: the methodological approach A snapshot at a first result (impact measurement)

3. Short positioning • * NfH is a typical case of “Radical Creation”. • * It is an emerging market, but with big growth potential. • * Very cross-sector & cross-disciplinary oriented. • * Strong scientific and clinical basis, but still disconnected to a large extend. • * Combination of nanotech providers and nanotech adopters • * Translation into economic activity is main challenge. • * NfH specialization offers basis for differentiation in the overall health focus, • present in almost all policy notes across the world. • * Need for smart specialization teams, methodology and criteria.

4. 1. Nanotech for Health: an emerging and promising market

5. What is NfH? • “Nanotechnology for Health” (NfH) uses nanoscale or nanostructured materials and devices to enable better personalized diagnosis, better targeted therapies and more efficient biomedical research. • They constitute enabling platforms for personalized, targeted and regenerative medicine, for new diagnostic approaches and will enable the next level in developing and delivering new drugs, treatments, implantable devices and for regenerative medicine (see ETPN NanoMedicine White Paper). • NfH will contribute to better designed bio-process flows and in-line monitoring (metrology).

6. An expanding NfH market • The critical need for new or improved treatments for many medical conditions will increasingly require the adoption of nanotechnology to an expanding number of biomedical products. • Advances in nanotechnology will expand product ranges in the areas of drug discovery, disease modeling and bio-pharma research. • Nanotechnology is expected to contribute to substantial improvements of quality, performance and efficiency of medical diagnostic products, in many cases at lower costs (3 innovation vectors). • NfH will also play a crucial role in allowing for cost effective healthcare: a huge challenge! Source: Freedonia report (2011)

7. NfH global market in time perspective (*) Assuming 10 year development cycle Source: EU / Nanomedicine ETP

8. InnovationHubs in Flanders

9. NfH in the European landscape • Europe has a broad mix of research centers, pharma companies , med-tech firms and healthcare providers with a strong position in NfH. • Public support for NfH at the EU level is being provided by the FP7 program, including the Nanomedicine ETP. NfH is also a priority theme for Horizon 2020 (FP8). • Nanomedicine in Europe is developing at a time where open innovation is a strong evolution of industrial-academic interface for achieving efficient translation of research results into products. • Smart specialization is an important policy rationale and concept for innovation policy. NfH is expected to become a major theme for future smart specialization actions.

10. 2. The methodological approach

11. Objectives: • To explore the innovative power at the intersections of different dimensions: • Medical technologies versus Pathologies (MESH taxonomy – series C) • Nanotechnologies versus Medical technologies • To create a taxonomy supported by all parties. (large confusion in many studies • between nanotechnologies and medical technologies). • 3. To get an expert opinion on future expected (major) improvements (along 3 major • innovation drivers: performance, efficiency and cost reduction) at the • meaningful intersections of both Pathologies and Medical technologies and • Nanotechnologies and Medical technologies and such from 3 major categories: • the care providers (all university hospitals) +payors + association of GPs • (all) universities and research centers such as VIB & imec. • Industry (along 9 different nodes of the value chain) •  impact measurement.

12. Objectives: • 4. To get an self-assessment input about the specialization profiles of the different • target groups (3) in the region at: • At the intersections between medical technologies and pathologies for the care • providers (university hospitals); • The intersections between nanotechnologiesand medical technologies for the • academia & research centers as well as for the industry. • Such specialization input is asked twice: for the current moment and for the ambition • within 5 years from now. This should allow us to get a dynamic picture. • 5. In the end, the purpose is to compare: • - the impact measurement along the different intersections and between the • the different target groups; • - the specialization profiles between care providers, universities & research • centers and industry (both now and within 5 years) • - the impact versus specialization outcomes (strengths, fits, white spots, ...)

13. Objectives: 6. Interviews supported by FlandersBio and DSP-Valley. 7 First contacts are laid with cross-border actors from the ELAT configuration ( Eindhoven, Maastricht) in the Netherlands. TUe & Philips Health are participating. 8. Getting further support for the methodology, which was also handed over to BioRN in Heidelberg in the context of cooperation between Leuven and Heidelberg in the area of healthcare, for further analysis. 9. Draw impact and specialization maps, consolidated per target group. 10. Derive conclusions and recommendations for the government.

14. Stakeholders dialogue (TUe) UZ Maastricht Cross-border Stakeholders- dialogue Heidelberg Others ?

15. NfH – case study approach Phase 1: Impact measurement – deadline end May 2012

16. Table 1.1. Expert Opinion on the expected impact of medical technologies on pathologies(at the intersection of Medical Technologies & Pathologies) IM,Pa=NM,PaxPRM,Pa IM,Pa= expected impact (within next 5 years) of each Medical Technology M on health care (per pathology) NM,Pa = f(PM,Pa;EM,Pa;CM,Pa): expected improvement (innovation factor) of medical technology M on pathology Pa within a 5 years horizon . Define which of the following innovation criteria (if any) applies: PM,Pa = considerable (>15%) medical service performance improvement expected from medical technology M for Pa EM,Pa = considerable (>15%) medical efficiency (speed of operations) improvement expected from medical technology M for Pa CM,Pa = considerable (>15%) medical health care cost reduction expected from medical technology M for Pa PRM,Pa= priority of this particular combination of medical technology M and pathology Pa, relative to all other combinations of medical technologies and pathologies (priority differentiation): Low ; medium medium or high (maximum 20% of answers for “high”)

17. Table 2.1/3.1. Expert opinion of acedemic/industrial experts of the expected impact of nanotechnologies on medical technologies(at the intersection of Nanotechnologies & Medical Technologies) • INA,M =NNA,Mx PRNA,M • INA,M= impactof nanotechnology NA on medical technology M. • NNA,M = f(PNA, ENA,CNA): expectedimprovement(innovation factor) of medical technology M from • nanotechnology NA - within a 5 years horizon. • Define which of the following criteria (if any) applies, if any: • PNA = considerable (>15%) medical performance & scalability improvement expected from nanotechnology NA • ENA = considerable (>15%) medical efficiency (speed) improvement expected from nanotechnology NA • CNA= considerable (>15%) medical health care cost reduction expected from nanotechnology NA • PRNA,M= priority of this particular combination of nanotechnology NA and medical technology M, • relative to all other combinations of nanotechnologies and medical technologies (priority differentiation): • Low, medium or high (maximum 20% of answers can be “high”)

18. NfH – case study approach Phase 2: Specialization measurement – deadline end August 2012

19. Table 1.2.a Medical technologies vs pathologies: specialization of university Hospitals & Pharma(self-assessment current situation) SM,Pa = IM,Pax CMM,PaxBM,Pa SM,Pa: specialization in medical technology M for pathology P IM= expected impact on health care of medical technology M CMM,Pa=critical mass (critical mass assessment): judged as belonging to the European upper quartile in medical technology M measured for none or one or more of the following criteria: (A) number of medical staff & critical mass clinical infrastructure, (B) number of patients and (C) quantity of S&T output and (D) number of clinical trials. BM,Pa: benchmarking (0 – 5) : quality assessment of medical technology M for pathology Pa 0: below European average 1: European average 2: above European average 3: substantially above European average (upper quartile) 4: belonging to the European top-3 5: belonging to the worldwide top-3

20. Table 1.2.b Medical technologies vs pathologies: specialization of university Hospitals & Pharma(self-assessment future ambition – 5 year horizon) SM,Pa = IM,Pax CMM,PaxBM,Pa SM,Pa: specialization in medical technology M for pathology P IM= expected impact on health care of medical technology M CMM,Pa=critical mass (critical mass assessment): judged as belonging to the European upper quartile in medical technology M measured for none or one or more of the following criteria: (A) number of medical staff & critical mass clinical infrastructure, (B) number of patients and (C) quantity of S&T output and (D) number of clinical trials. BM,Pa: benchmarking (0 – 5) : quality assessment of medical technology M for pathology Pa 0: below European average 1: European average 2: above European average 3: substantially above European average (upper quartile) 4: belonging to the European top-3 5: belonging to the worldwide top-3

21. SNA,M = INA,Mx CMNA,Mx BNA,M SNA,M=specialization nanotechnology NA in academia for medical technology M. INA,M= expected impact. CMNA,M = critical mass (critical mass self-assessment) judged as belonging to the European upper quartile in nanotechnology NA for medical technology M, applicable for none or one or more of the following criteria: (A) number of researchers, (B) S&T output , (C) research infrastructure and (D) level of external revenues. BNA,M = quality benchmark factor (0-5) for nanotechnology NA for medical technology M 0: below European average 1: European average 2: above European average 3: substantially above European average (upper quartile) 4: belonging to the European top-3 5: belonging to the worldwide top-3 Table 2.1.a Academic specialization in NfH(self-assessment current situation)

22. SNA,M = INA,Mx CMNA,Mx BNA,M SNA,M=specialization nanotechnology NA in academia for medical technology M. INA,M= expected impact. CMNA,M = critical mass (critical mass self-assessment) judged as belonging to the European upper quartile in nanotechnology NA for medical technology M, applicable for none or one or more of the following criteria: (A) number of researchers, (B) S&T output , (C) research infrastructure and (D) level of external revenues. BNA,M = quality benchmark factor (0-5) for nanotechnology NA for medical technology M 0: below European average 1: European average 2: above European average 3: substantially above European average (upper quartile) 4: belonging to the European top-3 5: belonging to the worldwide top-3 Table 2.1.b Academic specialization in NfH(self-assessment future ambition – 5 years horizon)

23. NfH – case study approach Phase 3: Conclusions & Recommendations - December 2012 • Analysis of the data and description of lessons learned in terms of smart specialization: • data processing by ECOOM (KULeuven) • Possible suggestions for further strengthening the NfH position in the Flanders region. • Policy recommendations: working group set-up to prepare this, based upon the outcome • of the mappings. • Possible extensions (not yet confirmed) of a cross-border analysis with the Netherlands • (TUe, UH Maastricht), partly in the context of a BioMed EIT-KIC and with Heidelberg.

24. Value chain nodes of NfH Bio-Pharma Bio-tech Bio-materials Bio-instrumentation Medical Devices Medical systems & imaging BAN & remote monitoring Semiconductors for biomed applications Design & embedded systems for biomed applications

25. ECO-SYSTEM APPROACHED • Flanders: • Care providers: 4 University Hospitals, 2 major Payors, DomusMedica (GP association) • 5 universities, VIB, imec, VITO • about 30 companies, spread over 9 nodes of the NfH value chain. • Cross-border: • talks with Heidelberg (D) • commitment from TUe & Philips Health (Nl). • talks with Maastricht (Nl)

26. Health Care in Flanders For the coordination and implementation of the Flanders Health Care policy, FLANDERS CARE has been created. The main focus up to now was on ICT for Health and evidence based medicine, much in line with the objectives of the EIP- Active Healthy Ageing. The NfHis bound to become a second pillar in the Flanders Care approach. Flanders Care will be involved in a Task Force on recommendations following on the NfH case study.

27. 3. A snapshot of first results from the impact measurement

29. Impact measurement – Care Providers (C, weighted)

31. Impact measurement Academia (PEC & weighted PR)