Healthcare Business Review Weekly Brief
Be first to read the latest tech news, Industry Leader's Insights, and CIO interviews of medium and large enterprises exclusively from Healthcare Business Review
Regenerative medicine solutions help clinicians address tissue repair and recovery through advanced therapeutic approaches. With a focus on treatment safety, biological quality, clinical evaluation and patient monitoring, they support stronger healing pathways and more personalized care.
Regenerative medicine is revolutionizing medicine, aiming to repair, replace or restore damaged tissues, cells and organs. Regenerative medicine seeks to help the body heal and repair itself as opposed to symptom management, which is the goal of traditional medicine.
Regenerative medicine buying decisions often begin before a treatment reaches a clinic. The harder question is whether the surrounding system can support accurate diagnosis and competent delivery while maintaining responsible patient selection. New procedures may sit outside standard insurance pathways, while physician familiarity varies widely across specialties and regions. That leaves buyers evaluating more than a device or therapy. They must assess whether the provider can connect education with treatment access without creating avoidable gaps between promise and practice.
A bit of context, I am an engineer by education. I have been in healthcare for 25 years, first working for medical oncologists in a private practice. I was with that group for 16 years. The practice was an innovative and forward-thinking group; I was hired to help them implement an EMR before EMRs were mainstream. Over time, I found myself less interested in the systems and software and more interested in learning and understanding oncology. I would tell the physicians that, while the EMR would help them practice medicine better, the true value is that the data collected would help them run their business better and inform them of clinical “behaviors.” That held true in the latter years, when the practice was in financial straits, and it was the data that identified some of the issues. I ascended to managing the overall practice and was asked to address the financial issues. While I was able to stabilize the practice, the marketplace was changing. Bigger institutions were coming into the practice catchment area and shifting the market unfavorably to the group. In 2016, I/we sold the practice to the University of Pennsylvania Health System. I had no intentions of staying with Penn; I was going to go do something on my own. Before that happened, I met Dr. David Porter, the Director of BMT, who had a vision of developing a freestanding Center for Cell Therapy that supports these treatments beyond cancer. That’s where we are today.
