Rationale and Objectives
Innovation and entrepreneurship in health care can help solve the current health care crisis by creating products and services that improve quality and convenience while reducing costs.
Materials and Methods
To effectively drive innovation and entrepreneurship within the current health care delivery environment, academic institutions will need to provide education, promote networking across disciplines, align incentives, and adapt institutional cultures. This article provides a general review of entrepreneurship and commercialization from the perspective of academic radiology departments, drawing on information sources in several disciplines including radiology, medicine, law, and business.
Conclusions
Our review will discuss the role of universities in supporting academic entrepreneurship, identify drivers of entrepreneurship, detail opportunities for academic radiologists, and outline key strategies that foster greater involvement of radiologists in entrepreneurial efforts and encourage leadership to embrace and support entrepreneurship.
Health care innovation offers incredible potential for solving many of the complex and pressing problems that physicians are facing today, such as an increasing proportion of patients with chronic diseases, childhood and adult obesity, and an aging population. New diagnostic and treatment paradigms in the United States spurred a 4% increase in life expectancy, 16% decrease in annual mortality rates, and 25% decline in disability rates for the elderly from 1980 to 2000 . However, the cost of delivering health care in the United States has increased at an alarming rate with many health policy analysts indicating that the adoption of new and advanced health care technologies is one of the primary drivers . Moreover, advanced diagnostic imaging modalities such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography have been targeted as expensive health care technologies responsible for driving up costs, despite their integral role in producing substantially better health care. As a result, the field of radiology has been significantly impacted by decreases in reimbursement and a prolonged decline in imaging volume .
The critical role of innovation in health care is relevant to academic radiologists for two reasons. First, as a result of the current health care crisis, academic radiology departments are likely to experience further declines in reimbursement and volume without broadly applicable strategies to compensate for financial losses that will eventually (if not already) impact the academic mission. Second, given that imaging is widely used and plays an integral role in patient care, entrepreneurial radiologists are well positioned to drive innovation in imaging technologies and services. The purpose of this article was to provide a general review of entrepreneurship and commercialization in the academic setting in an effort to increase awareness, foster greater involvement of radiologists in entrepreneurial efforts at their institutions, and encourage leadership to embrace and support entrepreneurship. This review provided by the Entrepreneurship and Commercialization Task Force draws on information sources in several disciplines including radiology, medicine, law, and business. Although written specifically for radiologists in academia, several sections provide a broader perspective because of a relative paucity of information specific to academic entrepreneurship for radiologists.
Role of universities in supporting academic entrepreneurship
The general mission of an academic institution is twofold: to advance scientific knowledge and to share this knowledge for the benefit of the society. This latter ambition typically comes in the form of training students who then spread out into different sectors hosting conferences, consulting and collaborating with public and private interests, and publishing research results. Often overlooked is the intellectual property (IP) patented by academicians and licensed to private industry, a form of information transfer that can have significant societal and economic impact . This arrangement can have numerous beneficiaries; principals, and shareholders benefit from the direct financial success of the product, while researchers see wider and more rapid adoption of their ideas and concomitant academic recognition.
History
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
University Policies
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Table 1
Royalty Distribution Policies for the Top 10 Patent-Producing Universities and University Systems in the United States
University Royalties Inventor Laboratory, Department, or Campus School and University System Technology Licensing or Transfer Administrative Fee University of California — 35% of net royalties 15% to the inventor’s campus or laboratory — — Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 33% of net royalties 50% distributed among departments and centers — 15% from gross royalty income California Institute of Technology — 25% of net royalties — — — University of Texas — 50% of net royalties — 50% to the university system — Stanford University — 33% of net royalties 33% to the inventor’s department 33% to the inventor’s school 15% from gross royalty income University of Wisconsin — 20% of gross royalties 15% to department 65% to graduate school — Johns Hopkins University — 15% of net royalties 15% to inventor’s laboratory and 30% to inventor’s department 5% to the inventor’s school — University of Michigan Net royalties up to $200,000 50% of net royalties 17% to the originating unit 18% to the originating school, college, division, or center 15% to the central administration Net royalties between $200,000 and $2 million 30% of net royalties 20% to the originating unit 25% to the originating school, college, division, or center 25% to the central administration Net royalties greater than $2 million 30% of net royalties — 35% to the originating school, college, division, or center 35% to the central administration Cornell University Net royalties 33.3% of net royalties 19.8% to the inventor’s research budget, subunit, and university unit 13.2% to the university 33.3% Columbia University Net royalties less than $100,000 50% of net royalties 25% to the inventor’s research and innovation account 25% to the central university 20% of gross royalties Net royalties greater than $100,000 25% of net royalties 25% to the inventor’s research and innovation account; 8.5% to the inventor’s department 8.5% to the inventor’s school and 33% to the central university 20% of gross royalties
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Shifting to Start-ups
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Entrepreneurship in the academic environment
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Entrepreneurs
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Entrepreneurs and Their Teams
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Radiologist Entrepreneurs
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Institutional Environment
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
External Factors
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Internal Factors
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Knowledge and Experiential Programs
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Institutional Culture
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Institutional Policies Affecting Entrepreneurship and IP Protection
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Incentives for Entrepreneurial Academic Radiologists
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Academic Affiliation for Entrepreneurial Radiologists
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Commercializing discoveries
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Exit Strategy
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Opportunities for entrepreneurial academic radiologists
Information Technology
Background
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Opportunities
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Unique Characteristics
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Medical Devices
Background
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Opportunities
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Unique Characteristics
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Pharmaceuticals
Background
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Opportunities
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Unique Characteristics
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Disruptive Innovations
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Conclusions
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Acknowledgments
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
References
1. The Value of Investment in Health Care, MEDTAP International. Available at: http://www.aha.org/aha/content/2004/PowerPoint/ValuePresentation.ppt . Accessed July 21, 2014.
2. Ginsberg P.B.: Controlling health care costs. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: pp. 1591-1593.
3. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, A data book: healthcare spending and the Medicare program; June 2013. Available at: http://www.medpac.gov/documents/Jun13DataBookEntireReport.pdf . Accessed July 21, 2014.
4. Association Of University Technology Managers United States Licensing Activity Survey Fiscal Year 2012 Highlights. Available at: http://www.autm.net/AM/Template.cfm?Section=FY2012_Licensing_Activity_Survey&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=11435 . Accessed July 21, 2014.
5. Loscalzo J.: Entrepreneurship in the medical academy: possibilities and challenges in commercialization of research discoveries. Circulation 2007; 115: pp. 1504-1507.
6. Markel H.: Patents, profits, and the American people—the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: pp. 794-796.
7. Grimaldi R., Kenney M., Siegel D.S., et. al.: 30 years after Bayh–Dole: reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy 2011; 40: pp. 1045-1057.
8. Valdivia WD. University Start-Ups: Critical for improving technology transfer. Available at: http://www.brookings.edu/∼/media/research/files/papers/2013/11/start%20ups%20tech%20transfer%20valdivia/valdivia_tech%20transfer_v29_no%20embargo.pdf . Accessed July 21, 2014.
9. Malakoff D.: The many ways of making academic research pay off. Science 2013; 339: pp. 750-753.
10. Kenney M., Patton D.: Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the current university invention ownership model. Research Policy 2009; 38: pp. 1407-1422.
11. Siegel D.S., Waldman D.A., Atwater L.E., et. al.: Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. J Eng Technol Manage 2004; 21: pp. 115-142.
12. Lexa F.J.: Medical entrepreneurism: the current opportunity in America. J Am Coll Radiol 2004; 1: pp. 762-768.
13. Lexa F.J., Lexa F.J.: Physician-entrepreneurship: a user’s manual, Part 1: critical questions for early-stage medical ventures. J Am Coll Radiol 2005; 2: pp. 607-612.
14. Clarysse B., Tartari V., Salter A.: The impact of entrepreneurial capacity, experience and organizational support on academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy 2011; 40: pp. 1084-1093.
15. Hsu D.H.: Experienced entrepreneurial founders, organizational capital, and venture capital funding. Research Policy 2007; 36: pp. 722-741.
16. Fini R., Grimaldi R., Marzocchi G.L., et. al.: The determinants of corporate entrepreneurial intention within small and newly established firms. Entrep Theory Pract 2012; 36: pp. 387-414.
17. Katzenbach J.R.: The wisdom of teams: creating the high-performance organization.1st ed.1999.HarperBusinessNew York, NY
18. Boh WF, De-Haan U, Strom R. University Technology Transfer Through Entrepreneurship: Faculty and students in spinoffs. Social Science Research Network Electronic Journal [Internet]. Available at: http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2125203 . Accessed July 21, 2014.
19. Colyvas J.A., Powell W.W.: From vulnerable to venerated: the institutionalization of academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences. Res Sociol Org 2007; 25: pp. 219-259.
20. Stuart T.E., Ding W.W.: When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. Am J Sociol 2006; 112: pp. 97-144.
21. Gunderman R.B.: Academic time and the future of radiology. J Am Coll Radiol 2007; 4: pp. 267-269.
22. Goldfarb B., Henrekson M.: Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy 2003; 32: pp. 639-658.
23. Patino R.M.: Moving research to patient applications through commercialization: understanding and evaluating the role of intellectual property. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 2010; 49: pp. 147-154.
24. From Idea to Patent, Radiologist inventors share their insight. Available at: http://www.rsna.org/NewsDetail.aspx?id=4441 . Accessed July 21, 2014.
25. Lemke H.U.: A network of medical workstations for integrated word and picture communication in clinical medicine, technical report.1979.Technical University BerlinBerlin
26. Avrin D.E., Urbania T.H.: Demise of film. Acad Radiol 2014; 21: pp. 303-304.
27. Mendelson D.S., Rubin D.L.: Imaging informatics: essential tools for the delivery of imaging services. Acad Radiol 2013; 20: pp. 1195-1212.
28. Radiologic Society of North America Image Share. Available at: http://www.rsna.org/Image_Share.aspx . Accessed July 21, 2014.
29. Smith S.W., Sfekas A.: How much do physician-entrepreneurs contribute to new medical devices?. Med Care 2013; 51: pp. 461-467.
30. Chatterji A.K., Fabrizio K.R., Mitchell W., et. al.: Physician-industry cooperation in the medical device industry. Health Aff (Millwood) 2008; 27: pp. 1532-1543.
31. Chan M., Estève D., Fourniols J.-Y., et. al.: Smart wearable systems: current status and future challenges. Artif Intell Med 2012; 56: pp. 137-156.
32. Petkova H, Schanker B, Samaha D, Hansen J. Background Paper 6 of the Priority Medical Devices Project: barriers to innovation in the field of medical devices. Geneva: World Health Organization. Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2010/WHO_HSS_EHT_DIM_10.6_eng.pdf . Accessed July 21, 2014.
33. Kaplan A.V., Baim D.S., Smith J.J., et. al.: Medical device development: from prototype to regulatory approval. Circulation 2004; 109: pp. 3068-3072.
34. Smith J.J.: Regulation of medical devices in radiology: current standards and future opportunities. Radiology 2001; 218: pp. 329-335.
35. Douglas F.L., Narayanan V.K., Mitchell L., et. al.: The case for entrepreneurship in R&D in the pharmaceutical industry. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2010; 9: pp. 683-689.
36. McClennan B.L.: Preston M. Hickey memorial lecture. Ionic and nonionic iodinated contrast media: evolution and strategies for use. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990; 155: pp. 225-233.
37. Brasch R.C.: New directions in the development of MR imaging contrast media. Radiology 1992; 183: pp. 1-11.
38. Blomley M.J., Cooke J.C., Unger E.C., et. al.: Microbubble contrast agents: a new era in ultrasound. BMJ 2001; 322: pp. 1222-1225.
39. Weinmann H.-J., Ebert W., Misselwitz B., et. al.: Tissue-specific MR contrast agents. Eur J Radiol 2003; 46: pp. 33-44.
40. Patel A.A., Solomon J.A., Soulen M.C.: Pharmaceuticals for intra-arterial therapy. Semin Intervent Radiol 2005; 22: pp. 130-138.
41. Woodcock J., Woosley R.: The FDA critical path initiative and its influence on new drug development. Annu Rev Med 2008; 59: pp. 1-12.
42. Nunn A.D.: Molecular imaging and personalized medicine: an uncertain future. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2007; 22: pp. 722-739.
43. Nunn A.D.: The cost of developing imaging agents for routine clinical use. Invest Radiol 2006; 41: pp. 206-212.
44. DiMasi J.A., Hansen R.W., Grabowski H.G.: The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 2003; 22: pp. 151-185.
45. Christensen C.M., Bohmer R., Kenagy J.: Will disruptive innovations cure health care?. Harv Bus Rev 2000; 78: pp. 102-112. 199
46. Christensen C.M.: The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail.1997.Harvard Business School PressBoston, MA
47. Hansen E., Bozic K.J.: The impact of disruptive innovations in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467: pp. 2512-2520.
48. Chan S.: Strategy development for anticipating and handling a disruptive technology. J Am Coll Radiol 2006; 3: pp. 778-786.