Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 75
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Bases de dados
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Acad Med ; 93(8): 1135-1141, 2018 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29668523

RESUMO

Innovation ecosystems tied to academic medical centers (AMCs) are inextricably linked to policy, practices, and infrastructure resulting from the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980. Bayh-Dole smoothed the way to patenting and licensing new drugs and, to some degree, medical devices and diagnostic reagents. Property rights under Bayh-Dole provided significant incentive for industry investments in clinical trials, clinical validation, and industrial scale-up of products that advanced health care. Bayh-Dole amplified private investment in biotechnology drug development and, from the authors' perspective, did not significantly interfere with the ability of AMCs to produce excellent peer-reviewed science. In today's policy environment, it is increasingly difficult to patent and license products based on the laws of nature-as the scope of patentability has been narrowed by case law and development of a suitable clinical and business case for the technology is increasingly a gating consideration for licensees. Consequently, fewer academic patents are commercially valuable. The role of technology transfer organizations in engaging industry partners has thus become increasingly complex. The partnering toolbox and organizational mandate for commercialization must evolve toward novel collaborative models that exploit opportunities for future patent creation (early drug discovery), data exchange (precision medicine using big data), cohort assembly (clinical trials), and decision rule validation (clinical trials). These inputs contribute to intellectual property rights, and their clinical exploitation manifests the commercialization of translational science. New collaboration models between AMCs and industry must be established to leverage the assets within AMCs that industry partners deem valuable.


Assuntos
Centros Médicos Acadêmicos/tendências , Inovação Organizacional , Prática Associada/tendências , Patentes como Assunto/legislação & jurisprudência , Humanos , Legislação como Assunto/tendências , Prática Associada/legislação & jurisprudência , Transferência de Tecnologia , Estados Unidos
3.
Rural Remote Health ; 15(4): 3387, 2015.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26556553

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Medical-legal partnerships (MLP) are a model in which medical and legal practitioners are co-located and work together to support the health and wellbeing of individuals by identifying and resolving legal issues that impact patients' health and wellbeing. The aim of this article is to analyse the benefits of this model, which has proliferated in the USA, and its applicability in the context of rural and remote Australia. METHODS: This review was undertaken with three research questions in mind: What is an MLP? Is service provision for individuals with mental health concerns being adequately addressed by current service models particularly in the rural context? Are MLPs a service delivery channel that would benefit individuals experiencing mental health issues? RESULTS: The combined searches from all EBSCO Host databases resulted in 462 citations. This search aggregated academic journals, newspapers, book reviews, magazines and trade publications. After several reviews 38 papers were selected for the final review based on their relevance to this review question: How do MLPs support mental health providers and legal service providers in the development of a coordinated approach to supporting mental health clients' legal needs in regional and rural Australia? CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable merit in pursuing the development of MLPs in rural and remote Australia particularly as individuals living in rural and remote areas have far fewer opportunities to access support services than those people living in regional and metropolitan locations. MLPS are important channels of service delivery to assist in early invention of legal problems that can exacerbate mental health problems.


Assuntos
Legislação Médica/organização & administração , Serviços de Saúde Mental/legislação & jurisprudência , Prática Associada/legislação & jurisprudência , Garantia da Qualidade dos Cuidados de Saúde , Serviços de Saúde Rural/legislação & jurisprudência , Serviços Urbanos de Saúde/legislação & jurisprudência , Austrália , Comportamento Cooperativo , Feminino , Pessoal de Saúde/organização & administração , Humanos , Masculino , Saúde Mental , Serviços de Saúde Mental/organização & administração , Prática Associada/organização & administração , Papel (figurativo) , Serviços de Saúde Rural/organização & administração , Serviços Urbanos de Saúde/organização & administração
14.
Clin Orthop Relat Res ; 467(11): 3017-28, 2009 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19756908

RESUMO

Current antitrust enforcement policy unduly restricts physician collaboration, especially among small physician practices. Among other matters, current enforcement policy has hindered the ability of physicians to implement efficient healthcare delivery innovations, such as the acquisition and implementation of health information technology (HIT). Furthermore, the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice have unevenly enforced the antitrust laws, thereby fostering an increasingly severe imbalance in the healthcare market in which dominant health insurers enjoy the benefit of largely unfettered consolidation at the cost of both consumers and providers. This article traces the history of antitrust enforcement in healthcare, describe the current marketplace, and suggest the problems that must be addressed to restore balance to the healthcare market and help to ensure an innovative and efficient healthcare system capable of meeting the demands of the 21st century. Specifically, the writer explains how innovative physician collaborations have been improperly stifled by the policies of the federal antitrust enforcement agencies, and recommend that these policies be relaxed to permit physicians more latitude to bargain collectively with health insurers in conjunction with procompetitive clinical integration efforts. The article also explains how the unbridled consolidation of the health insurance industry has resulted in higher premiums to consumers and lower compensation to physicians, and recommends that further consolidation be prohibited. Finally, the writer discusses how health insurers with market power are improperly undermining the physician-patient relationship, and recommend federal antitrust enforcement agencies take appropriate steps to protect patients and their physicians from this anticompetitive conduct. The article also suggests such steps will require changes in three areas: (1) health insurers must be prohibited from engaging in anticompetitive activity; (2) the continuing improper consolidation of the health insurance industry must be curtailed; and (3) the physician community must be permitted to undertake the collaborative activity necessary for the establishment of a transparent, coordinated, and efficient delivery system.


Assuntos
Leis Antitruste , Prática Associada/legislação & jurisprudência , Administração da Prática Médica/legislação & jurisprudência , Padrões de Prática Médica/legislação & jurisprudência , Planos Médicos Alternativos/legislação & jurisprudência , Prestação Integrada de Cuidados de Saúde/legislação & jurisprudência , Feminino , Política de Saúde , Humanos , Masculino , Avaliação das Necessidades , Ortopedia/legislação & jurisprudência , Ortopedia/métodos , Formulação de Políticas , Autonomia Profissional , Estados Unidos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA