Saum Sutaria, M.D.

For better or for worse, right or wrong, nowhere in the world, no matter what healthcare system you're in, in a developed country, do you have fully equitable access. Those with means, there is always a system to procure better access from that perspective.

For better or for worse, right or wrong, nowhere in the world, no matter what healthcare system you're in, in a developed country, do you have fully equitable access. Those with means, there is always a system to procure better access from that perspective.

The thing that's different in the United States at scale that I think is interesting is not just the focus on consumer choice, but the United States has become comfortable in healthcare being the driver and leader of innovation.

The thing that's different in the United States at scale that I think is interesting is not just the focus on consumer choice, but the United States has become comfortable in healthcare being the driver and leader of innovation.

So in healthcare services, that is the proliferation of academic health science centers that conduct research, much of which used to be supported exclusively by the NIH, which is a brilliant construct over the history of the United States, to really fund basic research and innovation, now clinical research and innovation, and increasingly funded through private industry.

So in healthcare services, that is the proliferation of academic health science centers that conduct research, much of which used to be supported exclusively by the NIH, which is a brilliant construct over the history of the United States, to really fund basic research and innovation, now clinical research and innovation, and increasingly funded through private industry.

And that has driven a large proportion of the innovation in the world. The science that supports pharmaceutical development, for example, comes out of U.S. academic health science centers, largely speaking. And then you have U.S.-based pharmaceutical companies that develop 75, 80 percent of the world's pharmaceuticals. And you can keep going and we can get into drug costs.

And that has driven a large proportion of the innovation in the world. The science that supports pharmaceutical development, for example, comes out of U.S. academic health science centers, largely speaking. And then you have U.S.-based pharmaceutical companies that develop 75, 80 percent of the world's pharmaceuticals. And you can keep going and we can get into drug costs.

But it is a unique feature of this country. that we have chosen to make that investment for the rest of the world. As I said the other day, it's no differently than we've seems to have made that choice in defense. And there are differences between the two.

But it is a unique feature of this country. that we have chosen to make that investment for the rest of the world. As I said the other day, it's no differently than we've seems to have made that choice in defense. And there are differences between the two.

Well, first, I think you got to look at this in the context of when it developed. You're back to the question of, could anybody have predicted that we were going to go from 4%, 5% of GDP to 17?

Well, first, I think you got to look at this in the context of when it developed. You're back to the question of, could anybody have predicted that we were going to go from 4%, 5% of GDP to 17?

Could anybody have predicted that the drugs that were going to be developed and the advances in science would result in multiple therapies for common diseases and orphan diseases, which are rare diseases, that might cost over a million dollars a year? Could anybody have predicted that?

Could anybody have predicted that the drugs that were going to be developed and the advances in science would result in multiple therapies for common diseases and orphan diseases, which are rare diseases, that might cost over a million dollars a year? Could anybody have predicted that?

I think the system as it was set up, especially because drug development at that time was new, in particular small molecule development. And then somewhere in the late 70s, early 80s, you had the advent of biologics, which then grew into commercial products, especially in the mid 90s. raised the bar on innovation pretty significantly.

I think the system as it was set up, especially because drug development at that time was new, in particular small molecule development. And then somewhere in the late 70s, early 80s, you had the advent of biologics, which then grew into commercial products, especially in the mid 90s. raised the bar on innovation pretty significantly.

And also, everything that happened with respect to genetics opened up a whole broad range of therapeutics that didn't really exist before when you were just taking small molecules and at scale testing them against targets. The cost of drug development went way up. Therefore, the price of drugs went way up, at least in the United States where you have a market.

And also, everything that happened with respect to genetics opened up a whole broad range of therapeutics that didn't really exist before when you were just taking small molecules and at scale testing them against targets. The cost of drug development went way up. Therefore, the price of drugs went way up, at least in the United States where you have a market.

Now you end up in a situation, if you just fast forward to what people are thinking about today, especially because it's all over the news, you got GLP drugs that may have broad benefit for the population in one form or another. Why? Fundamentally, the drugs may be effective, but it's because our health status is poor. In a country where the health status wasn't so poor,

Now you end up in a situation, if you just fast forward to what people are thinking about today, especially because it's all over the news, you got GLP drugs that may have broad benefit for the population in one form or another. Why? Fundamentally, the drugs may be effective, but it's because our health status is poor. In a country where the health status wasn't so poor,