The Congress finds the following:
(1)
That biomedicine is far more advanced today than even a decade ago is indisputable, but breakthroughs require years of translational research at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars per trial and have a substantial likelihood of failure.
(2)
The drug development pipeline is laden with unfavorable probabilities. On average, for every 5,000–10,000 compounds that enter the drug discovery pipeline, just 250 progress to preclinical development—and only one will become an approved drug.
(3)
Biotech and life sciences traditional financing vehicles of private and public equity are becoming less effective funding sources because the needs and expectations of limited partners and shareholders are not consistent with the increasing complexity, risk, and duration of biomedical innovation.
(4)
Industry professionals frequently refer to the “Valley of Death”—a steadily widening funding and resource gap that currently exists between basic research and clinical development, effectively limiting the field of potential novel therapies, technologies, and treatments for patients.
(5)
The life sciences industry needs novel approaches to early-stage drug development that better manage risk, lower capital cost, improve research effectiveness, create diverse portfolios, leverage risk-tolerant capital, and access new capital sources.
(6)
One solution is to implement a financial structure in which a large number of biomedical programs are funded by a single entity to substantially diversify the portfolio and thereby reduce risk. The entity can use securitization to finance its activities by issuing debt, which opens up a much larger pool of capital for investment.
(7)
This approach involves two components:
(A)
Creating large diversified portfolios, called “megafunds”, consisting of biomedical products at various stages of development.
(B)
Structuring the financing for these portfolios as combinations of equity and securitized debt.
(8)
This innovation makes the investment opportunity much more attractive to a large pool of institutional investors that have historically not participated in financing for early-stage therapeutic development.
(9)
Diversification reduces risk, so that an entity can issue debt and equity, rather than the equity-only investments typically made by venture capital.
(10)
A series of peer-reviewed simulations conducted by researchers at MIT suggested that a modest megafund model could be successfully implemented for rare diseases (e.g., rare genetic disorders, pediatric cancers, and orphan diseases) with as few as ten to twenty compounds and only $400 million in capital.
(11)
A rare disease therapeutics fund could serve as a viable pilot project, while minimizing governmental exposure.
(12)
In addition to appealing to traditional biotech VC investors, megafund investments may be attractive to pension funds, insurance companies, and other large institutional investors, while also potentially lowering drug prices for patients and the healthcare system.
(13)
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may grant the orphan designation for therapies being studied for a rare disease or condition affecting fewer than 200,000 people in the United States, which reduces costs and provides financial incentives to encourage development of such therapies for underserved patient populations.