IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/clh/commun/v13y2020i6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Health innovation and commercialization ecosystems and public health emergency response systems

Author

Listed:
  • Craig Scott

    (University of Calgary)

  • Jennifer Zwicker

    (University of Calgary)

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates how vital it is for the Alberta government to incorporate precision health (PH) planning into its public health ecosystem. Public health shocks demand quick thinking, rapid adaptation and good decision- making driven by data. PH offers all that and more, and not just in health care. In ordinary times, PH tailors diagnosis and treatment to an individual patient’s needs. When a crisis arises, PH focuses on assessing risks to provide targeted interventions and treatments to larger populations. A crisis is unfolding around us and it’s revealing gaps in areas outside public health, such as education, community services and the travel and financial industries. The multidisciplinary focus of PH data, and the innovation and commercialization (I&C) systems accompanying it, could support social services as they respond to COVID-19. For example, demographic information about the housing needs of vulnerable populations could guide targeted funding for people who rely on caregivers for their daily living needs. This communiqueÌ makes two important recommendations about the current health crisis. It’s being published along with a paper on the barriers to a home- grown PH I&C system and how the public and private sectors should tear those barriers down. Currently, there is a lack of co-ordination in the areas of innovation networks, facilitating discovery, governance and decision-making, and risk and procurement– all of which hinder the establishment of a PH I&C system. This situation exists because there is no mandated organization for PH I&C. If, for example, there were a formal process in which social services stakeholders could contribute to health policy discussions, sourcing recommendations and acting on them would take less time. The first recommendation is that, a provincial governance structure for PH I&C should be established, so policy leaders from the I&C ecosystem can co-ordinate their efforts and co-operate in their work. This structure would increase the ability to streamline responses by combining resources, drafting policies, reducing duplication and building new partnerships. Second, the government should create incentives to promote greater collaboration in that ecosystem. Right now, there is a stand-off between academia and government/research funders because the latter are focused on seeing the dollars go to specific health-care issues. PH I&C invites economic diversification, research into new technologies and fresh investment, offering potential for growth at a time Alberta desperately needs it. With a PH I&C structure in place, Alberta would be able to provide significant benefits to individuals requiring care in normal times, and the province would also be out in front on public health policy in times of crisis. A well-co-ordinated PH public health model would improve Alberta’s ability to respond swiftly and creatively when a public health emergency like COVID-19 strikes.

Suggested Citation

  • Craig Scott & Jennifer Zwicker, 2020. "Health innovation and commercialization ecosystems and public health emergency response systems," SPP Communique, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 13(6), April.
  • Handle: RePEc:clh:commun:v:13:y:2020:i:6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Precision-Health-Scott-Zwicker.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giada Marchi & Giulia Lucertini & Alexis Tsoukiàs, 2016. "From evidence-based policy making to policy analytics," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 236(1), pages 15-38, January.
    2. Giada Marchi & Giulia Lucertini & Alexis Tsoukiàs, 2016. "From evidence-based policy making to policy analytics," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 236(1), pages 15-38, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Helen Ngozi ELEMS-IKWEGBU, Ph.D, 2024. "Comparative Analysis of Educational Policy Formulation and Implementation Strategies in Developed and Developing Countries," International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation, International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI), vol. 11(7), pages 922-941, July.
    2. Benedict E. DeDominicis, 2021. "Multinational Enterprises And Economic Nationalism: A Strategic Analysis Of Culture," Global Journal of Business Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 15(1), pages 19-66.
    3. Maria Franca Norese & Diana Rolando & Rocco Curto, 2023. "DIKEDOC: a multicriteria methodology to organise and communicate knowledge," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 1049-1082, June.
    4. Justin Longo & Alan Rodney Dobell, 2018. "The Limits of Policy Analytics: Early Examples and the Emerging Boundary of Possibilities," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 5-17.
    5. Raffaele Giordano & Marcela Brugnach & Irene Pluchinotta, 2017. "Ambiguity in Problem Framing as a Barrier to Collective Actions: Some Hints from Groundwater Protection Policy in the Apulia Region," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 911-932, September.
    6. Giliberto Capano & Anna Malandrino, 2022. "Mapping the use of knowledge in policymaking: barriers and facilitators from a subjectivist perspective (1990–2020)," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(3), pages 399-428, September.
    7. Hannigan, Timothy R. & Briggs, Anthony R. & Valadao, Rodrigo & Seidel, Marc-David L. & Jennings, P. Devereaux, 2022. "A new tool for policymakers: Mapping cultural possibilities in an emerging AI entrepreneurial ecosystem," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(9).
    8. Lu, Chao & Liu, Hu-Chen & Tao, Jie & Rong, Ke & Hsieh, Ying-Che, 2017. "A key stakeholder-based financial subsidy stimulation for Chinese EV industrialization: A system dynamics simulation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 1-14.
    9. Lorraine Eden & M. Fernanda Wagstaff, 0. "Evidence-based policymaking and the wicked problem of SDG 5 Gender Equality," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 0, pages 1-30.
    10. Simonofski, Anthony & Handekyn, Phebe & Vandennieuwenborg, Celien & Wautelet, Yves & Snoeck, Monique, 2023. "Smart mobility projects: Towards the formalization of a policy-making lifecycle," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    11. Antoine Richard & Brice Mayag & François Talbot & Alexis Tsoukias & Yves Meinard, 2020. "What does it mean to provide decision support to a responsible and competent expert?," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 8(3), pages 205-236, November.
    12. Irene Pluchinotta & Akin O. Kazakçi & Raffaele Giordano & Alexis Tsoukiàs, 2019. "Design Theory for Generating Alternatives in Public Decision Making Processes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 341-375, April.
    13. Lorraine Eden & M. Fernanda Wagstaff, 2021. "Evidence-based policymaking and the wicked problem of SDG 5 Gender Equality," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 28-57, March.
    14. Ferretti, Valentina & Pluchinotta, Irene & Tsoukiàs, Alexis, 2019. "Studying the generation of alternatives in public policy making processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(1), pages 353-363.
    15. Nicolas Fayard & Chabane Mazri & Alexis Tsouki`as, 2021. "Is the Capability approach a useful tool for decision aiding in public policy making?," Papers 2101.09357, arXiv.org.
    16. Fancello, Giovanna & Congiu, Tanja & Tsoukiàs, Alexis, 2020. "Mapping walkability. A subjective value theory approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:clh:commun:v:13:y:2020:i:6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bev Dahlby (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spcalca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.