A few months ago, LifeScience Alley and the BioBusiness Alliance of Minnesota sponsored the first ever BIO forum, a chance for the gazillion people seeking to succeed Gov. Tim Pawlenty to woo the bioscience crowd.
The results were dismal. The only candidate from that group with a strong chance of winning the election, the Republican Party-endorsed Rep. Tom Emmer, was actually the worst, earning a nice, juicy “F” from MedCity News.
None of the three major Democratic candidates — House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, former U.S. Sen. Mark Dayton and Rep. Matt Entenza — attended the forum. But with the Democratic primary about a week away, I thought it would be fair to grade the candidates on their experience, knowledge and commitment to advancing Minnesota’s bioscience industry, including medical devices, biotechnology and healthcare.
With the Rise of AI, What IP Disputes in Healthcare Are Likely to Emerge?
Munck Wilson Mandala Partner Greg Howison shared his perspective on some of the legal ramifications around AI, IP, connected devices and the data they generate, in response to emailed questions.
The grades are based on the positions/ideas outlined in their campaign websites, news media coverage and political advertising. The results? Collectively, the three fare considerably better than the BIO forum folks, but that’s not saying much.
I continue to be disappointed and flummoxed by the nonexistent attention the candidates devote to biosciences, and not just because that’s MedCity News’ raison d’etre. Minnesota is a medical device and healthcare state but you would never know it judging by these candidates. Those industries not only produce the state’s best paying jobs but represent our most valuable strategic assets for the future. In fact, I’m not sure any of the campaigns have even uttered the words “medical devices.”
Instead, we get the same, tired political pandering to agriculture, manufacturing and vaguely defined “small businesses.” I’m not saying they aren’t important, but for Minnesota to compete in the 21st century economy, we need to rely on high-tech innovation. And agriculture and manufacturing doesn’t exactly fire up the imagination.
OK, enough ranting. Here’s the report card:
A Personalized Approach to Medication Nonadherence
At the Abarca Forward conference earlier this year, George Van Antwerp, managing director at Deloitte, discussed how social determinants of health and a personalized member experience can improve medication adherence and health outcomes.
Margaret Anderson Kelliher
Grade: B+
If anything, Kelliher deserves this relatively good grade based on Minnesota finally enacting the historic $60 million angel investor tax credit, and passing research and development tax credits. I wished she joined the party a little sooner (like, say, five years ago), but Kelliher provided crucial leadership to pushing through a badly needed economic development bill through the legislature.
Kelliher also seems to care equally about the future as well as the present. She’s keenly aware of Minnesota’s lack of a long-term economic strategy, something that often gets lost in today’s unemployment numbers and budget deficits.
“Although we are a leading state in biosciences, specialized manufacturing, renewable energy generation and agriculture, and other industries, Minnesota’s current approach to economic development lacks direction,” according to her website. “Despite the potential for tens of thousands of jobs in these areas, no statewide economic road map exists to make the full extent of this growth possible. It’s likely we are missing out on growth opportunities because we don’t know they exist. In these difficult economic times, we can’t afford to let any opportunity for growth pass by.”
That’s exactly the kind of long-term sophisticated thinking that we need. Plus, she used the word “biosciences!” I think I’m gonna faint.
Matt Entenza
Grade: C
Frankly, Entenza has been the most disappointing out of the bunch, given the expertise of his spouse, Lois Quam. You would think the aura surrounding the former UnitedHealth Group executive and Piper Jaffray’s alternative investment chief would rub off somehow on Entenza.
Sadly, Entenza’s vision of Minnesota’s economy makes no mention of medical technology or healthcare. Instead, he devotes most of his thoughts to clean energy.
“Minnesota has the opportunity to be an international leader in clean energy,” Entenza writes on his website. “We have the human capital and natural resources to do it; what we need is a leader who’s willing to focus on it. When I’m governor, my administration will focus on clean energy to renew and diversify Minnesota’s economy, create jobs and help our entire country move forward.”
In a recent debate, Entenza said Minnesota needs a more focused long-term jobs plan and that focus should be on clean energy. But promoting clean energy has almost become a prerequisite for running for governor. Pawlenty was an ardent champion of ethanol. We saw how well that turned out.
I agree that Minnesota needs to be more selective, but is clean energy the right industry?
Entenza accurately observes that Minnesota boasts significant clean energy potential: wind, next generation biofuels and algae technology. But any discussion of Minnesota’s future economy should at least include healthcare.
One can argue that Minnesota should focus on the stuff that we have now versus a political pipe dream. The last time I checked, healthcare is still very much a growing industry while clean energy remains an idea. In fact, over two-thirds of Minnesota’s venture capital dollars goes to medical devices. The state attracts very little investor cash for clean tech startups.
Mark Dayton
Grade: D-
There’s nothing remotely exciting about Dayton’s campaign. Like Entenza, he preaches about clean energy but makes no mention of biosciences. Instead, we get proposals to promote tourism and road construction. Yawn.
Tourism? We’re not exactly Florida or Hawaii. Trust me folks, the future of our economy does not rest with more people visiting the giant spoon and cherry in Minneapolis or ice fishing in Lake Calhoun.
Dayton also speaks of his time as commissioner of economic development and energy — in the 1970s and 1980s. Yee gads! Can Dayton sound any older or irrelevant?
Dayton’s most high-profile proposal is to raise taxes on the rich. Now, I’m not exactly a supply side devotee, but even I recognize that we need wealth Minnesota to inject capital into our economy. That’s why we have the angel tax credits. Minnesota already has a well-earned high-tax reputation that prevents investors and companies from parking their cash in the state.
Do you now what alarms me the most? The two candidates who earned the worst grades on biosciences are the front-runners for governor. Emmer is the Republican nominee and Dayton leads the polls.
I think I need a drink.
