Boston University researchers just released new demographic and financial outmigration data that is cause for concern about recent trends in the Massachusetts labor force.
Among the key facts from the BU research are:
The report of Prof. Mark Williams and graduate students Yuhan Liu and Linglan Xu at the Questrom School of Business builds on findings in the recently published Boston Foundation Indicators Report.
All this may seem incongruous with indicators that Massachusetts is doing better than the nation as a whole:
So what gives?
One thought that comes to mind is that our low unemployment rate may not be the positive indicator it seems, but rather the flip side of the same outmigration coin. The most obvious reason is that the low unemployment may be more of a reflection of a dwindling worker supply rather than increased demand. The exodus of 25-34 year olds, many of whom are high wage earners, compounds the talent shortage for key growth sectors of our economy – finance, professional services, life sciences and technology. In the short-term, this trend may be beneficial to the unemployed who are able to secure a job that might not have been able to otherwise, however, longer term, it signals the erosion of the talent pool that has been Massachusetts competitive edge for decades. The drain of brain power hurts the state’s tax base and threatens our fiscal stability and economic vibrancy.
Secondly, our labor participation rate is declining. While Massachusetts labor participation rate exceeds the national average, it has declined by two percent since December 2019. In fact, Massachusetts experienced the 4th steepest labor participation decline of any of the states during this period. While retirement may be a primary factor, there are other reasons, too. People are not working for a variety of other reasons – lack of skills, mental health or substance use issues, the inability to find or afford childcare, and the state’s relatively generous safety net. This cohort is not counted in the unemployment rate because they are not actively seeking work. While not tied to out migration directly, these factors compound the labor shortage. Understanding the extent to which Massachusetts’ low unemployment rate can be attributed to these factors is critical to understand, and key in determining the appropriate strategies for growing and developing the workforce.
Lastly, the demographic trends in Massachusetts indicate that no quick fixes are available. As the data make clear, Massachusetts’s low birth rates, aging population and stagnant teenager workforce participation rates, means the state can expect to have a tight labor market for the foreseeable future. To stem the tide of outmigration, Massachusetts must meet this moment by finding new ways to make it more affordable for the middle class to live and work here. Targeted incentives to retain young workers and encourage delayed retirement for older workers through more part-time and flexible work arrangements are a needed strategy as is better integration of social services with workforce training programs to improve the workforce participation rates for those currently on the sidelines. Let’s get to work getting people to work.
Inflation Reduction Act price controls on the category of drugs that includes most non-opioid pain relievers reduce return on investment, disincentivize research funding
BOSTON – By reducing return on investment for the category of drugs that includes most potential non-opioid pain relievers, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) creates a major disincentive to the development of therapies to combat the opioid epidemic that is ravaging the United States, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that pain medication research already has a higher attrition rate than research in other therapies. A 2023 Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) study found that pain projects have only a o.7 percent probability of gaining FDA approval, compared to 6.5 percent across all diseases.
“Most potential replacements for opioid pain relievers are small molecule drugs,” said William Smith, Ph.D., who co-authored “The Left Hand Doesn’t Know What the Right Hand Is Doing: The Federal Government and Opioids” with Robert Popovian. “By imposing price controls on these therapies four years earlier than on so-called large molecules, or biologics, the IRA makes it very likely that venture funds and biopharmaceutical companies will pull back from small molecule research, including research on potential opioid replacements.”
The IRA provision contradicts years of federal efforts to incentivize development of non-opioid pain relievers, including significant programs created by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Institutes of Health. In 2022, Congress passed the NOPAIN Act, which requires Medicare to provide more generous reimbursements for non-opioid pain relievers.
When patient advocate and biotech researcher Dr. Steven J. Potts surveyed 100 venture capital firms that invest in biopharma research after passage of the IRA, he found that 85 percent were “pivoting away from small molecule drug development.”
Pfizer’s oncology pipeline had been only 6 percent biologics. But Chris Boshoff, the company’s head of oncology, told CNBC he hopes that by 2030 biologics will account for 65 percent of the pipeline, as they offer “more durable revenue potential.”
The Biotechnology Industry Organization provided Pioneer with a list showing that there are currently just nine small molecule non-opioid pain projects underway that might serve as opioid replacements. With a 0.7 percent probability of FDA approval, the chances that one of these will succeed are miniscule.
“If the pipeline for non-opioid pain therapies were robust, strategies like higher reimbursement rates could be effective,” said co-author Robert Popovian. “But the inability to achieve sufficient return on investment makes the existence of a robust pipeline highly unlikely.”
With opioid overdose deaths rising rapidly, by 2010 efforts were underway to limit the prescribing of opioids, which became more expensive as a result. At the same time, retail heroin prices began to drop significantly. By 2016, deaths from fentanyl overdoses surpassed those from both heroin and prescription drugs.
“One of the tragic ironies of the opioid epidemic is that measures taken to limit the prescribing and availability of prescription opioids likely led users to turn to heroin and fentanyl, which are even more dangerous,” said Pioneer Executive Director Jim Stergios.
All told, opioid overdose deaths have risen from 3,000 in 1999 to more than 80,000 in 2021.
William S. Smith, Ph.D. is senior fellow & director of Pioneer Life Sciences Initiative. Dr. Smith has 25 years of experience in government and in corporate roles. His career includes senior staff positions for the Republican House leadership on Capitol Hill, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the Massachusetts Governor’s office where he served under Governors Weld and Cellucci. He spent ten years at Pfizer Inc as Vice President of Public Affairs and Policy where he was responsible for Pfizer’s corporate strategies for the U.S. policy environment. He later served as a consultant to major pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device companies. Dr. Smith earned his PhD in political science with distinction at The Catholic University of America.
Robert Popovian, Ph.D. is senior visiting health policy fellow at Pioneer Institute. Dr. Popovian is the Founder of the strategic consulting firm Conquest Advisors. He previously served as Vice President, U.S. Government Relations at Pfizer. Dr. Popovian was appointed as the Chief Science Policy Officer for Global Healthy Living Foundation. He also serves on the Board of Councilors of the University of Southern California School of Pharmacy, Senior Health Policy Fellow at Progressive Policy Institute, and Board of Advisors for Equideum Health. Robert completed his Doctorate in Pharmacy and Master of Science in Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy degrees at the University of Southern California with honors.
Could rise to 96,000 per year by 2030, costing Massachusetts $19.2 billion in adjusted gross income & $961 million in income tax revenue
BOSTON (April 24, 2024) – Annual net outmigration from Massachusetts has soared by a stunning 1,100 percent to 39,000 people since 2013, according to a new Boston University Questrom School of Business study. If the trend continues, the researchers found, the state’s net outmigration could reach 96,000 by 2030.
Outmigration cost Massachusetts $4.3 billion in adjusted gross income (AGI) and $213.7 million in tax revenue during the 2020-21 tax year. The majority of that money went to Florida ($1.77 billion), New Hampshire ($1.1 billion), and Maine ($393 million.) Those numbers could rise to $19.2 billion in AGI and $961 million in lost tax revenue by 2030.
“To make matters worse, those who are leaving tend to be younger and earn more than state averages,” said Boston University Questrom School of Business primary researcher and lecturer Mark Williams. “These are the people the Commonwealth needs to bolster its future workforce.”
The age group leaving in the largest numbers is 26-34, although most of the lost AGI comes from the departures of those aged 55-64. More than half of people who exited Massachusetts earn well over the state average.
Income tax, housing costs, and costs of health care are the largest drivers of outmigration, according to the study. The 11 states to which Massachusetts lost the bulk of its departing residents all scored better in those categories. Eight of the 11 states scored better in housing burden (the proportion of household income allocated to housing costs).
“This isn’t just retirees leaving Massachusetts for warmer weather,” Professor Williams said. “Over half the residents who leave stay in New England.”
The top five destination states are Florida, New Hampshire, Maine, North Carolina, and Texas.
About Mark Williams
Mark Williams is a faculty member in the Finance Department at Boston University’s Questrom School of Business and the former President of the Boston Economic Club.
About Boston University
Founded in 1839, Boston University is an internationally recognized institution of higher education and research. With nearly 37,000 students, it is one of the largest private residential universities in the United States. BU consists of 17 schools and colleges, along with the Faculty of Computing & Data Sciences and a number of multi-disciplinary centers and institutes integral to the University’s research and teaching mission. In 2012, BU joined the Association of American Universities (AAU), a consortium of leading research universities in the United States and Canada.
About Boston University Questrom School of Business
Founded in 1913, the Boston University Questrom School of Business is a global top-tier academic research business school. Led by Allen Questrom Professor and Dean, Susan Fournier, Questrom develops business leaders who create value for the world. Questrom redefines transformational business programs, strengthens partnerships with the business community, advances the impact of research on business, and manages the school as a high-performing enterprise committed to excellence with a service mindset. Comprising a renowned full-time faculty of 165 researchers, teaching faculty, and accomplished practitioners, Questrom generates insights to address today’s business challenges and prepares students with the tools they need to succeed from Day 1 in their professional lives. Questrom’s portfolio of academic programs is robust and includes a Top 20 undergraduate program of over 2,200 students; distinctive MBA offerings including 900 students in a full- and part-time MBA, the affordable Online MBA and specialty MBAs in social impact, health, and digital technology; several thriving specialized masters programs in areas including business analytics, mathematical finance, and management studies; and a rigorous PhD program. More than 50,000 Questrom alumni form a powerful global network of leaders driving value creation that changes the world.
“She’s a good girl. She helps me a lot. She has big, big dreams. I don’t have the money, but she has big dreams. I hope she’s going to get everything, but she works so hard. She works so hard in school.”
“Our family is needing to make some really big sacrifices because we believe this is important, and so, we’re basically going to do whatever it takes… Sometimes we look at each other and go ‘I don’t know if I can do it again another month…’”
“A lot of the families have to sacrifice and work multiple jobs… And just scraping together enough money to just make tuition, just the basics.”
“It is discriminatory, that parents who want to choose an alternative to public school for their children, would not in any way receive any compensation for that, whether it be tax credit, whether it be a voucher…”
In the 1840s, nativist movement leaders formed official political parties and local chapters of the national Native American Party (later the American Party), although they continued to be commonly known as the Know-Nothing Party. Politicians sought to insert provisions into state constitutions against Catholics who refused to renounce the pope. The Know-Nothing movement brought bigotry and hatred to a new level of violence and organization.
The party’s legacy endured in the post-Civil War era, with laws and constitutional amendments it supported, still today severely limiting parents’ educational choices. A federal constitutional amendment was proposed by Speaker of the House James Blaine prohibiting money raised by taxation in any State to be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations. These were then named the Blaine Amendments of 1875.
in recent decades, often in response to challenges to school choice programs, the U.S. Supreme Court has demonstrated great interest in examining the issues of educational alternatives and attempts limit parental options. Massachusetts plays a key role in this debate. The Bay State was a key center of the Know-Nothing movement and has the oldest version of Anti-Aid Amendments in the nation, as well as a second such amendment approved in 1917. Two-fifths of Massachusetts residents are Catholic, and its Catholic schools outperform the state’s public schools, which are the best in the nation.
Boston University researchers just released new demographic and financial outmigration data that is cause for concern about recent trends in the Massachusetts labor force.
Among the key facts from the BU research are:
The report of Prof. Mark Williams and graduate students Yuhan Liu and Linglan Xu at the Questrom School of Business builds on findings in the recently published Boston Foundation Indicators Report.
All this may seem incongruous with indicators that Massachusetts is doing better than the nation as a whole:
So what gives?
One thought that comes to mind is that our low unemployment rate may not be the positive indicator it seems, but rather the flip side of the same outmigration coin. The most obvious reason is that the low unemployment may be more of a reflection of a dwindling worker supply rather than increased demand. The exodus of 25-34 year olds, many of whom are high wage earners, compounds the talent shortage for key growth sectors of our economy – finance, professional services, life sciences and technology. In the short-term, this trend may be beneficial to the unemployed who are able to secure a job that might not have been able to otherwise, however, longer term, it signals the erosion of the talent pool that has been Massachusetts competitive edge for decades. The drain of brain power hurts the state’s tax base and threatens our fiscal stability and economic vibrancy.
Secondly, our labor participation rate is declining. While Massachusetts labor participation rate exceeds the national average, it has declined by two percent since December 2019. In fact, Massachusetts experienced the 4th steepest labor participation decline of any of the states during this period. While retirement may be a primary factor, there are other reasons, too. People are not working for a variety of other reasons – lack of skills, mental health or substance use issues, the inability to find or afford childcare, and the state’s relatively generous safety net. This cohort is not counted in the unemployment rate because they are not actively seeking work. While not tied to out migration directly, these factors compound the labor shortage. Understanding the extent to which Massachusetts’ low unemployment rate can be attributed to these factors is critical to understand, and key in determining the appropriate strategies for growing and developing the workforce.
Lastly, the demographic trends in Massachusetts indicate that no quick fixes are available. As the data make clear, Massachusetts’s low birth rates, aging population and stagnant teenager workforce participation rates, means the state can expect to have a tight labor market for the foreseeable future. To stem the tide of outmigration, Massachusetts must meet this moment by finding new ways to make it more affordable for the middle class to live and work here. Targeted incentives to retain young workers and encourage delayed retirement for older workers through more part-time and flexible work arrangements are a needed strategy as is better integration of social services with workforce training programs to improve the workforce participation rates for those currently on the sidelines. Let’s get to work getting people to work.
Inflation Reduction Act price controls on the category of drugs that includes most non-opioid pain relievers reduce return on investment, disincentivize research funding
BOSTON – By reducing return on investment for the category of drugs that includes most potential non-opioid pain relievers, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) creates a major disincentive to the development of therapies to combat the opioid epidemic that is ravaging the United States, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that pain medication research already has a higher attrition rate than research in other therapies. A 2023 Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) study found that pain projects have only a o.7 percent probability of gaining FDA approval, compared to 6.5 percent across all diseases.
“Most potential replacements for opioid pain relievers are small molecule drugs,” said William Smith, Ph.D., who co-authored “The Left Hand Doesn’t Know What the Right Hand Is Doing: The Federal Government and Opioids” with Robert Popovian. “By imposing price controls on these therapies four years earlier than on so-called large molecules, or biologics, the IRA makes it very likely that venture funds and biopharmaceutical companies will pull back from small molecule research, including research on potential opioid replacements.”
The IRA provision contradicts years of federal efforts to incentivize development of non-opioid pain relievers, including significant programs created by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Institutes of Health. In 2022, Congress passed the NOPAIN Act, which requires Medicare to provide more generous reimbursements for non-opioid pain relievers.
When patient advocate and biotech researcher Dr. Steven J. Potts surveyed 100 venture capital firms that invest in biopharma research after passage of the IRA, he found that 85 percent were “pivoting away from small molecule drug development.”
Pfizer’s oncology pipeline had been only 6 percent biologics. But Chris Boshoff, the company’s head of oncology, told CNBC he hopes that by 2030 biologics will account for 65 percent of the pipeline, as they offer “more durable revenue potential.”
The Biotechnology Industry Organization provided Pioneer with a list showing that there are currently just nine small molecule non-opioid pain projects underway that might serve as opioid replacements. With a 0.7 percent probability of FDA approval, the chances that one of these will succeed are miniscule.
“If the pipeline for non-opioid pain therapies were robust, strategies like higher reimbursement rates could be effective,” said co-author Robert Popovian. “But the inability to achieve sufficient return on investment makes the existence of a robust pipeline highly unlikely.”
With opioid overdose deaths rising rapidly, by 2010 efforts were underway to limit the prescribing of opioids, which became more expensive as a result. At the same time, retail heroin prices began to drop significantly. By 2016, deaths from fentanyl overdoses surpassed those from both heroin and prescription drugs.
“One of the tragic ironies of the opioid epidemic is that measures taken to limit the prescribing and availability of prescription opioids likely led users to turn to heroin and fentanyl, which are even more dangerous,” said Pioneer Executive Director Jim Stergios.
All told, opioid overdose deaths have risen from 3,000 in 1999 to more than 80,000 in 2021.
William S. Smith, Ph.D. is senior fellow & director of Pioneer Life Sciences Initiative. Dr. Smith has 25 years of experience in government and in corporate roles. His career includes senior staff positions for the Republican House leadership on Capitol Hill, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the Massachusetts Governor’s office where he served under Governors Weld and Cellucci. He spent ten years at Pfizer Inc as Vice President of Public Affairs and Policy where he was responsible for Pfizer’s corporate strategies for the U.S. policy environment. He later served as a consultant to major pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device companies. Dr. Smith earned his PhD in political science with distinction at The Catholic University of America.
Robert Popovian, Ph.D. is senior visiting health policy fellow at Pioneer Institute. Dr. Popovian is the Founder of the strategic consulting firm Conquest Advisors. He previously served as Vice President, U.S. Government Relations at Pfizer. Dr. Popovian was appointed as the Chief Science Policy Officer for Global Healthy Living Foundation. He also serves on the Board of Councilors of the University of Southern California School of Pharmacy, Senior Health Policy Fellow at Progressive Policy Institute, and Board of Advisors for Equideum Health. Robert completed his Doctorate in Pharmacy and Master of Science in Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy degrees at the University of Southern California with honors.
Could rise to 96,000 per year by 2030, costing Massachusetts $19.2 billion in adjusted gross income & $961 million in income tax revenue
BOSTON (April 24, 2024) – Annual net outmigration from Massachusetts has soared by a stunning 1,100 percent to 39,000 people since 2013, according to a new Boston University Questrom School of Business study. If the trend continues, the researchers found, the state’s net outmigration could reach 96,000 by 2030.
Outmigration cost Massachusetts $4.3 billion in adjusted gross income (AGI) and $213.7 million in tax revenue during the 2020-21 tax year. The majority of that money went to Florida ($1.77 billion), New Hampshire ($1.1 billion), and Maine ($393 million.) Those numbers could rise to $19.2 billion in AGI and $961 million in lost tax revenue by 2030.
“To make matters worse, those who are leaving tend to be younger and earn more than state averages,” said Boston University Questrom School of Business primary researcher and lecturer Mark Williams. “These are the people the Commonwealth needs to bolster its future workforce.”
The age group leaving in the largest numbers is 26-34, although most of the lost AGI comes from the departures of those aged 55-64. More than half of people who exited Massachusetts earn well over the state average.
Income tax, housing costs, and costs of health care are the largest drivers of outmigration, according to the study. The 11 states to which Massachusetts lost the bulk of its departing residents all scored better in those categories. Eight of the 11 states scored better in housing burden (the proportion of household income allocated to housing costs).
“This isn’t just retirees leaving Massachusetts for warmer weather,” Professor Williams said. “Over half the residents who leave stay in New England.”
The top five destination states are Florida, New Hampshire, Maine, North Carolina, and Texas.
About Mark Williams
Mark Williams is a faculty member in the Finance Department at Boston University’s Questrom School of Business and the former President of the Boston Economic Club.
About Boston University
Founded in 1839, Boston University is an internationally recognized institution of higher education and research. With nearly 37,000 students, it is one of the largest private residential universities in the United States. BU consists of 17 schools and colleges, along with the Faculty of Computing & Data Sciences and a number of multi-disciplinary centers and institutes integral to the University’s research and teaching mission. In 2012, BU joined the Association of American Universities (AAU), a consortium of leading research universities in the United States and Canada.
About Boston University Questrom School of Business
Founded in 1913, the Boston University Questrom School of Business is a global top-tier academic research business school. Led by Allen Questrom Professor and Dean, Susan Fournier, Questrom develops business leaders who create value for the world. Questrom redefines transformational business programs, strengthens partnerships with the business community, advances the impact of research on business, and manages the school as a high-performing enterprise committed to excellence with a service mindset. Comprising a renowned full-time faculty of 165 researchers, teaching faculty, and accomplished practitioners, Questrom generates insights to address today’s business challenges and prepares students with the tools they need to succeed from Day 1 in their professional lives. Questrom’s portfolio of academic programs is robust and includes a Top 20 undergraduate program of over 2,200 students; distinctive MBA offerings including 900 students in a full- and part-time MBA, the affordable Online MBA and specialty MBAs in social impact, health, and digital technology; several thriving specialized masters programs in areas including business analytics, mathematical finance, and management studies; and a rigorous PhD program. More than 50,000 Questrom alumni form a powerful global network of leaders driving value creation that changes the world.
Outmigration and the Labor Force
/in Blog, Featured /by Eileen McAnnenyBoston University researchers just released new demographic and financial outmigration data that is cause for concern about recent trends in the Massachusetts labor force.
Among the key facts from the BU research are:
The report of Prof. Mark Williams and graduate students Yuhan Liu and Linglan Xu at the Questrom School of Business builds on findings in the recently published Boston Foundation Indicators Report.
All this may seem incongruous with indicators that Massachusetts is doing better than the nation as a whole:
So what gives?
One thought that comes to mind is that our low unemployment rate may not be the positive indicator it seems, but rather the flip side of the same outmigration coin. The most obvious reason is that the low unemployment may be more of a reflection of a dwindling worker supply rather than increased demand. The exodus of 25-34 year olds, many of whom are high wage earners, compounds the talent shortage for key growth sectors of our economy – finance, professional services, life sciences and technology. In the short-term, this trend may be beneficial to the unemployed who are able to secure a job that might not have been able to otherwise, however, longer term, it signals the erosion of the talent pool that has been Massachusetts competitive edge for decades. The drain of brain power hurts the state’s tax base and threatens our fiscal stability and economic vibrancy.
Secondly, our labor participation rate is declining. While Massachusetts labor participation rate exceeds the national average, it has declined by two percent since December 2019. In fact, Massachusetts experienced the 4th steepest labor participation decline of any of the states during this period. While retirement may be a primary factor, there are other reasons, too. People are not working for a variety of other reasons – lack of skills, mental health or substance use issues, the inability to find or afford childcare, and the state’s relatively generous safety net. This cohort is not counted in the unemployment rate because they are not actively seeking work. While not tied to out migration directly, these factors compound the labor shortage. Understanding the extent to which Massachusetts’ low unemployment rate can be attributed to these factors is critical to understand, and key in determining the appropriate strategies for growing and developing the workforce.
Lastly, the demographic trends in Massachusetts indicate that no quick fixes are available. As the data make clear, Massachusetts’s low birth rates, aging population and stagnant teenager workforce participation rates, means the state can expect to have a tight labor market for the foreseeable future. To stem the tide of outmigration, Massachusetts must meet this moment by finding new ways to make it more affordable for the middle class to live and work here. Targeted incentives to retain young workers and encourage delayed retirement for older workers through more part-time and flexible work arrangements are a needed strategy as is better integration of social services with workforce training programs to improve the workforce participation rates for those currently on the sidelines. Let’s get to work getting people to work.
Study Finds Obstacles to Search for Opioid Substitute
/in Featured, Healthcare, News /by Editorial StaffInflation Reduction Act price controls on the category of drugs that includes most non-opioid pain relievers reduce return on investment, disincentivize research funding
BOSTON – By reducing return on investment for the category of drugs that includes most potential non-opioid pain relievers, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) creates a major disincentive to the development of therapies to combat the opioid epidemic that is ravaging the United States, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that pain medication research already has a higher attrition rate than research in other therapies. A 2023 Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) study found that pain projects have only a o.7 percent probability of gaining FDA approval, compared to 6.5 percent across all diseases.
“Most potential replacements for opioid pain relievers are small molecule drugs,” said William Smith, Ph.D., who co-authored “The Left Hand Doesn’t Know What the Right Hand Is Doing: The Federal Government and Opioids” with Robert Popovian. “By imposing price controls on these therapies four years earlier than on so-called large molecules, or biologics, the IRA makes it very likely that venture funds and biopharmaceutical companies will pull back from small molecule research, including research on potential opioid replacements.”
The IRA provision contradicts years of federal efforts to incentivize development of non-opioid pain relievers, including significant programs created by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Institutes of Health. In 2022, Congress passed the NOPAIN Act, which requires Medicare to provide more generous reimbursements for non-opioid pain relievers.
When patient advocate and biotech researcher Dr. Steven J. Potts surveyed 100 venture capital firms that invest in biopharma research after passage of the IRA, he found that 85 percent were “pivoting away from small molecule drug development.”
Pfizer’s oncology pipeline had been only 6 percent biologics. But Chris Boshoff, the company’s head of oncology, told CNBC he hopes that by 2030 biologics will account for 65 percent of the pipeline, as they offer “more durable revenue potential.”
The Biotechnology Industry Organization provided Pioneer with a list showing that there are currently just nine small molecule non-opioid pain projects underway that might serve as opioid replacements. With a 0.7 percent probability of FDA approval, the chances that one of these will succeed are miniscule.
“If the pipeline for non-opioid pain therapies were robust, strategies like higher reimbursement rates could be effective,” said co-author Robert Popovian. “But the inability to achieve sufficient return on investment makes the existence of a robust pipeline highly unlikely.”
With opioid overdose deaths rising rapidly, by 2010 efforts were underway to limit the prescribing of opioids, which became more expensive as a result. At the same time, retail heroin prices began to drop significantly. By 2016, deaths from fentanyl overdoses surpassed those from both heroin and prescription drugs.
“One of the tragic ironies of the opioid epidemic is that measures taken to limit the prescribing and availability of prescription opioids likely led users to turn to heroin and fentanyl, which are even more dangerous,” said Pioneer Executive Director Jim Stergios.
All told, opioid overdose deaths have risen from 3,000 in 1999 to more than 80,000 in 2021.
William S. Smith, Ph.D. is senior fellow & director of Pioneer Life Sciences Initiative. Dr. Smith has 25 years of experience in government and in corporate roles. His career includes senior staff positions for the Republican House leadership on Capitol Hill, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the Massachusetts Governor’s office where he served under Governors Weld and Cellucci. He spent ten years at Pfizer Inc as Vice President of Public Affairs and Policy where he was responsible for Pfizer’s corporate strategies for the U.S. policy environment. He later served as a consultant to major pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device companies. Dr. Smith earned his PhD in political science with distinction at The Catholic University of America.
Robert Popovian, Ph.D. is senior visiting health policy fellow at Pioneer Institute. Dr. Popovian is the Founder of the strategic consulting firm Conquest Advisors. He previously served as Vice President, U.S. Government Relations at Pfizer. Dr. Popovian was appointed as the Chief Science Policy Officer for Global Healthy Living Foundation. He also serves on the Board of Councilors of the University of Southern California School of Pharmacy, Senior Health Policy Fellow at Progressive Policy Institute, and Board of Advisors for Equideum Health. Robert completed his Doctorate in Pharmacy and Master of Science in Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy degrees at the University of Southern California with honors.
Annual Massachusetts Outmigration Hits 39,000, Up 1,100% Over The Last Decade: BU Study
/in Featured, News /by Editorial StaffCould rise to 96,000 per year by 2030, costing Massachusetts $19.2 billion in adjusted gross income & $961 million in income tax revenue
BOSTON (April 24, 2024) – Annual net outmigration from Massachusetts has soared by a stunning 1,100 percent to 39,000 people since 2013, according to a new Boston University Questrom School of Business study. If the trend continues, the researchers found, the state’s net outmigration could reach 96,000 by 2030.
Outmigration cost Massachusetts $4.3 billion in adjusted gross income (AGI) and $213.7 million in tax revenue during the 2020-21 tax year. The majority of that money went to Florida ($1.77 billion), New Hampshire ($1.1 billion), and Maine ($393 million.) Those numbers could rise to $19.2 billion in AGI and $961 million in lost tax revenue by 2030.
“To make matters worse, those who are leaving tend to be younger and earn more than state averages,” said Boston University Questrom School of Business primary researcher and lecturer Mark Williams. “These are the people the Commonwealth needs to bolster its future workforce.”
The age group leaving in the largest numbers is 26-34, although most of the lost AGI comes from the departures of those aged 55-64. More than half of people who exited Massachusetts earn well over the state average.
Income tax, housing costs, and costs of health care are the largest drivers of outmigration, according to the study. The 11 states to which Massachusetts lost the bulk of its departing residents all scored better in those categories. Eight of the 11 states scored better in housing burden (the proportion of household income allocated to housing costs).
“This isn’t just retirees leaving Massachusetts for warmer weather,” Professor Williams said. “Over half the residents who leave stay in New England.”
The top five destination states are Florida, New Hampshire, Maine, North Carolina, and Texas.
About Mark Williams
Mark Williams is a faculty member in the Finance Department at Boston University’s Questrom School of Business and the former President of the Boston Economic Club.
About Boston University
Founded in 1839, Boston University is an internationally recognized institution of higher education and research. With nearly 37,000 students, it is one of the largest private residential universities in the United States. BU consists of 17 schools and colleges, along with the Faculty of Computing & Data Sciences and a number of multi-disciplinary centers and institutes integral to the University’s research and teaching mission. In 2012, BU joined the Association of American Universities (AAU), a consortium of leading research universities in the United States and Canada.
About Boston University Questrom School of Business
Founded in 1913, the Boston University Questrom School of Business is a global top-tier academic research business school. Led by Allen Questrom Professor and Dean, Susan Fournier, Questrom develops business leaders who create value for the world. Questrom redefines transformational business programs, strengthens partnerships with the business community, advances the impact of research on business, and manages the school as a high-performing enterprise committed to excellence with a service mindset. Comprising a renowned full-time faculty of 165 researchers, teaching faculty, and accomplished practitioners, Questrom generates insights to address today’s business challenges and prepares students with the tools they need to succeed from Day 1 in their professional lives. Questrom’s portfolio of academic programs is robust and includes a Top 20 undergraduate program of over 2,200 students; distinctive MBA offerings including 900 students in a full- and part-time MBA, the affordable Online MBA and specialty MBAs in social impact, health, and digital technology; several thriving specialized masters programs in areas including business analytics, mathematical finance, and management studies; and a rigorous PhD program. More than 50,000 Questrom alumni form a powerful global network of leaders driving value creation that changes the world.