Regenerative Medicine Market measure with Report In Depth Industry Analysis on Trends, Growth, Opportunities and Forecast till 2026

The MarketWatch News Department was not involved in the creation of this content.

Dec 02, 2020 (Market Insight Reports) —
The latest report on ‘Regenerative Medicine market’ collated by Market Study Report, LLC, delivers facts and numbers regarding the market size, geographical landscape and profit forecast of the ‘Regenerative Medicine market’. In addition, the report focuses on major obstacles and the latest growth plans adopted by leading companies in this business.

Request a sample Report of Regenerative Medicine Market at: https://www.marketstudyreport.com/request-a-sample/1695290?utm_source=marketwatch&utm_medium=RV

The Regenerative Medicine Market is anticipated to reach over USD 79.23 billion by 2026 according to a new research. In 2017, the cell therapy dominated the global Regenerative Medicine market, in terms of revenue. North America is expected to be the leading contributor to the global market revenue in 2017.

The regenerative medicine market is primarily driven by the increasing number of individuals suffering from cancer, rising need to monitor and treating these chronic diseases in the limited time. Furthermore, stringent government policies, proper reimbursement policies, and increasing government healthcare expenditure for developing healthcare infrastructure to also boost the market growth in coming years. Also, rising number of organ transplantation, and increasing number of products in pipeline that are waiting for approval create major opportunity for the regenerative medicines in the coming years. However, some of the ethical and religious concerns for the use of stem cells, and lack of proper regulatory for the approval of various drugs would impede the market growth during the forecast period.

Enquiry about Regenerative Medicine market report before Buying at: https://www.marketstudyreport.com/enquiry-before-buying/1695290?utm_source=marketwatch&utm_medium=RV

North America generated the highest revenue in the Regenerative Medicine market in 2017, and is expected to be the leading region globally during the forecast period. Increasing number of patients suffering from chronic diseases, improved healthcare infrastructure and health facilities, accessibility of healthcare facilities, are the primary factors driving the market growth in this region. While, Asia Pacific to be the fastest growing region in the coming years. The growth in this region is majorly attributed to the developing healthcare infrastructure of the countries like India, & China, and rising awareness for the use of regenerative medicines as an effective treatment option for chronic diseases.

Regenerative medicine is a branch of medicine that regrows, and repairs the damaged cells in the human body. These medicines include the use of stem cells, tissue engineering, that further helps in developing new organ that function smoothly. These medicines have the caliber of developing an entire organ as these cells are multipotent. The cells are majorly isolated from bone marrow, and umbilical cord blood.

Purchase full report of Regenerative Medicine market at: https://www.marketstudyreport.com/securecheckout/paymenta/1695290?utm_source=marketwatch&utm_medium=RV?msfpaycode=sumsf

The key players operating in the Regenerative Medicine market include Organogenesis Inc., Vericel Corporation, Osiris Therapeutics, Inc., Stryker Corporation, and NuVasive, Inc., Medtronic Plc., Acelity, Cook Biotech Inc., Integra LifeSciences, and C.R. Bard. These companies launch new products and collaborate with other market leaders to innovate and launch new products to meet the increasing needs and requirements of consumers.

Regenerative Medicine Market share

Read more

What you need to know about the dialysis measure

Starting kidney dialysis too soon can be risky.
A patient receives kidney dialysis. California’s Proposition 23 would implement new rules for dialysis clinics. (Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times)

Proposition 23 would require dialysis clinics across California to employ at least one doctor who is on-site whenever patients are receiving treatment.

Here is a rundown of the ballot measure:

The measure

The dialysis industry and the healthcare union have been locked in a years-long fight, which resulted in SEIU-UHW pushing Proposition 8 in 2018. That failed measure would have required businesses with revenues exceeding 115% of specified costs related to patient care to provide rebates to insurers and pay a penalty to the state.

This year’s measure would require dialysis clinics to employ a doctor who is on-site when patients are receiving treatment, increase reporting requirements for dialysis infections, require clinics to obtain approval from the state’s public health department before closing or substantially reducing services, and bar clinics from refusing access to a patient based on their insurance.

Dialysis is a life-saving treatment for people suffering from kidney failure where machines remove a patient’s blood and filter it to remove waste and excess fluids before returning the blood to their body. There are roughly 600 dialysis clinics in California, with nearly three-quarters of the clinics owned or operated by two companies — DaVita Inc. and Fresenius Medical Care.

Pro arguments

Backers of Proposition 23, the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, say the dialysis industry favors profits over patient care by not having a doctor available in the event of complications or an emergency.

The union says its efforts to push for more oversight and higher quality care have been met with fierce — and heavily funded — campaigns aimed at protecting profits of the $3-billion industry in California.

Supporters say that dialysis centers provide critical life-saving treatment and that clinics should therefore be required, like hospitals, to receive approval from the state before reducing services or closing.

Anti arguments

Opponents say the measure is unnecessary and that the added cost would lead to dialysis clinics closing, which would put patients at even greater risk. This year, opponents have so far raised $105.2 million to fight Proposition 23, according to a Times analysis of campaign contributions. Of that amount, DaVita has contributed $66.8 million.

Opponents argue that there are already sufficient medical staff at clinics and that reporting requirements in the measure are superfluous since clinics are currently required to report dialysis-infection-related information to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Opponents argue SEIU-UHW has been weaponizing the ballot measure process to force the dialysis industry to spend heavily to defend itself when the union’s real interest is getting workers in clinics to unionize.

Reading list

California voters will again consider new dialysis center regulations with Prop. 23

Times columnist George Skelton assesses Prop. 23

More than $100 million spent on 2018 battle over dialysis industry profits in California

Hospitals and union make deal to avoid ballot measure fight

A look at California’s

Read more

Everything you need to know about the $5.5-billion stem cell measure

Scientists are learning more about how to harness stem cells to reverse heart failure, but treatments won't be widely available right away. Above, a stem cell researcher.
Scientists are learning more about how to harness stem cells to reverse heart failure, but treatments won’t be widely available right away. (Dennis Drenner / For The Times)

Proposition 14 would authorize the sale of $5.5 billion in general obligation bonds for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, known as CIRM, for stem cell studies and trials.

Here is a rundown of the ballot measure:

The measure

In 2004, voters approved a bond measure to pay for stem cell research.

Now, with the money from that bond running out, supporters of the state’s stem cell agency are asking taxpayers for a new infusion of cash.

With interest, the bond could cost the state $260 million per year, or $7.8 billion over the next 30 years, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Pro arguments

Proponents of Proposition 14 say the measure will help find new treatments and cures for chronic diseases and conditions, including cancers, spinal cord injuries, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and heart disease. They say the previous bond advanced research and treatments for more than 75 diseases, including two cancer treatments for fatal blood disorders that were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Without new funding to keep the program going, supporters of Proposition 14 say, groundbreaking medical discoveries and lifesaving research will be slowed or stopped.

Anti arguments

Opponents say that the state shouldn’t take on new debt while facing a pandemic-induced deficit and that medical advances attributed to the previous stem cell bond have been overstated. In addition, opponents say CIRM has been hampered by conflicts of interest and too little oversight, neither of which are remedied by the ballot measure.

The campaign to pass the 2004 ballot measure told voters that the bond would save millions of lives and cut healthcare costs by billions. Critics say that’s not been the case to date, although supporters of this year’s measure note that they never intended those results within 16 years. While there is not much organized opposition, some newspaper editorial boards, including those at the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle, have opposed it.

Reading list

With Prop. 14, California voters will be asked for more borrowing to keep stem cell research going

Explaining Prop. 14

Times columnist George Skelton assesses Prop. 14

The California stem cell program’s $5.5-billion funding request might be its downfall

California’s stem cell program faces an existential moment — and a chance for reform

When it comes to disease, stem cells are a game-changer, scientists say. This is why

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Source Article

Read more

Acute Care Measure Could Reduce Hospital Readmission Penalties

About one in four hospitals would see their penalty status change under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) if penalties were determined using “excess days in acute care” (EDAC), a more comprehensive measure of hospital use after discharge, instead of looking only at 30-day readmissions.

The EDAC measure captures all days spent in acute care settings within 30 days of discharge, including emergency department (ED) visits, observation stays, and unplanned readmissions.

In the study, published online October 13 in Annals of Internal Medicine, half of hospitals in the highest-performing group under the more blunt 30-day readmissions measure would fall to a lower-performing group if EDAC were used.

Conversely, a similar number of low-performing hospitals would jump to a higher stratum.

“We know that linking the 30-day readmission measure to penalties under the HRRP has led to intensified efforts to treat patients in the ED or as observation stays,” said lead author Rishi Wadhera, MD, MPP, MPhil Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. “While this makes hospitals’ readmission rates look lower, it’s not clear that these shifts are actually good for patient care.”

Given the $3 billion in penalties assessed by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) under the HRRP since its implementation in 2012, a switch to EDAC could help pull some struggling hospitals back from the brink.

Of particular concern, said Wadhera, is evidence showing that small rural and less resourced hospitals might be taking the brunt of those penalties.

“Large hospitals have the capacity and infrastructure to treat patients in the ER or place them in observation status, such that these encounters won’t count as readmissions. Small rural hospitals don’t have that capacity and may be unfairly penalized,” he suggested.

This new study compared the impact of the standard 30-day readmissions measure with the EDAC measure in 3173 hospitals that participated in the HRRP in 2019.

Because of ongoing concerns regarding unintended consequences associated with the 30-day readmissions measure, including a possibility of increased mortality among patients admitted with heart failure and pneumonia, there have been numerous calls from the clinician and health policy communities, including a recent one in JAMA from Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island, to replace the metric with a more comprehensive measure of hospital use.

EDAC was developed for CMS and has been publicly reported since 2017, but is not included in the HRRP. Like the 30-day readmissions measure, however, it does not fully adjust for risk factors like frailty and medical complexity.

The EDAC measure would diminish the perverse incentive to avoid readmitting patients who come back to the hospital.

“One advantage of the EDAC measure is that it’s comprehensive and less gameable, because it counts all hospital encounters after discharge, including ED visits, observation stays, and/or readmissions. The EDAC measure would diminish the perverse incentive to avoid readmitting patients who come back to the hospital and allow for fairer comparisons of hospital performance,” said Wadhera.

“But at best, switching from 30-day

Read more