FROM THE EDITOR’S DESK
BIOPRESERVATION AND BIOBANKING Volume 11, Number 5, 2013 ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/bio.2013.1151
Economics: The Neglected ‘‘Omics’’ of Biobanking Jim Vaught
I
n this issue of Biopreservation and Biobanking, Gonzalez-Sanchez, et al. describe their work in cost modeling for the Spanish National Biobank Network. The article outlines the network’s strategy to assess and analyze the costs necessary to collect, process, store, and disseminate biospecimens. In recent years, as biobanking has progressed to encompass all other ‘‘–omics’’ analyses, including genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, transcriptomics and the like, this sort of economic analysis has been lacking. Although several major economic models have been developed to sustain biobanks, funding is often supported by centralized budgets within institutions. This arrangement can lead to poor longterm management as the various stakeholders are unaware of the true cost of operating the facility. Often, those costs are not itemized in a way that individual users can understand. And not being accountable for the costs of their individual collections can lead to wasteful practices, including costly long-term storage of unused specimens (a problem in itself!). The Spanish National Biobank Network investigators outline one important aspect of biobanking economics—a detailed analysis of the costs of a complex operation. This analysis is a critical first step in developing a business plan for a biobank or a biobanking network. Depending on the policies and procedures within a particular institution, such a business plan may also involve establishing a cost recovery plan and other strategies to assure the biobank’s long-term sustainability. In 2011, our group at the National Cancer Institute published two ‘‘biobankonomics’’ papers which included recommendations for developing a sustainable business model for a biobank.1,2 In addition to the cost analysis, the following items were recommended for consideration: Managing variations in the availability of funding; assessing the ‘‘market need’’ for specimens and data collected by the biobank; the long-term ‘‘total cost of ownership’’; cost recovery and analysis of return on investment; effect of inventory turnover rates; and the development of public-private partnerships to achieve long-term sustainability. In the second of the two papers, we analyzed the potential economic benefits of developing standardized, centralized biobanks. These include quantifiable actions that have economic impact such as implementing strict standards to avoid repeat collection and analyses due to poor specimen quality. Other long-term economic impacts are less quantifiable without further study, but may include: Benefits due to strict adherence to best practices; lower costs for clinical trials and patient care due to production of better quality specimens and data; and efficiencies of scale if biospecimen resources choose to form a network or a centralized biobank that adheres to a set of standard practices.
However, most of the above discussion about the development of biobanking business practices and quantifying economic impact is limited to theory. Except for strictly commercial operations, such business policies and practices are not in widespread use in most biobanks. Usually the development of a few simple practices such as cost analysis and partial cost recovery is the result of an economic crisis caused by loss of a funding source, or a strain on the biobank’s resources due to lack of turnover of specimens, and investigators’ lack of accountability in managing their collections. In order to further explore some of these issues, later this year the NCI will start two new biobanking economics projects: One will assess biobank costs and funding mechanisms in order to gain a better understanding of the types of models that result in better long-term sustainability; a second project will develop a cost-and-revenue-stream model and web-based tool that can be used by biobanks for business planning. We hope that these studies will encourage biobank managers to take a more proactive and standardized approach to business planning. Thanks to Gonzalez-Sanchez and coauthors for their contribution to the scarce literature on the economics of biobanking. Informative discussions of these issues have also occurred over the past few years on the ISBER listserv, in the latest editions of the ISBER and NCI Best Practices, as well as in a few contributions to Biopreservation and Biobanking.3,4 I would like to see more manuscripts submitted concerning the economics of biobanking, and I encourage those with interest in this topic to send me a note ([email protected]). We can work together on a special section in the journal to further advance a topic that is critical for the future success of biobanks during these economically challenging times.
References 1. Vaught J, Rogers J, Myers K, et al. An NCI perspective on creating sustainable biospecimen resources. J Nat Cancer Inst Monographs 2011;42:1–7. 2. Vaught J, Rogers J, Carolin T, et al. Biobankonomics: Developing a sustainable business model approach for the formation of a human tissue biobank. J Nat Cancer Inst Monographs 2011;42:24–31. 3. Kozlakidis Z, Mant C, Cason J. Bridging the financial gap through providing contract services: A model for publicly funded clinical biobanks. Biopreserv Biobank 2012;10: 357–360. 4. McDonald S, Sommerkamp K, Egan-Palmer M, et al. Fee-ForService as a Business Model of Growing Importance: The Academic Biobank Experience. Biopreserv Biobank 2012;10: 421–425.
Bethesda, Maryland, [email protected].
259
Jim Vaught, PhD Editor-in-Chief
BIOPRESERVATION AND BIOBANKING Volume 11, Number 5, 2013 ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/bio.2013.1151
Economics: The Neglected ‘‘Omics’’ of Biobanking Jim Vaught
I
n this issue of Biopreservation and Biobanking, Gonzalez-Sanchez, et al. describe their work in cost modeling for the Spanish National Biobank Network. The article outlines the network’s strategy to assess and analyze the costs necessary to collect, process, store, and disseminate biospecimens. In recent years, as biobanking has progressed to encompass all other ‘‘–omics’’ analyses, including genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, transcriptomics and the like, this sort of economic analysis has been lacking. Although several major economic models have been developed to sustain biobanks, funding is often supported by centralized budgets within institutions. This arrangement can lead to poor longterm management as the various stakeholders are unaware of the true cost of operating the facility. Often, those costs are not itemized in a way that individual users can understand. And not being accountable for the costs of their individual collections can lead to wasteful practices, including costly long-term storage of unused specimens (a problem in itself!). The Spanish National Biobank Network investigators outline one important aspect of biobanking economics—a detailed analysis of the costs of a complex operation. This analysis is a critical first step in developing a business plan for a biobank or a biobanking network. Depending on the policies and procedures within a particular institution, such a business plan may also involve establishing a cost recovery plan and other strategies to assure the biobank’s long-term sustainability. In 2011, our group at the National Cancer Institute published two ‘‘biobankonomics’’ papers which included recommendations for developing a sustainable business model for a biobank.1,2 In addition to the cost analysis, the following items were recommended for consideration: Managing variations in the availability of funding; assessing the ‘‘market need’’ for specimens and data collected by the biobank; the long-term ‘‘total cost of ownership’’; cost recovery and analysis of return on investment; effect of inventory turnover rates; and the development of public-private partnerships to achieve long-term sustainability. In the second of the two papers, we analyzed the potential economic benefits of developing standardized, centralized biobanks. These include quantifiable actions that have economic impact such as implementing strict standards to avoid repeat collection and analyses due to poor specimen quality. Other long-term economic impacts are less quantifiable without further study, but may include: Benefits due to strict adherence to best practices; lower costs for clinical trials and patient care due to production of better quality specimens and data; and efficiencies of scale if biospecimen resources choose to form a network or a centralized biobank that adheres to a set of standard practices.
However, most of the above discussion about the development of biobanking business practices and quantifying economic impact is limited to theory. Except for strictly commercial operations, such business policies and practices are not in widespread use in most biobanks. Usually the development of a few simple practices such as cost analysis and partial cost recovery is the result of an economic crisis caused by loss of a funding source, or a strain on the biobank’s resources due to lack of turnover of specimens, and investigators’ lack of accountability in managing their collections. In order to further explore some of these issues, later this year the NCI will start two new biobanking economics projects: One will assess biobank costs and funding mechanisms in order to gain a better understanding of the types of models that result in better long-term sustainability; a second project will develop a cost-and-revenue-stream model and web-based tool that can be used by biobanks for business planning. We hope that these studies will encourage biobank managers to take a more proactive and standardized approach to business planning. Thanks to Gonzalez-Sanchez and coauthors for their contribution to the scarce literature on the economics of biobanking. Informative discussions of these issues have also occurred over the past few years on the ISBER listserv, in the latest editions of the ISBER and NCI Best Practices, as well as in a few contributions to Biopreservation and Biobanking.3,4 I would like to see more manuscripts submitted concerning the economics of biobanking, and I encourage those with interest in this topic to send me a note ([email protected]). We can work together on a special section in the journal to further advance a topic that is critical for the future success of biobanks during these economically challenging times.
References 1. Vaught J, Rogers J, Myers K, et al. An NCI perspective on creating sustainable biospecimen resources. J Nat Cancer Inst Monographs 2011;42:1–7. 2. Vaught J, Rogers J, Carolin T, et al. Biobankonomics: Developing a sustainable business model approach for the formation of a human tissue biobank. J Nat Cancer Inst Monographs 2011;42:24–31. 3. Kozlakidis Z, Mant C, Cason J. Bridging the financial gap through providing contract services: A model for publicly funded clinical biobanks. Biopreserv Biobank 2012;10: 357–360. 4. McDonald S, Sommerkamp K, Egan-Palmer M, et al. Fee-ForService as a Business Model of Growing Importance: The Academic Biobank Experience. Biopreserv Biobank 2012;10: 421–425.
Bethesda, Maryland, [email protected].
259
Jim Vaught, PhD Editor-in-Chief
