Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Commentary
  • Published:

Proposition 71 and CIRM—assessing the return on investment

Given that Californian voters authorized state coffers to sell $3 billion in bonds to fund the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) with the expectation of health and financial benefits, what benchmarks should be used to measure the initiative's success?

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3: Annual medical spending for JODM patients, assuming a new therapy is introduced in either 2030 or 2035, halves the incremental spending associated with the condition.
Figure 4: Annual spending on a hypothetical new stem cell therapy introduced in 2030 or 2035.

References

  1. <http://www.cirm.ca.gov/meetings/pdf/2006/12/120706_item_7.pdf> (Accessed February 2007).

  2. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Biological and Biomedical Applications of Stem Cell Research. Board on Life Sciences Natural Research Council, and Board on Neuroscience and Behavioral Health Institute of Medicine. Stem Cells and The Future of Regenerative Medicine (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2002). <http://books.nap.edu/books/0309076307/html/index.html> (Accessed February 2007).

  3. Taymor, K.S., Scott, C.T. & Greely, H.T. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 411–413 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, 17 Cal. Code of Regulations §§100300–100310 (as revised through November 2006).

  5. <http://www.cirm.ca.gov/policies/pdf/ForProfitOrg.pdf> (Accessed February 2007).

  6. The California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative. (2004) (Proposition 71). Cal Legis Serv Prop 71 (West). Enacted.

  7. Weissman, I. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 294, 1359–1366 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. LaPorte, R.E., Matsushima, M. & Chang, Y.F. in Diabetes in America. NIH Publication No. 95–1468 (eds. Harris, M.I. et al.) 37–46 (National Diabetes Data Group of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  9. <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/unpubd/mortabs/gmwk310_10.htm> (Accessed February 2007).

  10. <http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/2005_nat_res.html> (Accessed February 2007).

  11. Portuese, E. & Orchard, T. in Diabetes in America. NIH Publication No. 95–1468 (eds. Harris, M.I. et al.) 221–232 (National Diabetes Data Group of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Torrance, G.W. J. Health Econ. 5, 1–30 (1986).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dolan, P. in Handbook of Health Economics, vol. 1, part 2 (eds. Culyer, A.J. & Newhouse, J.P.) 1723–1760 (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Holland, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Morgan, C.L. et al. Diabetic Med. 23, 1100–1105 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bagust, A., Wilson, E., Downs, K.E., Perry, A.S. & Harrison, D.J. Diabetes 51 Supplement 2, A270 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  16. UKPDS Group. Diabetes Care 22, 1125–1136 (1999).

  17. Huang, E.S., Shook, M., Jin, L., Chin, M.H. & Meltzer, D.O. Diabetes Care 29, 259–264 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hirth, R.A., Chernew, M.E., Miller, E., Fendrick, A.M. & Weissert, W.C. Med. Decis. Making 20, 332–342 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. <http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/sp/ncbl0635.pdf> (Accessed February 2007).

  20. Javitt, J.C. & Chiang, Y.-P. in Diabetes in America. NIH Publication No. 95–1468 (eds. Harris, M.I. et al.) 601–612 (National Diabetes Data Group of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

L.C.B. was a consultant to Proposition 71 during the campaign. M.T.L. is the recipient of a training grant from CIRM and H.T.G. is a faculty member on the training grant. Stanford University, the employer for M.T.L., L.C.B. and H.T.G., has been the recipient of training grants, SEED grants and comprehensive grants from CIRM.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Longaker, M., Baker, L. & Greely, H. Proposition 71 and CIRM—assessing the return on investment. Nat Biotechnol 25, 513–521 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0507-513

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0507-513

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing