Introduction In the previous blog post, we discussed the limitations of traditional impact investing, particularly in funding high-risk areas like medical research. Childhood cancer, a devastating diagnosis affecting thousands of families each year, exemplifies the urgent need for innovative funding solutions. Despite significant advancements in some areas, many forms of childhood cancer still have low survival rates and leave survivors with lifelong health issues. The critical gap between the need for research and available funding calls for a novel approach to impact investing. This article explores why childhood cancer research is underfunded and how innovative funding models can bridge this gap.
The Impact of Childhood Cancer Childhood cancer remains one of the most heart-wrenching diagnoses. Each year, more than 17,000 children are diagnosed with cancer in the United States alone. Here are some key points to consider:
Prevalence and Severity: Childhood cancer is the leading cause of death by disease for children in the U.S., resulting in approximately 1,800 deaths each year.
Long-Term Effects: Even when treatment is successful, many survivors suffer from long-term health issues, including secondary cancers, organ damage, and cognitive impairments. Children who survive cancer are twice as likely to experience chronic health conditions later in life compared to those who have never had cancer.
Emotional and Financial Strain: The diagnosis and treatment of childhood cancer impose enormous emotional and financial burdens on families. This includes the cost of treatments, travel for care, and the long-term follow-up needed to monitor health post-treatment.
Why Traditional Models Fall Short Funding for childhood cancer research lags behind other types of cancer research for several reasons:
Specific Research Challenges: While all cancer research requires significant time and resources, childhood cancers present unique challenges. Childhood cancers are often biologically distinct from adult cancers, necessitating different research approaches and treatments. This requires specialized research which can be more resource-intensive and complex.
Pharmaceutical Company Focus: Pharmaceutical companies prefer focusing on the adult cancer drug market as it is larger and more lucrative. This results in less investment in pediatric cancer research, which has a smaller market and offers less financial incentive.
High Initial Costs: The initial investment needed for research and clinical trials is substantial. Traditional impact investors tend to avoid such high-risk, high-cost projects. The relatively smaller patient population for childhood cancers further complicates the financial viability of these investments.
Underfunding: Despite the high need, only about 4% of the U.S. federal funding for cancer research is allocated to childhood cancers, which makes it challenging to support the numerous subtypes and their specific research needs. The rarity of many childhood cancers further limits the funds directed toward their research and treatment development.
The Funding Gap Despite the high need for research funding, childhood cancer research often receives less financial support compared to other diseases. This funding gap is exacerbated by the reluctance of traditional impact investors to engage with high-risk, high-reward projects. Innovative funding models are essential to bridge this gap and provide the necessary resources for groundbreaking research.
The Potential for Innovative Impact Investing To address these challenges, we need to rethink our approach to impact investing. Innovative funding models can provide sustainable support for high-risk, high-reward research areas like childhood cancer. Here are some potential strategies:
Redirecting Investment Fees: One innovative approach involves using investment management fees from traditional investments to fund research. By redirecting most of these fees directly to non-profits, investors can support crucial research without sacrificing financial returns.
Blended Finance: Combining public, private, and philanthropic funding can reduce the risk for individual investors while providing the substantial capital needed for medical research.
Outcome-Based Financing: This model ties financial returns to the achievement of specific research milestones, ensuring that funding is directed towards projects with the highest potential for impact.
Case Studies and Examples While the concept may seem theoretical, there are precedents for successful innovative funding in other high-risk areas:
Social Impact Bonds (SIBs): These are outcome-based contracts where private investors fund social programs and receive returns from the government if the programs achieve predetermined outcomes.
Blended Finance in Development Projects: Blended finance has been used to fund development projects in emerging markets, combining concessional funds from public or philanthropic sources with private investment.
These models illustrate the potential for innovative financial structures to fund projects with significant social impact.
Conclusion The fight against childhood cancer requires more than just dedication from researchers and healthcare professionals—it requires innovative funding solutions that can bridge the gap between high-risk research and traditional impact investing. By redirecting investment fees, employing blended finance, and utilizing outcome-based financing, we can create sustainable funding models that drive significant advancements in childhood cancer research. In the next post, we will introduce a new model of impact investing specifically designed to support high-risk research areas.
Stay tuned and let’s explore how we can make a real difference together.
👍 Like this? Give me your thumb ♻️ Repost to share it with others!