Healthcare in a Changing Climate 2025

–Economically developed regions: Findings from North America were treated as the benchmark, indicating that 8.4% of US census areas do not have an ambulatory care facility. Hence, it was assumed that for developed countries 92% of incidences could be effectively reached by innovative life sciences solutions. –Less economically developed regions: For these regions, a forward-looking estimate was applied. Current global access to healthcare of 61% was assumed to be average, based on the share of rural (44%) and urban (78%) populations with access to healthcare services. To account for the expected increase in healthcare access by 2050, an average of between 61% current global access to healthcare and 92% current access to healthcare in developed countries was applied. –Digital therapeutics: For these, a different approach was used. The maximum share of incidences that an innovative intervention could reach was limited by the degree of smartphone penetration rates in corresponding regions, ranging from 38% in Africa to 74% in North America. 4) Health and economic impact trajectory – defined as the amount of DALYs, economic losses and deaths expected to be caused by climate change each year until 2050, derived from the Forum’s Quantifying the Impact of Climate Change on Human Health. Four factors were combined to estimate the share of health and economic impacts that could be prevented by the new solutions developed by the life sciences sector until 2050: –Required R&D time was used as a delay before any impact could be reduced. –Year-on-year innovation adoption rate was applied to year-on-year health and economic impact trajectories. –Access to healthcare and technology marked the maximum adoption rate that could be achieved by 2050. –This combination of factors allowed us to assess what proportion of year-by-year health impacts, economic losses and additional deaths could be prevented. D. Effectiveness of new solutions New interventions are not anticipated to reach 100% effectiveness. Therefore, medical literature was reviewed to identify the efficacy of innovative solutions in ongoing trials and averaged with the effectiveness of existing solutions. The following scenarios were considered: –Ongoing trials: In the case of ongoing trials with quantified efficacy outcomes, the effectiveness of an innovative solution was considered as the average between the existing intervention effectiveness and the efficacy highlighted in trials. This approach takes into account existing effectiveness but also acknowledges improved clinical efficacy demonstrated in trials. For example, with a new malaria drug targeting multi-drug resistance, an average effectiveness was calculated between current malaria drug effectiveness (from 54% in Asia to 65% in Africa) and best-practice efficacy observed in ongoing trials (100%). –Replicating existing solutions: Where innovation replicates existing solutions in a new environment, the effectiveness of the existing solution was utilized. For example, this approach has been used to assess the potential effectiveness of a new preventive pharmacological solution for generalized anxiety disorder, where an effective treatment already exists, with an effectiveness of 56%. –No trials: Finally, when no trials exist or no efficacy outcomes are demonstrated, a comparable intervention developed for another disease from a comparable therapeutic area was considered as a benchmark. For example, the potential efficacy of digital therapeutics in addressing generalized anxiety disorder is assumed to be 57%, in line with effectiveness of self-management apps in reduction of PTSD symptoms. E. Healthcare savings ratio to prevented health impacts Prevention of health impacts directly leads to a reduction in productivity losses and premature deaths, but it has a lower effect on reduction of healthcare costs. Access to new solutions is costly and often requires supply chain and medical infrastructure to deliver the health impact, resulting in extra costs for the healthcare system. For example, while a vaccine may avert adverse health outcomes, substantial healthcare costs are still required to deliver the injections, often in larger volumes than actual incidences in the area. Therefore, only a share of healthcare costs needed to treat the health impacts of climate change could be saved. A healthcare savings ratio was applied to estimate the prevented health impacts. –Vaccines: A comparison of costs identified that vaccinating for influenza can be 32% cheaper than treatment – a savings ratio that was applied to all prevention interventions. –New diagnostics: The introduction of new medtech devices has, in some instances, led to an overall increase in healthcare costs – up to an additional 40%. When considering the ratio of prevented health impacts, this implies around a 70% reduction in total healthcare costs for every diagnosed and subsequently treated case. Healthcare in a Changing Climate: Investing in Resilient Solutions 37