American Journal of Pharmacogenomics

, Volume 5, Issue 6, pp 345–355 | Cite as

The Personalized Medicine Coalition

Goals and Strategies
  • Edward AbrahamsEmail author
  • Geoffrey S. Ginsburg
  • Mike Silver
Leading Article


The concept of personalized medicine — that medical care can be tailored to the genomic and molecular profile of the individual — has repercussions that extend far beyond the technology that makes it possible. The adoption of personalized medicine will require changes in healthcare infrastructure, diagnostics and therapeutics business models, reimbursement policy from government and private payers, and a different approach to regulatory oversight. Personalized medicine will shift medical practices upstream from the reactive treatment of disease, to proactive healthcare management including screening, early treatment, and prevention, and will alter the roles of both physician and patient. It will create a greater reliance on electronic medical records and decision support systems in an industry that has a long history of resistance to information technology.

Personalized medicine requires a systems approach to implementation. But in a healthcare economy that is highly decentralized and market driven, it is incumbent upon the stakeholders themselves to advocate for a consistent set of policies and legislation that pave the way for the adoption of personalized medicine. To address this need, the Personalized Medicine Coalition (PMC) was formed as a nonprofit umbrella organization of pharmaceutical, biotechnology, diagnostic, and information technology companies, healthcare providers and payers, patient advocacy groups, industry policy organizations, major academic institutions, and government agencies. The PMC provides a structure for achieving consensus positions among these stakeholders on crucial public policy issues, a role which will be vital to translating personalized medicine into widespread clinical practice.

In this article, we outline the goals of the PMC, and the strategies it will take to foster communication, debate, and consensus on issues such as genetic discrimination, the reimbursement structures for pharmacogenomic drugs and diagnostics, regulation, physician training and medical school curricula, and public education.


Personalized Medicine Clinical Decision Support System Computerize Physician Order Entry Medical School Curriculum Computerize Physician Order Entry System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We would like to thank Marcia Kean, Christine Mackenzie, and J. Brian Munroe for their keen insights and assistance in preparing the manuscript. We report no funding or other sources of support that would create a conflict of interest with the content of this review.


  1. 1.
    Stearns V, Davidson NE, Flockhart D. Pharmacogenetics in the treatment of breast cancer. Pharmacogenetics 2004; 4: 143–53Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marsh S, McLeod H. Cancer pharmacogenetics. Br J Cancer 2004; 90: 8–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Webster A, Martin P, Lewis G, et al. Integrating pharmacogenetics into society: in search of a model. Nat Rev Genet 2004; 5: 663–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Personalized Medicine Coalition: news and events [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2005 Sep 1]
  5. 5.
    Genomics and population health: United States, 2003. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Genomics and Disease Prevention, 2004 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2005 Sep 1]
  6. 6.
    Pharmacogenetics Research Network. Goals for the Pharmacogenetics Research Network [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2005 Sep 1]
  7. 7.
    Guidance for industry: pharmacogenomic data submissions. Rockville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, US Food and Drug Administration, March 2005 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2005 Sep 1]
  8. 8.
    Our inheritance, our future: realising the potential of genetics. London: National Health Service, Department of Health, 2003 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2005 Sep 1]
  9. 9.
    Duke Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2005 Sep 1]
  10. 10.
    Genetics and Public Policy Center, Johns Hopkins University [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2005 Sep 1]
  11. 11.
    Burton H. Addressing genetics, delivering health: a strategy for advancing the dissemination and application of genetics knowledge throughout our health professions. Cambridge: Public Health Genetics Unit, 2003 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2005 Sep 1]Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Suther S, Goodson P. Barriers to the provision of genetic services by primary care physicians: a systematic review of the literature. Genet Med 2003; 5(2): 70–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wideroff L, Thomas VS, Greene MH, et al. A hereditary breast/ovarian and colorectal cancer genetics knowledge in a national sample of US physicians. J Med Genet. Epub 2005 Mar 22Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Elliott VS. Genetic testing issues land in primary care practices. Am Med News 2004 Nov 8 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2005 Sep 1]Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pharmaceutical industry profile 2005. From laboratory to patient: pathways to biopharmaceutical innovation. Washington, DC: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, 2005 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2005 Sep 1]
  16. 16.
    Gollust SE, Hull SC, Wilfond BS. Limitations of direct-to-consumer advertising for clinical genetic testing. JAMA 2002; 288(14): 1762–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Physicians slow to adopt IT for patient care [editorial]. Drug Benefit Trends 2004; 16(11): 535Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koppel R, Metlay JP, Cohen A, et al. Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA 2005; 293: 1197–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Javitt JC, Steinberg G, Locke T, et al. Using a claims data-based sentinel system to improve compliance with clinical guidelines: results of a randomized prospective study. Am J Manag Care 2005; 11(2): 93–102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bush pushes computerized medical records. Associated Press 2005 Jan 27 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2005 Sep 1]
  21. 21.
    What do Newt Gingrich and Hillary Clinton agree on? Fed money for health IT. InformationWeek 2005 May 11 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2005 Sep 1]
  22. 22.
    In unexpected Medicare benefit, U.S. will offer doctors free electronic records system. N Y Times 2005 Jul 21; Sect. A: 14 (col. 1)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schoonmaker MM, Bernhardt BA, Holtzman NA. Factors influencing health insurers’ decisions to cover new genetic technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16(1): 178–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    The Lewin Group. The value of diagnostics: innovation, adoption and diffusion into health care. 2005 Jul [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2005 Sep 1]
  25. 25.
    Drug-diagnostic co-development concept paper. Rockville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 2005 Apr [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2005 Sep 1]
  26. 26.
    Lesko LJ, Woodcock J. Pharmcogenomic-guided drug development: regulatory perspective. Pharmacogenomics J 2002; 2: 20–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Issa AM. Pharmacogenomic profiling in postmarketing surveillance: prospects and challenges. Pharmacogenomics 2003; 4(5): 647–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ratner ML. Pharmacogenomic data and labeling: a less-safe harbor for existing drugs? Windhover’s Update 2003 May 25 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2005 Sep 1]
  29. 29.
    Feigal DW, Gutman S. Drug development, regulation, and genetically guided therapy. In: Rothstein MA, editor. Pharmacogenomics: social, ethical, and clinical dimensions. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons, 2003: 99–108Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Roses AD. Pharmacogenetics and future drug development and delivery. Lancet 2000; 355: 1358–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Robertson JA, Brody B, Buchanan A, et al. Pharmacogenetic challenges for the health care system: genetically based drug prescribing could decrease overall health costs and fuel new drug development. Health Aff 2002; 21(4): 155–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Phillips KA, Veenstra DL, Sadee W. Implications of the genetics revolution for health services research: pharmacogenomics and improvements in drug therapy. Health Serv Res 2000; 35(5): 1–12Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Phillips KA, Veenstra DL, Ramsey SD, et al. Genetic testing and pharmacogenomics: issues for determining the impact to healthcare delivery and costs. Am J Manag Care 2004; 10: 425–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Veenstra DL, Higashi MK, Phillips KA. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenomics. AAPS PharmSci 2000 Sep 14; 2(3): article 29 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2005 Sep 1]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Pharmacogenetics: ethical issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2003 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2005 Sep 1]Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Epps P. Policy before practice. Am J Pharmacogenomics 2003; 3(6): 405–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Breckenridge A, Lindpaintner K, Lipton P. Pharmacogenetics: ethical problems and solutions. Nat Rev Genet 2004; 5: 676–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vaszar LT, Cho MK, Raffin TA. Privacy issues in personalized medicine. Pharmacogenomics 2003; 4(2): 107–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Freund CL, Wilfond BS. Emerging ethical issues in pharmacogenomics: from research to clinical practice. Am J Pharmacogenomics 2002; 2(4): 273–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Moldrup C. Ethical, social and legal implications of pharmacogenomics: a critical review. Community Genet 2001; 4(4): 204–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zick CD, Mathews CJ, Roberts JS, et al. Genetic testing for Alzheimer’s disease and its impact on insurance purchasing behavior. Health Aff 2005; 24(2): 483–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hall MA, Rich SS. Laws restricting health insurers’ use of genetic information: impact on genetic discrimination. Am J Hum Genet 2000 Jan; 66(1): 293–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    America’s Health Insurance Plans. Use of genetic information [online]. Available from URL:|341|326 [Accessed 2005 Sep 1]
  44. 44.
    Collins FS, McKusick VA. Implications of the human genome project for medical science. JAMA 2001; 285(5): 540–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Frueh FW, Gurwitz D. From pharmacogenetics to personalized medicine: a vital need for educating health professionals and the community. Pharmacogenomics 2004; 5(5): 571–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Burton H, Shuttleworth A. Genetics education for pharmacists. Pharm J 2003; 270: 84–5Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) awards funds for genetics programs [online]. Released 2001 Oct 18. Available from URL: [Accessed 2005 Apr 30]
  48. 48.
    Rothstein MA, Hornung CA. Public attitudes toward pharmacogenomics. In: Rothstein MA, editor. Pharmacogenomics: social, ethical, and clinical dimensions. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons, 2003: 3–28Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wideroff L, Vadaparampil ST, Breen N, et al. Awareness of genetic testing for increased cancer risk in the year 2000 National Health Interview Survey. Community Genet 2003; 6(3): 147–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wideroff L, Freedman AN, Olson L, et al. Physician use of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: results of a national survey. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003; 12: 295–303PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward Abrahams
    • 1
    Email author
  • Geoffrey S. Ginsburg
    • 2
  • Mike Silver
    • 3
  1. 1.Personalized Medicine CoalitionWashington, DCUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Genome Sciences & PolicyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Feinstein Kean HealthcareCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations