In the intense and ongoing debate over federal healthcarepolicy, the cost of prescription drugs has been a central and constant issue. Lawmakers from both parties have put forward dizzyingly diverse range of plans that aim to reducecostsand respond to constituent's demands.

But theres one straightforward technical tool for reducing drugcoststhat hasnt appeared in the high-profile debate.

When it comes to manufacturing pharmaceuticals, Americans should consider investing inautomation.

Its no secret:automationcan be a dirty word in U.S. politics. Its often synonymous with computers or robots taking jobs and shuttering factories. Theres some truth to this. The U.S. lost at least 5 million domestic manufacturing jobs over the past two decades,in large part due toautomation.

Still, a great deal ofautomationis inevitable. And, if we make the right investments ahead of our global competitors,automationcan work to our advantage including in terms job creation and reductions in consumer prices.

Consider howautomationis poised to change pharma manufacturing. The standard analog method of making drugs,batch manufacturing, is now more than 100 years old. This process requires numerousstops and starts, takes a lot of time, and involves serious risks of contamination or error.

In contrast, the newautomatedmanufacturing method calledcontinuousmanufacturing makes it possible to producemedicines more quickly and efficiently,without interruption and with a great deal more real-time control.Continuous manufacturing can lower the cost of drugs significantly, by decreasing the unit cost, by accelerating product development, and by improving quality.

This kind ofautomationisunquestionablythe future of pharmaceutical manufacturing.But, in this future,it'squestionable whether the United States will lead and, in turn, reap the rewards of new high-skilled jobs and reduced consumer prices.

While U.S. researchers including those at Rutgers University'sCenter for Structured Organic Particulate Systems(C-SOPS),which I direct have led the development of Continuous Manufacturing technologies, U.S.-based firms face challenges in making the transitionto commercial practice.

In particular, small and medium sized manufacturers struggle with the upfront technologicalcostsrequired to incorporate these new technologies into operations. And, yes, some stakeholders mayfearthe loss of old jobsassociated withatransition fromthe previous system of pharmaceutical manufacturing.

Drug making is a microcosm of the broader manufacturing economy asautomationand digitization take hold.

If we areserious aboutsucceeding in manufacturing and taking advantage of digitization andautomation, wewillneed to ensure that new transformativeinnovationsare anchored in America and that we do more informed cost-benefit assessments when thinking about employment.

While automationeliminatesthe need for some operator positions, itsimultaneouslymeans the creation ofbetteropportunities at multiple levels of skill from engineering and programming to design, assembly,optimization,maintenance, and monitoring.

Government, industry, and universities should work together tostandardize the technology processes and product development methods that can ensure the new methodstakehold herefirst.Different sectors should also cooperate to incentivize and invest in education, workforce training, and technology adoption.

Automationisnt the enemy. It simply means thatmanufacturing jobs follow real knowhow, not cheap labor.

This is a reality that we can turn to our advantage.

In todays political arena, we should see proactive investments in advanced manufacturing not only as a tool to create high-value, high-skill jobs but also to address other overarching challenges including the cost and quality ofhealthcare.

In a competitive world of constant innovation, these investments aren't optional.

Fernando J. Muzzio is Director, NSF ERC on Structured Organic Particulate Systems, and Distinguished Professor, Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, Rutgers University.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

See the original post:

Want to cut healthcare costs? Try automation - The Hill (blog)