Dear Members of the Healthcare Innovation Community, 

At Cure, we believe that disruption can serve as a powerful catalyst for progress—especially when met with vision, resilience, and collaboration. As we look across the healthcare and life sciences landscape in 2025, one thing remains clear: innovation is thriving even as the foundational systems and infrastructure that support it undergo fundamental, end-to-end transformation.

The entrepreneurs, scientists, investors, and policy leaders we engage with every day are navigating a complex environment marked by transformative technologies, evolving regulatory frameworks, shifting funding models, and growing competition for talent. And yet, they continue to move forward with purpose, bringing breakthrough ideas to market and improving patient lives.

The innovation ecosystem, as we’ve long known it, is being redefined. Last year, healthcare leaders saw technology as the sector’s most powerful disruptor. This year, policy surged to the top, with 62 percent citing it as the most significant force shaping their outlook. It’s no surprise. NIH funding, FDA timelines, supply chains, and biomanufacturing infrastructure are all undergoing significant shifts.

Yet, amid these changes, the spirit of innovation is alive and kicking. Bold ideas still emerge from those determined to build a better future. To meet this moment, healthcare leaders are adapting, and innovators are pivoting. They are leveraging AI and talent to create an innovation advantage, as well as pursuing alternative capital sources, rebuilding talent and rethinking how breakthroughs move from discovery to delivery. 

Our new report, The Future of Healthcare Innovation 2025, captures this moment of urgency, opportunity, momentum and change. It features insights from CEOs and senior executives across the healthcare sector:

• 87 percent remain optimistic about the future of healthcare innovation.

• 61 percent expect the biotech sector to grow despite continued uncertainty.

• Access to capital and regulatory clarity remain the top drivers of success.

The data, insights, and voices included here paint a picture of an industry evolving in real-time, meeting uncertainty not with paralysis but with purpose and ingenuity. 

The report not only reflects what we’re hearing from the front lines, it also offers a roadmap. Inside, we outline six strategic actions every healthcare leader, founder, and entrepreneur should consider now.

At Cure, we are more than a hub. We are a platform built to accelerate healthcare innovation. Through our membership and residency programs, we provide health innovators and entrepreneurs mentorship, space, strategic resources, networking, and access to a vibrant community of peers, experts, and investors. We convene events, catalyze collaborations, and offer guidance and connections to the investor ecosystem, along with the education and insight needed to help bold ideas grow into transformative healthcare solutions.

We’re honored to be part of this vibrant community—and excited to help build the future of healthcare. Together.

Seema Kumar Cure, CEO

For decades, the U.S. biomedical enterprise has been a global powerhouse for innovation. It is a dynamic ecosystem where cutting-edge science meets bold investment, smart policy, and real-world impact. 

But in 2025, this ecosystem is hitting turbulence. Sweeping policy shifts under President Trump’s second term are rapidly reshaping the innovation landscape, sending shockwaves through academic research, regulatory timelines, and healthcare investments. The long-term impacts on public health, investor confidence, and the future of healthcare innovation are only beginning to take shape.

How are Healthcare Leaders Navigating This Moment of Uncertainty?

To assess how industry leaders are responding to the current policy and market environment, Cure surveyed CEOs and senior executives across the healthcare sector in May 2025. The findings—published in Cure’s second annual biopharma and healthcare industry report, The Future of Healthcare Innovation 2025—reveal a landscape marked by growing unease, underpinned by continued resilience and commitment to innovation.

While a majority of respondents believe the biotech sector will continue to grow (61 percent) or remain stable (18 percent), 21 percent now anticipate contraction—a threefold increase from just 7 percent in 2024. The shift reflects deepening concern over federal policy turbulence and macroeconomic instability.

Scott Donohue, Senior Director of Market Access at Deerfield Management, an affiliate of Cure, captured the overall mood in the industry: “In just the last five months, we’ve seen a level of policy activity that is usually measured in years. And short-term impacts are starting to emerge.”

While many companies are recalibrating in response to these shifts, the overall message from leadership is clear: the sector may be bracing for turbulence, but it’s not backing down.

Our survey findings show that instead of stalling amid uncertainty, the industry is staying focused and pursuing smarter, faster paths to bring new solutions to market.

Why Policy Now Outweighs Tech in Shaping Healthcare

A striking 62 percent of industry leaders cited policy—not technology—as the primary force shaping the future of healthcare. And only 29 percent pointed to technology, a notable reversal from the 2024 outlook.

“The convergence of biotech and digital health is accelerating innovation while reducing development costs,” said one leader. 

But the real drivers of growth or risk, as one respondent said, “may be shaped by political and regulatory factors, including reimbursement policies, data privacy regulations, geopolitical tensions affecting supply chains and regulatory path."

Others pointed to mounting uncertainty despite projected growth and expansion in innovation and investment: “In the next year, I foresee the biotech industry growing,” noted another leader, but expressed concern that policy disruptions could stall innovation. 

“Regulatory changes, pricing pressures, and shifting government policies related to healthcare, drug approval processes, and intellectual property rights are creating significant challenges and uncertainties that could impact growth and innovation timelines,” said a respondent.

Even those who were bullish about the industry growth flagged risks.

"Industry has too much momentum to shrink,” noted one respondent. However, “NIH and public payor policies will disrupt the industry, as [will] FDA scalebacks.”

Trade Wars, Tariffs, and the $215 B Reshoring Gamble

As the U.S. healthcare sector navigates the current administration’s “America First” trade agenda, new vulnerabilities are surfacing in the global supply chain. A central feature of the policy—broad tariffs levied against nearly every country, particularly those targeting China—has reshaped how biopharma companies think about sourcing and manufacturing.

According to the survey, 62 percent of respondents said these trade policies will be “very” or “extremely” impactful on their organizational decision-making, both positively and negatively.

“The biotech industry is growing, driven by innovation and new therapeutic modalities,” said one respondent. “However, it’s also being disrupted by policy—recent tariffs and supply chain tensions are creating uncertainty.” 

Biopharma relies heavily on global suppliers for active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), lab equipment, and key manufacturing inputs. Tariffs have raised costs and disrupted access, especially for generic drugs, which face narrower margins. 

According to Donohue, these pressures create downstream effects: “The looming prospect of pharmaceutical tariffs is beginning to result in commitments from pharmaceutical companies to reshore drug manufacturing. However, tariffs also represent additional pressure on pharmaceutical margins—with generic drugs being especially impacted—and this could have unintended consequences resulting in supply chain disruptions or drug manufacturers further pulling back on R&D spending.”

While the intent of the tariffs is to stimulate domestic production, respondents were skeptical about the pace and cost of reshoring. The U.S. biopharmaceutical sector already employs more than one million people, including nearly 360,000 in manufacturing. Yet building new facilities that meet FDA and GMP (Good Manufacturing Practices) standards is capital-intensive and time-consuming. Increased manufacturing capabilities “cannot pop up overnight,” as one respondent noted. 

Still, there are signs of serious momentum when it comes to reshoring. As of mid-May, many leading pharmaceutical companies—including AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Gilead, Sanofi, and Merck—have collectively committed an estimated $215 billion as of mid-May to build, enhance or expand U.S.-based manufacturing.

“America First trade policies will likely influence biotech organizations to reassess global supply chains,” said one respondent. There’s a push to “prioritize domestic manufacturing sourcing to mitigate tariffs and trade barriers [but] this could raise operational costs and could complicate global partnerships, particularly in terms of pricing strategies, and access to international market.”

While the long-term goal is greater self-sufficiency, multiple respondents warned that reshoring will likely lead to increased costs for American consumers, particularly as companies absorb the capital expense of new manufacturing infrastructure and pass on higher production costs. The transition, they emphasized, will be anything but frictionless.

How Federal Cuts Could Derail Innovation 

Federal budget cuts, combined with tariffs, layoffs, and redirected government investment, are creating a cumulative ripple effect across the innovation ecosystem that is disrupting traditional pathways from lab to market and introducing volatility. While some believe this disruption could spark new investment models, most Cure survey respondents see significant risk.

Rocking the Foundation of Innovation

Deep cuts to NIH, FDA, and the National Science Foundation (NSF)—ostensibly intended to curb government spending—are impacting basic research and early-stage clinical science, the very bedrock of healthcare innovation, according to biotech leaders.

“Federal funding cuts in academia will severely disrupt early-stage research, which is the foundation of biotech innovation,” said one respondent.

With clinical trial timelines and regulatory clarity in question, and fearing more upheaval, some companies are exploring moving clinical trials outside the U.S., shifting portfolio strategies to hedge risk.

“EMA [European Medical Agency] feedback and reviews are becoming more important, while reliance on the FDA is decreasing—not because the U.S. market is less valuable, but due to growing uncertainty around review timelines,” said one biotech leader.

The FDA: Accelerant or Risk Factor?

According to Donohue, the FDA’s evolving posture could go either way: “The FDA’s new leadership shows signs that it is willing to shake up the status quo. Optimists see the potential for new regulatory pathways ... less red tape that could accelerate the approval process. Other skeptical observers fear that the agency could revisit accepted approval standards (e.g., vaccines) or change evidentiary criteria for treatments targeting rare diseases. In the short term, both camps will likely be able to find evidence to validate their expectations.”

Pipeline Perils Force Strategic Change

The impact on biotech pipelines for diseases with high unmet needs is already being felt:

• 69 percent of respondents said cuts would significantly or critically impact R&D.

• 79 percent said companies will need to revise clinical development strategies.

“Cuts to key agencies like the FDA and NIH will drastically slow the R&D pipeline by reducing grant availability, delaying regulatory reviews, and limiting support for early-stage research,” said one respondent. “This will stifle innovation and create bottlenecks that could take years to overcome.” 

The Cost of Innovation Slowdown

When asked directly about the effect of federal cuts on biotech innovation, 87 percent of respondents predicted a negative impact, with nearly half (46 percent) calling it “extremely” negative.

Their overarching message: without the engine behind foundational biotech research, we risk losing an entire generation’s worth of innovation that serves the bedrock of the biotech industry.

“Federal funding drives the most fundamental academic research that leads to the newest innovations and discoveries that the biotech industry builds itself upon,” one respondent said. “Without academic funding, we will lose a whole generation of scientists and discoveries.” 

Others echoed this sentiment: "Academia produces the best fundamental discoveries and foundational data for novel drug targets and biological pathways. The recent government funding cuts are disrupting years of ongoing and future research. That [in turn] will disrupt the innovation, patenting, and licensing pipeline that feeds into the biopharma industry."

The consequences of federal budget and staffing cuts may not be immediately visible. That’s exactly what makes them so risky, a consistent theme that emerged from the survey. With long R&D timelines, the biopharma sector is particularly vulnerable to policy shifts that may seem cost-saving in the short term but could severely dampen innovation over the long term.

As Donohue, observed, healthcare often reminds us of its economic centrality in moments of crisis. While reduced spending may initially appear to improve efficiency, the downstream effects could include a weakened pipeline, slower response to health threats, and fewer breakthrough discoveries. Donohue emphasized the need to evaluate these funding decisions not just by short-term metrics, but through a wider lens that considers long-term impact on public health and scientific progress.

Several survey respondents echoed this concern. One warned that “if these [changes] follow through, the effect will be devastating,” though it may take time to fully materialize. 

Another noted that “the pipeline of new companies at the seed stage will slow,” while others predicted that “in the short term, I don't believe there will be a big impact, but 3-5 years from now, novel and unexpected ideas will dry up and have a significant impact.”

While respondents remain hopeful about the long arc of science, “at the end science will win” they anticipate that “there are definitely going to be bumps along the way,” one noted.

One aspect of federal cuts is the opportunity to rethink policy possibilities. “Major breakthroughs are often unanticipated, so policy must also be flexible enough to allow rapid implementation of innovation,” explained Thomas Sakmar, MD, Head of the Laboratory of Chemical Biology and Signal Transduction at The Rockefeller University. “Policy leaders should attempt to build a community of shared standards, despite current challenges.”

Where Biotech Must Focus Next

Despite the funding strain, respondents underscored the critical need to fill the pipeline with new and better healthcare solutions for the highest unmet needs in key therapeutic areas. Areas ranked highest for ongoing investigation or investment include:

• Oncology (61 percent)

• Immunology and Infectious Diseases (53 percent)

• Neurology (49 percent)

• Metabolic Diseases (44 percent)

Kathryn Godburn Schubert, President and CEO of the Society for Women's Health Research, noted that the impact could be broad reaching and transformative, from managing menopause and cardiovascular disease to obesity and autoimmune care.

And while budget cuts may slow progress, the need for biotech breakthroughs remains unwavering:

"There is such a great need for new treatments for serious diseases that the biotech industry will always be needed. It is the only source of new and creative ideas that big pharma cannot seem to produce." one respondent said.

Red Tape or Green Light? Emerging Regulatory Bottlenecks 

The industry may already be seeing signs of agencies overburdened as a result of federal cuts: the FDA missed multiple PDUFA (Prescription Drug User Fee Act) deadlines this year, delaying key decisions on approval of therapies such as Stealth BioTherapeutics’ rare disease drug elamipretide, Novavax’s updated COVID-19 vaccine and GSK’s IL-5 antibody NUCALA. 

For biotech companies and their investors, these delays are more than administrative hiccups—they extend time-to-market and increase capital burn, hitting early-stage ventures hardest. 

As one respondent put it, “just the perception of a reduced pipeline flow …and longer FDA review times has scared investors into a ‘wait-and-see’ mode.”  

Another added, “If there are regulatory delays, everything else will be delayed—therefore leaving money on the table.” 

Is Deregulation Helping or Hurting Biotech?

Some relief may come to the healthcare industry through President Trump’s proposed deregulation under a new executive order known as the “10-to-1” initiative—pledging to repeal ten existing regulations for every new one introduced. 

While this effort could be a boon for the healthcare industry, which has long been burdened by complicated regulatory processes, industry reaction on whether it will lead to accelerated approvals or benefit biotech product development remains mixed.

• 63 percent of respondents expressed skepticism that deregulation will lead to faster approvals.

• Only 24 percent agreed it would benefit biotech product development.

• 41 percent disagreed, and 36 percent said it would make no difference in product development.

Some respondents warned that deregulation might backfire. One noted, “while deregulation may speed some things, it will hurt more than help.” 

Another elaborated: “If products are rushed without sufficient oversight, it could lead to safety issues, recalls, or public mistrust—ultimately triggering stricter regulations down the line.”

Operational strain amplifies this concern: 75 percent of respondents said they are not confident FDA approval timelines will remain stable despite staffing shortages, potentially forcing companies to rework funding strategies, pivot to international markets, or delay launches. 

”Biotech may have to build more flexible timelines, secure additional funding to account for longer approval pathways, prioritize programs with clearer regulatory routes, and invest earlier in regulatory expertise,” said one leader.

Healthcare Leaders Split on Deregulation Impact

Despite the concerns, a minority (24 percent) remain optimistic. Some respondents believe deregulation will create a more streamlined system:

“Deregulation and accelerated approval pathways are streamlining the biotech pipeline by reducing time-to-market, especially for therapies targeting serious or rare conditions, “ said one respondent. “This enables faster innovation and boosts investor confidence, but it also increases the need for strong post-market surveillance due to the potential risks of limited pre-approval data.”

“With faster reviews, companies can redirect capital to advance multiple candidates in parallel—boosting R&D productivity and strengthening portfolio management,” noted one leader.

And for a few, the message is clear. As one respondent stated: “Deregulation has always been positive. Our government was too slow.”

The Triple Threat: Funding, Regulation, and Talent 

When Cure probed deeper into the most pressing challenges facing biotech leaders, two themes consistently rose to the top: access to capital and regulatory clarity. The ability to stay funded through long development timelines was their number one concern. 

In fact, 89 percent rated securing long-term financing as very or extremely impactful to the industry, followed by finding investors (82 percent), navigating regulatory approval processes (79 percent), and executing clinical trials—including funding, recruitment and operations (74 percent). Market volatility rounded out the top five at 72 percent. 

When asked about challenges facing the biotech sector overall, leaders highlighted talent recruitment (64 percent), intellectual property protection (60 percent), and administration changes (54 percent). Additional concerns included reimbursement uncertainty, the threat of a major recession, and unpredictable cross-border policy shifts.

The Global Fight for Healthcare Talent

One area of sharp focus is the talent shaping healthcare innovation. The Trump administration has directed personnel reductions at critical governmental agencies, with more than 10,000 staffers laid off across the FDA, NIH, CDC, and other Department of Health and Human Services agencies. These staffing cuts will create a large pool of available healthcare talent, many of whom are highly skilled researchers.

Absorbing this newly available expertise may help industry executives recruit top talent, which 64 percent of respondents cited as a top concern. They can expand their bench strength while remaining cautious of possible economic volatility. For example, one respondent suggested investing earlier in regulatory expertise to advise on new clinical trial strategies.

However, increasing concerns that a talent “brain drain” and a chaotic market could decrease U.S. competitiveness have prompted scientists to seek more stable markets such as the European Union.

Indeed, the cuts have incentivized other countries to seek a “brain gain,” moving quickly to promote their resources to U.S. researchers.

 A new “Choose Europe for Science” campaign touts 65 national and regional strategic funding initiatives that will support 10,000 researchers with grants, fellowships and other career opportunities. China’s National Science Foundation has also released guidelines to fund international researchers.

Respondents noted graduate students, researchers and recently terminated government employees eyeing such opportunities and are concerned that if they leave, they won’t come back. 

“Funding cuts may push talent out of research and into other industries or countries,” one respondent said.

At The Atlantic’s On the Future event, former NIH Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, echoed this sentiment:

“What I worry about most is the long-term consequence of losing a generation of young scientists,” he said. “We have depended so heavily on being the place that everybody wanted to come to do research, and they've many times stayed here and become part of our Nobel Prize-winning amazing leadership, and now we're driving those people away.”

Why 87% of Healthcare Leaders Remain Optimistic

Despite policy shifts, budget cuts, and regulatory uncertainty, confidence in biotech remains remarkably strong. A central throughline from Cure’s survey: Even amid policy uncertainty and funding disruption, industry leaders are doubling down on innovation.

"Health is one of the most important factors in people's lives, so biotech will find ways to overcome recent hurdles," one respondent said.

A whopping 87 percent of respondents said they are extremely optimistic about the future of the industry. In total, 56 percent of respondents described themselves as very or extremely optimistic, with another 31 percent expressing moderate optimism, a striking show of resilience given the current climate.

“I’m extremely optimistic because biotech is rapidly evolving through AI, personalized medicine, and innovation in care delivery,” one respondent shared. “These advancements are improving outcomes, reducing costs, and transforming how chronic conditions are managed at scale.”

“There is still a very high unmet need in the biotech industry,” another noted. “As long as a program can show good clinical benefits, we will be able to find buyers. I'm cautiously optimistic about the biotech industry." 

This optimism is reflected in strategic investment priorities for companies in the sector. When asked to identify their top focus areas, 64 percent named clinical trials, 52 percent prioritized drug discovery and 50 percent cited MedTech, reflecting their key roles in driving solutions to market. 

In addition, 47 percent focused on payors, and 44 percent pointed to digital health, underscoring growing attention to value-based care. These responses signal continued momentum across the full value chain—from science to scale.

Still, respondents remain clear-eyed about the challenges ahead. Schubert noted: “The workforce reductions at the FDA are likely to affect research into medical and diagnostic products, and I would expect it to have an impact on drug discovery as well. We're still trying to obtain information on which departments were most affected and how the current workforce’s efforts might be shifted to close gaps.”

As Cure’s survey reveals, the industry is meeting uncertainty not with paralysis, but with purpose and ingenuity—forging smarter, faster, and more resilient paths from discovery to delivery.

Biotech’s Innovation Edge: AI and Top Talent

Optimism amidst a disruptive landscape comes from America’s innovation advantage. Biotech leaders in Cure’s survey emphasized that industry’s success hinges on two core drivers: advanced technologies and access to top talent. While funding remains the top priority for primary business, investment and research focus (43 percent), advances in AI (22 percent) and access to scientific and digital talent (10 percent) closely followed—reflecting a growing belief that innovation will be powered by both smarter machines and smarter teams.

How AI Accelerates Trials and Approvals

Respondents expressed growing optimism about AI’s role in solving persistent industry bottlenecks—from staffing shortages and clinical trial inefficiencies to burdensome regulatory processes. Several noted that AI is already making a tangible impact by streamlining documentation, accelerating enrollment, enhancing diagnostics, and supporting regulatory filings.

One respondent summed it up simply: “As long as they use AI, they will grow. It will be disrupted in a good way.”

Few companies illustrate this shift more than Insilico Medicine, a clinical-stage biotech and a resident of Cure, in which Cure’s affiliate Deerfield Management has a financial interest, that uses generative AI and robotics platforms for drug discovery. Founder and CEO Alex Zhavoronkov, PhD, described how.

Insilico has advanced 10 drugs into early-stage clinical trials and identified 22 clinical candidates using its platform that builds ranked matrices of disease pathways and therapeutic targets.

Zhavoronkov also sees transformative potential if the FDA integrates AI into its own review process, which the agency has declared as one of its goals, a move that could dramatically speed up drug approval process. 

“Having the same AI on both sides would be a dream,” he told Cure in an exclusive interview.

While many use AI to invent new drugs, Grant Mitchell, MD, and David Fajgenbaum, MD, are flipping the model — using AI to repurpose existing ones for new uses.

The two co-founded Every Cure, a company designed to identify treatments for diseases “with high unmet need” that may already be approved for other indications and are thus “hiding in plain sight.” Their approach involves using AI to create 2D visualizations that explore every known biological relationship between FDA-approved drugs and genes and their expressed proteins in relationship to a disease, a data pool that includes at least 18,500 recognized diseases and 4,000 drugs.

“If you connect all the known concepts, and all known relationships in a single graph, you can start to imagine how you might be able to identify new relationships,” Mitchell told Cure in an exclusive interview. “You can recognize patterns in the graph that identify unexpected relationships and predict what might work in a certain disease.”

The company’s process offers a huge advantage because the drugs are already proven safe and effective and are available for use. Promising candidates can then be moved into clinical trials designed to demonstrate their safety and effectiveness in the new indication.

AI also will aid in diagnostics. “Multiplexing and miniaturization of diagnostics (both genomic and proteomic) are expected, which will facilitate large multidimensional datasets ideal for AI-enabled analysis,” said Sakmar. “AI-enhanced drug discovery technology might eventually allow for the creation of personal metabolic healthcare avatars, which might be used as reliable models of disease states and predict treatment outcomes.”

AI and its subfield machine learning large language models also can improve other aspects of research and care delivery, such as grant preparation, clinical trial enrollment, data collection and analyses, diagnostics, and manage documentation in healthcare settings. Respondents also expressed optimism that AI might fill gaps, particularly in the regulatory landscape. 

As one respondent added, “The administration’s emphasis on reducing bureaucratic hurdles may lead to streamlined review pathways—especially for high-priority areas like rare diseases or regenerative therapies.”

Beyond AI: Other Technologies Driving Healthcare

AI and its subfield machine learning topped the list of innovation-enabling tools cited by survey respondents (59 percent), but they were not alone. Cell and gene therapy followed closely at 38 percent, reflecting its continued momentum as a transformative platform across disease areas.

Respondents also identified a wide range of emerging technologies reshaping the industry, including cytometry, liquid biopsies, next-generation sequencing laboratory technologies, drug manufacturing, plant breeding, proteomics, targeted delivery, and viral vectors. Telemedicine also garnered attention. 

These technologies, respondents said, are not only driving scientific discovery but also helping to reshape business models, attract investment, and expand access.

“I see the biotech industry being disrupted by technology. This implies that you expect new technologies —such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, automation, or CRISPR gene editing — to significantly change how biotech companies operate. Disruption could lead to faster drug discovery, more precise diagnostics, or entirely new business models, potentially displacing traditional approaches and players,” said one respondent.

“More people are interested in using technology to advance biotech and aid in longevity and fighting disease. This is promising for investment in the future,” another leader stated.

Why Biotech Markets Remain Resilient

Despite volatile markets and economic uncertainty, the healthcare sector is holding steady. The SPDR S&P Biotech ETF (XBI) experienced a year-to-date loss around 6.3 percent as of June 11, 2025, compared to a slight gain of 1 percentduring the same timeframe in 2024.

J.P. Morgan reported in May that $6.7 billion in venture capital poured into the global biopharma sector in 2025’s first quarter, on par with the same period in 2024. 

Cure survey respondents’ relative ranking of key factors impacting market dynamics confirmed the importance of funding and legislative policy, compared to the Inflation Reduction Act, public trust and goodwill or patient advocacy, which ranked last. 

Top on their lists for impacting market dynamics were an overall improvement in the economy (72 percent), increased R&D costs (71 percent), more federal and investor funding (both ranked 69 percent), and changing legislative policy landscape (67 percent). 

As one respondent noted, “Superior tech will always find a way to get to the market. Biotech’s long-term potential remains strong, driven by scientific innovation and AI integration. However, near-term challenges — tight capital markets, regulatory uncertainty, and reimbursement pressure — temper confidence in the pace and scale of progress.”

How Private Capital Is Filling the Void

While federal cuts raised alarm across the industry, several respondents pointed to private capital as a critical backstop—and a potential driver of more inclusive innovation. 

Venture firms and accelerators are beginning to step into the void. For example, Lux Capital recently pledged $100 million to support American scientists in keeping their research alive and commercializing breakthrough ideas. Altitude Lab, Recursion’s biotech accelerator, also launched a pre-seed venture fund aimed at startups that traditionally lack access to federal funding.

One leader predicted “I believe private capital will replace public capital in academia.”

Others emphasized the need not just for more private capital, but for a more democratized funding ecosystem in which NIH is not the only funder of breakthrough innovation.

“Many new biotech companies already move forward without federal support,” said one respondent. What matters now is opening access to VC, angel, and CVC funding for founders outside Boston, the Bay Area, or San Diego—especially those without big-pharma pedigrees.”

There was broad agreement that high-potential ideas will still find backing—if the ecosystem evolves to recognize them.

“There will always be private funding for great ideas,” noted one leader.

In this moment of constraint, respondents noted that the opportunity lies not just in filling the funding gap—but in reshaping how early-stage innovation gets funded and who gets to lead it.

Cure is a premier healthcare innovation ecosystem headquartered in New York City, with a mission to accelerate cures by helping health innovators develop their groundbreaking products and services from concept to commercialization. Cure conducted the Cure Healthcare Innovation Survey 2025 in collaboration with the Deerfield Institute, a division of Deerfield Management Company, an affiliate of Cure. 

Cure and Deerfield Institute conducted the survey in May 2025, and received responses from 116 healthcare leaders. Their positions included 34 percent CEOs, 22 percent Founders, 8 percent COOs, 8 percent head of research and development, 5 percent managing directors, 5 percent business development officers, 3 percent academic scientists, and 1 percent independent research organization scientists. Additionally, 11 percent held other industry executive positions, including CFO, Chief Medical Officer, Chief Strategy Officer, Associate Vice President for Drug Discovery Strategy, Senior Impact Officer, and Head of Regulatory Affairs and Quality.

 Respondents’ current affiliations included 84 percent within the healthcare-related industry; 3 percent with an academic institution; 4 percent with healthcare consultancies; 3 percent with a healthcare-related investment or finance organization; and 2 percent each for a non-governmental organization, independent research organizations or other type of organization.

The stage of respondents’ companies included 36 percent at an established private company, 19 percent at seed funding, 16 percent at Series A, 13 percent at Series B, 10 percent were pre-seed, 4 percent reported Series C or later, and 2 percent reported other. By design, no public companies were included in the 2025 survey.

Among respondents, 68 percent identified as male and 32 percent as female, ranging in age from younger than 40 to 60 and older. The survey respondents hailed from 21 states and the District of Columbia, and 9 percent were based outside of the United States.

References

Biotechnology Innovation Organization. BIO’s comments on tariffs: “There are better ways to strengthen U.S. biotech.” BIO News. May 14, 2025. 

CNBC Television. Biotech CEOs sound alarm on FDA leadership turmoil, policy shift. YouTube. May 14, 2025. 

European Commission. Choose Europe: Europe’s strengths in research and innovation. May 15, 2025.  European Commission. May 15, 2025.. 

Executive Office of the President. Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. Federal Register. 2025;90(26):8423-8425. February 6, 2025. 

Fidler B. FDA faces steep cuts under draft HHS budget. BioPharma Dive. May 13, 2025. 

Howard J. Trump administration cut $2.7 billion in NIH research funding through March, Senate committee minority report says. CNN. May 13, 2025. 

JPMorgan Chase & Co. Biopharma Sector Insights: Q1 2025 Outlook. JPMorgan. March 2025. 

National Natural Science Foundation of China. NSFC and NIH renew cooperation to support biomedical research. NSFC. January 17, 2025. 

Pu C, Cui H, Yu H, et al. Oral ENPP1 inhibitor designed using generative AI as next generation STING modulator for solid tumors. Nat Commun 16, 4793 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-59874-0.

Rasdall PE. Major pharmaceutical companies plan over $215B in US investments. LinkedIn. April 18, 2025. 

Shashikumar  S. The Pharma and Biotech IPOs of 2025: emerging market trends. Xtalks. May 16, 2025.

Silicon Valley Bank. The Future of Women's Health: Progress and Investment Opportunities. SVB. April 2024.

SPDR® S P Biotech ETF (XBI) Total Return. Finance Charts. Updated June 11, 2025. https://www.financecharts.com/etfs/XBI/performance/total-return. Accessed June 12, 2025.

Steenhuysen J. FDA upheaval pushes some biotech firms to plan early trials outside US. Reuters. May 14, 2025. 

Steenhuysen J. Trump administration begins mass layoffs at health agencies. Reuters. April 1, 2025. 

U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Growing U.S. reliance on China’s biotech and pharmaceutical products. 2019 Annual Report to Congress, Chapter 3, Section 3. November 2019.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA announces completion of first AI-assisted scientific review pilot and aggressive agency-wide AI strategy. FDA. April 30, 2025. 

The White House. America First Investment Policy. Presidential Actions, The White House. February 2025. 

The White House. Fact sheet: President Donald J. Trump announces actions to reduce regulatory barriers to domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing. The White House. May 2025. 

The White House. Trump Effect: A Running List of New U.S. Investment in President Trump’s Second Term. The White House. May 16, 2025.

. Xu Z, Re, F, Wang P., et al. A generative AI-discovered TNIK inhibitor for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a randomized phase 2a trial. Nat Med (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-03743-2.

Citation

The Future of Healthcare Innovation 2025 is copyrighted by Cure and may be used and reproduced with citation. Cure suggests using this citation:

The Future of Healthcare Innovation 2025. New York, NY: Cure Experience LLC, June 2025. wewillcure.com. Accessed [date].

Writers: Leah Rosenbaum and Steven Sternberg 

Contributing Editor: Marion E. Glick

Rachel Berman, Chief Content Officer, Cure

Seema Kumar, CEO, Cure

This report is provided for informational purposes only. The contents of this report are based in part on information from third party sources that Cure Experience Services LLC (“Cure”, “we” or “us”) believes to be reliable, but which has not been independently verified by us. Accordingly, we do not represent the information herein is complete, accurate or error free. Nothing herein is intended to constitute legal, accounting, tax, securities, investment or other advice, an opinion regarding the appropriateness of any investment or transaction, or an offer or a solicitation to buy or sell a security of any type or to engage in any other transaction. This report should not be relied upon for any purposes, including for making any decision. Any forward-looking views or predictions are based on subjective assumptions and assessments and are subject to change due to many factors, including fluctuating market conditions and economic factors. The views expressed in this report are solely those of Cure Experience Services LLC.

© June 2025 Cure Experience Services LLC. All rights reserved.