McKinsey Health Institute report calls for change to facilitate the development of biomedical interventions targeting the aging process.
A new report from the McKinsey Health Institute (MHI) was published today, focused on how to accelerate progress in healthspan science to the benefit of society at large. Entitled, Healthspan science may enable healthier lives for all, the report identifies seven key “shifts” that would help create the conditions to allow longevity biotech to flourish.
From defining the field and improving our fundamental understanding of aging to achieving consensus on biomarkers and establishing clear regulatory pathways, the report’s authors call for greater investment and leadership in longevity to enable the benefits of aging-focused interventions to be realized.
Longevity.Technology: A non-profit-generating institute within consulting giant McKinsey, MHI is founded on the belief that humanity could add up to 45 billion years of higher-quality life in the next decade. The group focuses on historically under-invested areas of health to convene leaders, advance research, produce open-access data and tools, promote innovation and investment, and drive collaboration for systemic change in population health. And healthspan is squarely in its sights. To learn more, we sat down with Lars Hartenstein, director of healthy longevity at MHI, who presented the new report at the Aging Research and Drug Discovery conference (ARDD) in Copenhagen this week.
Lars Hartenstein is director of healthy longevity at the McKinsey Health Institute.
While investment in longevity biotech continues to grow, the sector still lags far behind that of other areas of health such as oncology. And this is exactly what makes it interesting to MHI, says Hartenstein.
“The field is at this ‘in-between’ point – it’s nascent and emerging, not yet fully investable at scale,” he explains. “We’ve been looking at healthy longevity from the very beginning. As the field has matured, our interest has grown but this is the first time we’ve examined it through the lens of biomedical innovation.”
Addressing the biology of aging has enormous theoretical potential to combat age-related diseases, which Hartenstein says account for about a third of the global disease burden.
“The economic potential is huge: using our Prioritizing Health model, we estimate that tackling just half of this burden could add about $2 trillion to global GDP,” he says. “So it’s an area of massive potential. The idea of the paper is to synthesize where things stand – the challenges, the opportunities for acceleration – and to argue that real progress will require broader engagement. More people need to pay attention to this field than currently are.”
In the report, Hartenstein and his co-authors outline seven key shifts needed to accelerate progress in healthspan science and interventions, each representing a key challenge the field currently faces:
- 1. Clear definition and perception
In order to foster coherence in research and public policy, the report calls for consensus on key terminology – longevity, healthspan, healthy aging, geroscience etc. – as well as the field’s goals, and core concepts.
“Right now, the field lacks a consistent definition,” says Hartenstein. “This makes it hard for the science-driven community to own the narrative, and leaves space for less evidence-based voices to dominate. Our suggestion is to shift the framing from ‘lifespan’ to ‘healthspan’ and align around that. In the paper, we offer a working definition – not to set a global standard, but to make sure we’re clear about what we mean.”
- 2. Fundamental understanding of the science
The biology of aging is still not fully understood, and the report calls for research to be coordinated globally, prioritizing comprehensive data collection (biomarkers, multiomics, longitudinal cohorts), and utilizing new technologies to generate deeper insights.
“There’s a need for a more consolidated global agenda: connecting datasets, encouraging collaboration, and leveraging AI and machine learning to accelerate discovery,” says Hartenstein. “At present, too much effort is fragmented, with data often locked behind IP considerations. There are lessons from other fields, like Alzheimer’s, where global collaboration has advanced knowledge more effectively.”
The report’s authors call for the development and validation of standardized, predictive biomarkers and composite scores as surrogate endpoints for clinical trials to accelerate translation and regulatory approval.
Hartenstein presented the report at ARDD in Copenhagen this week.
“There are at least two major initiatives underway in this area, but more progress is needed,” says Hartenstein. “We need consensus on diagnostics, but more importantly, surrogate endpoints that can guide clinical development. This is difficult because biomarkers need to be dynamic—core measures must exist, but also be adaptable as research evolves. Achieving consensus across researchers, regulators, and governments is a real challenge.”
Accelerating clinical development is a vast and complex area, and the report addresses several key issues, including a call to improved trial design through adaptive, signal-seeking, and patient-centered approaches. It also proposes leveraging AI, data integration, and innovative preclinical models to optimize candidate discovery, and increasing cross-sector R&D partnerships.
“There is not yet a single drug on the market developed specifically to test geroscience hypotheses,” says Hartenstein. “Many of the drugs in later-stage pipelines were originally developed for other diseases. The field lacks the involvement of highly experienced clinical development professionals from big pharma. Some funding is coming from investors with less life-science expertise, which is positive in terms of capital flow, but this also creates challenges for rigor and direction.”
The report calls for early engagement with regulators to develop frameworks for approving interventions targeting aging, either by adapting existing therapeutic pathways or developing new ones based on functional or resilience-related endpoints.
“A clear regulatory pathway is essential to de-risk and stimulate investment,” says Hartenstein. “But the field has no consensus on whether this requires new frameworks or can fit within existing ones. Either way, a clearly charted path is needed, because regulators and investors alike need to know how this kind of innovation will be evaluated.”
The report stresses the need to attract traditional life sciences investors and pharma to the longevity field by establishing clearer regulatory and commercial models, and encouraging blended finance approaches involving philanthropists, blue-chip VCs, and public funders.
“Funding currently comes disproportionately from philanthropic and high-net-worth individuals,” says Hartenstein. “Traditional life-science investors are less involved. We suggest blended finance approaches, where philanthropic or risk-tolerant capital helps de-risk opportunities and attract more experienced investors.”
- 7. Clinical practice and expertise
The final call made by the report is to train more clinicians and researchers in healthspan science, broaden access to evidence-based interventions, and integrate “healthy longevity” into mainstream and preventive healthcare.
“When I was in medical school, there was virtually no discussion of healthspan,” reflects Hartenstein. “Even today, there’s a lack of expertise among clinicians, researchers, funders, and leaders in the field. The community is small—you often meet the same people everywhere.”
“Building capacity is critical. Organizations like the Healthy Longevity Medicine Society are playing a role, but more national and regional allies are needed to embed this across world regions.”
Greater acceleration is possible
While Hartenstein admits that progress is currently being made in all seven areas, he believes each could accelerate significantly.
“Overall, it’s a positive story – the field is advancing, conferences are growing, and attention is increasing – but we’re still scratching the surface in many areas,” he says. “Right now, I’d describe progress as Scenario A – steady but limited. In each area, there’s a Scenario B with much greater acceleration potential.”
While greater investment is clearly a large part of achieving Scenario B, Hartenstein says that strong leadership and greater awareness is equally important.
“In government and pharma especially, even modest attention and engagement could go a long way, without necessarily requiring huge investments, because there aren’t yet many fully investable assets,” he says. “The key question is: what kind of coalition can we form? There are historical analogs in life sciences—the Human Genome Project, ITER in nuclear fusion, and others. Not all were equally successful, but they show what is possible.”
“To accelerate progress in longevity, we need coalitions that can drive pivotal trials, foster global data collaboratives, and establish public-health frameworks with authority. That would go a long way toward creating the conditions for everything else to follow.”