With a rich background in developing the very medical technologies that shape diagnostics and treatment, Faisal Zain offers a unique, ground-level perspective on the grand challenges of healthcare policy. He has consistently championed innovation not just in the lab, but in the halls of government, arguing for a system that is both pioneering and accessible. In this discussion, we explore the immense potential within public service to drive healthcare reform, the strategic communication required to navigate a complex political landscape, and the urgent need to address the stark pricing disparities that affect every American. Faisal also presents a powerful economic case for re-envisioning healthcare not as a national expense, but as a critical investment in our collective future.
You’ve stressed that public service is a unique chance for high-impact healthcare reform. Could you walk us through a specific initiative you consider truly transformative, explaining the metrics you use to measure its success and distinguish it from projects you would consider a “waste of time”?
Absolutely. The opportunity in public service is monumental, but it demands an almost ruthless focus on impact. We simply don’t have the luxury of fooling around for years on projects that don’t meaningfully change a person’s quality of life. For me, a transformative initiative isn’t just about a new policy on paper; it’s about seeing a tangible shift in patient outcomes or access. The true metric is whether we are moving the needle on the ground. A “waste of time” is any project that gets bogged down in bureaucratic inertia without a clear path to improving lives. We have to go out at full speed because the stakes are too high. It’s about seizing this unique opportunity to fix the infrastructure of what’s bothering people, and that requires urgency and a clear vision.
The administration reportedly seeks experts who can communicate goals without relying on the president. Given that lawmaking is often slow and faces legal hurdles, how does this strategy of independent communication help advance policy? Please provide an anecdote where this approach proved effective.
This strategy is absolutely crucial because the traditional legislative process is incredibly slow and, frankly, vulnerable. You can spend months, even years, on a bill, only to see it weakened by negotiations or stalled by what we call “lawfare”—endless legal challenges. By empowering experts to carry the message, you cut through the political noise. The goal is to have individuals who can tell the story directly, because so much of the narrative reflected in the media can be completely off. I recall a situation where a new regulation on medical device reporting was being completely misconstrued. Instead of waiting for a high-level press conference, our technical lead held a series of direct briefings with industry and patient groups. She explained the ‘why’ behind the change, dispelling myths and building consensus. That direct, expert-led communication moved the needle faster than any legislative debate could have.
Americans often pay significantly more for pharmaceuticals than Europeans. You’ve suggested the government can convene industry discussions to address this. What would be the first three steps to organize such a summit, and how would you ensure it leads to fair pricing without stifling innovation?
This is a critical issue that demands a different approach. The first step is to use the government’s unique power to convene—to bring people to the table who would not normally talk to each other. So, step one is identifying and inviting the key players: pharmaceutical CEOs, heads of pharmacy benefit managers, major insurer executives, and patient advocacy leaders. Step two is setting a clear, non-negotiable agenda focused on a single goal: closing the price gap without harming the innovative engine of the pharmaceutical industry. The administration has been very specific about this—don’t hurt innovation, but take the fat out of the system. Step three is to facilitate a candid, data-driven conversation about the fact that we pay a bunch more for the exact same product, often made in the same American factory, than our European counterparts do. Success isn’t about price-fixing; it’s about transparency and finding a path to pull back some of those excess costs and give that value back to the American people.
Framing healthcare as an investment, not an expense, could add trillions to the economy. Beyond extending careers, what specific steps can be taken to “get the actual cost of care down” while improving the value and economic return of our healthcare spending?
Shifting that mindset from an expense to an investment is the foundation for real change. The economic impact is staggering; if we can get the average American to work just one year longer through better health, that’s worth three trillion dollars to the U.S. economy. To get there, we must focus relentlessly on getting the actual cost of care down, not just pouring more money into a broken system. This means prioritizing preventative care, leveraging technology for more efficient diagnostics and treatments, and promoting value-based care models where we pay for outcomes, not procedures. It’s also about tackling price disparities head-on. When Americans pay so much more for drugs—with Europeans spending less than half of what we do as a percentage—it’s a direct drain on our economic potential. Every dollar saved by reducing waste or overpricing is a dollar that can be reinvested into true innovation and better health, ensuring the money we spend gets us more value.
What is your forecast for the future of American healthcare?
My forecast is one of cautious but determined optimism. We are at a tipping point where the inefficiencies and inequities of the current system are no longer sustainable. The future will be defined by a shift toward proactive, personalized, and value-driven care. Technology will play an enormous role in decentralizing care from hospitals to homes and empowering patients with their own data. However, this technological progress will be meaningless if we don’t solve the underlying policy and pricing failures. I foresee a greater use of government’s convening power to forge public-private partnerships that address costs without stifling innovation. The path forward will be challenging and require immense political will, but the realization that our national health is intrinsically linked to our economic strength will be the primary driver of transformative change.
