Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the HB91 TBI TXL topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears testimony on $10 million TBI Treatment Accelerator proposal to speed therapeutics
Summary
Witnesses and experts told the House Workforce and Higher Education Committee that House Bill 91 would create a Traumatic Brain Injury Treatment Accelerator (TBI TXL) to fund translational research; testimony described a $10,000,000 appropriation request and a match requirement to leverage private funds.
The House Workforce and Higher Education Committee heard testimony on House Bill 91, which sponsors and outside witnesses presented as a state-supported accelerator to speed development of therapeutics for traumatic brain injury (TBI).
Chad Cole, founder and executive director of the Brain Injury Research Foundation, described the TBI TXL model (two flagship initiatives called Precept and SynapX) and argued that insufficient funding has left TBI therapeutics underdeveloped. Cole said the foundation has operated with volunteers to date and asked lawmakers to consider a state appropriation to seed translational work that would aim to attract matching private and federal investment. Committee members noted a referenced appropriation figure of $10,000,000 and asked about the foundation’s staffing, fundraising record and ability to manage such funds; Cole responded that the foundation has fundraised but currently has no paid employees and uses infrastructure to minimize overhead.
Tom Zupancic, a PhD scientist and founder of Infinix Bio, testified that Ohio should build commercialization infrastructure and cited other states’ models that paired public funding with matching private investment. Family testimony from Gary Reller described the lived consequences of severe TBI and urged support for research that could produce effective treatments. Dr. Gunnar Prodovsky of the Cleveland Clinic explained research approaches (mouse models, large-animal models and the need to bridge preclinical work to clinical trials), emphasized oversight and physician-scientist leadership, and answered questions about timelines, matching funding and the program’s role among existing state research efforts.
Committee members focused questions on oversight, measurable milestones, the length of translational timelines, potential for matching funds, and how the state’s investment would be tracked. Witnesses emphasized the long-term nature of drug development and described metrics and steps (synthesis costs, preclinical screening, matching requirements and timelines for early-phase decisions). No committee vote on HB91 was recorded at this hearing.
