Longevity Science is gaining momentum worldwide as aging populations place increasing pressure on healthcare systems. Many new and upcoming breakthroughs in aging biology, regenerative medicine, and preventive care show potential to greatly improve quality of life in later years.
Unlike traditional biomedical research, which focuses on diagnosing and treating specific diseases, healthspan research aims to understand and intervene in biological processes which lead to many chronic conditions at once. This approach requires long-term studies, complex biomarker tracking, and collaboration across multiple fields. This challenges existing research and funding models, typically organized around a single disease such as cancer or diabetes.
As a result, longevity science demands different kinds of infrastructure and investment. Because longevity science focuses on gradual biological changes and long term outcomes, the process of iteration is inherently very slow. Unlike treatments for acute conditions, where efficacy can be measured in weeks or months, aging-related interventions may take years, or even decades, to show measurable results. This created a fundamental mismatch with current regulatory frameworks, which are designed to evaluate drugs and therapies based on short-term, specific outcomes.
Promising treatments for slowing or reversing aspects of aging struggle to reach clinical trials, let alone approval. Traditional models of randomized controlled trials become impractical when studying interventions that may only show significant benefits after extended observation across a person’s lifespan. The lack of flexibility in approval processes, means aging research is not only harder to fund, but also harder to translate into real world therapies.
While Canada does offer a Special Access Program (SAP) that allows physicians to request unapproved therapies for patients with serious or life-threatening conditions, access is limited to individual cases and requires both regulatory, and manufacturer approval. It is not designed for preventative therapies that target long term health. In contrast, countries with Right to Try laws offer more pathways for patients to access experimental treatments outside of formal trials. Without a more adaptive access framework, aging-related interventions remain out of reach for most Canadians.
In the US, there are many policies that both help and hurt healthspan research. While public interest in longevity science is growing, the regulatory systems that govern medical innovation are still largely designed for short-term, disease-specific treatments. This creates a mismatch between the pace of scientific discovery in aging biology and the speed at which patients can access promising interventions. At the same time, existing pathways for experimental therapies—such as Expanded Access and state Right-to-Try laws—offer potential lifelines but come with significant limitations.
The following outlines the current state of public funding, mechanisms for accessing unapproved therapies, and the key barriers that limit progress in the field:
WEST COAST:
The West coast of the United States is home to some of the most advanced research in longevity science, with major centers in California, Oregon, and Washington. Scientists are developing treatments to slow aging, repair damage from disease, and keep people healthier for longer. These include drugs that remove worn-out cells, therapies that help the body regenerate tissues, and new ways to prevent age-related decline. But for patients today, the main problem is not the science—it’s getting access. Many of these treatments are still experimental and can take years to get official approval.
In the U.S., the Expanded Access (EA) program—also called Compassionate Use—allows doctors to request experimental drugs for patients with serious or life-threatening conditions who have no other options. This could include people with advanced heart disease, Alzheimer’s, or severe frailty. Doctors apply using the FDA’s Individual Patient IND or Emergency IND, and most requests are approved—over 99%. However, the company that makes the drug must agree to provide it, and that is often the biggest roadblock.
California also has a Right-to-Try law, which lets patients access certain experimental treatments without FDA approval, as long as the drug has passed early safety testing. This could be useful for longevity treatments that target aging itself rather than a single disease. But the law is rarely used because companies may refuse to supply the drug, many doctors aren’t familiar with the process, and there is no built-in safety monitoring. For most patients on the West Coast, EA is still the main option.
Longevity treatments face extra challenges. Unlike medicines for short-term illnesses, anti-aging therapies may take many years to show benefits. This doesn’t fit well with the way current approval systems work, which are designed to measure quick results for specific diseases. West Coast researchers working on these treatments often have to choose between running long, expensive studies that may not help today’s patients—or leaving promising therapies unavailable until far in the future.
The FDA has made some recent changes to make EA easier. In 2024, it shortened the application form from 26 to 11 questions, which can now be filled out in about 45 minutes. It also gave clearer instructions on how review boards and companies should handle EA cases. Still, the biggest challenge remains: getting companies to agree to share their experimental drugs before full approval.
If the West Coast wants to stay ahead in the race for healthy aging, policy changes need to match scientific progress. That means training and supporting more doctors to use EA, encouraging companies to set clear rules for compassionate use, and testing new models—like small group access programs—that allow more patients to benefit sooner. Without these changes, life-extending treatments could remain out of reach for the very people they are meant to help.
EASTERN US:
The East Coast has some of the nation’s strongest funding for biotech and aging research, with major hubs in New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Florida. Researchers are developing therapies to slow aging, regenerate tissues, and treat age-related decline, supported by billions in state and federal investment.
New York has committed over $100 million between 2023 and 2025 to biotech and translational research, including a recent $10 million expansion of NYFIRST, which offers up to $1 million per investigator. Massachusetts has boosted its Life Sciences tax incentive cap to $50 million per year and is distributing roughly $500 million in grants and loans through 2028. Maryland’s Stem Cell Research Fund has backed more than 500 regenerative medicine projects with over $170 million in awards. But despite this funding, patients still face major challenges in accessing promising new treatments.
In the U.S., the federal Right to Try Act (2018) allows patients with life-threatening conditions to access investigational therapies without FDA expanded-access approval after completing Phase I safety trials and exhausting approved options. All East Coast states fall under this law.
Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) play a major role in how these laws are implemented. In states like New York and Massachusetts, IRBs often take a conservative approach, which can delay or block access to investigational geroscience treatments. In contrast, states such as Florida and North Carolina have more permissive review environments, and patients there have reportedly had higher success in securing experimental therapies.
For longevity-focused treatments, these barriers are even harder to overcome. Anti-aging therapies often require years to show measurable results, which does not fit well with approval systems built around short-term endpoints for specific diseases. Institutions in the Northeast, which are home to some of the country’s most respected research centers, frequently face a choice between conducting long, expensive studies that may not help current patients or leaving potential breakthrough treatments inaccessible until far in the future.
Cultural and economic factors add more friction. The East Coast has a smaller longevity-specific venture capital sector than Silicon Valley, which limits startup growth. Payers and hospitals are also hesitant to cover preventive aging interventions, which discourages adoption even when legal pathways exist. Dense IRB networks and conservative governance create additional layers of complexity, slowing clinical progress.
If the East Coast wants to translate its research strength into real-world impact, policy and institutional practices will need to adapt. That means encouraging companies to set clear, fair guidelines for providing experimental drugs, training more doctors to navigate Right to Try and Expanded Access, and streamlining IRB decision-making for high-need patients. Without these changes, the region’s well-funded science risks staying trapped in the lab; While patients who could benefit today are left waiting.
FLORIDA AND GEORGIA:
Florida and Georgia have their own state-level Right- to- Try statutes, with Georgia’s SB 72 expanding eligibility for patient-specific treatments. However, in practice, most patients still rely on the FDA’s Expanded Access program, where doctors request experimental drugs for individual patients. These requests are almost always approved, but the company developing the drug must agree to provide it, and that is often the biggest hurdle.
Longevity science is moving quickly, with therapies like senolytics, regenerative medicine, and anti-inflammatory compounds showing potential to extend healthy years. But for patients in Florida and Georgia with serious or life-threatening conditions, access to these treatments before approval depends on the federal Expanded Access (EA) program and state Right-to-Try laws.
Florida’s Right-to-Try law allows terminally ill patients to request experimental drugs, devices, or biologics that have completed Phase I safety trials, without FDA review. The state was one of the earliest adopters of this approach, aiming to give patients faster options. However, manufacturers are not obligated to supply the treatment, and the law provides no oversight or safety monitoring. Some Florida hospitals have also been hesitant to participate due to liability concerns and limited institutional protocols.
Georgia recently expanded its framework with the Hope for Georgia Patients Act, which includes access to highly personalized, genetics-based treatments. Unlike Florida’s model, it maintains review by an Institutional Review Board, offering more formal safeguards while still expediting access.
The federal EA pathway remains the most reliable nationwide, with over 99% of single-patient requests approved, but it requires FDA review, physician paperwork, and manufacturer cooperation—making it slower than state Right-to-Try laws.
For longevity medicine, Georgia’s oversight model could better balance access and safety, while Florida’s broad but less regulated approach may need stronger support systems for physicians and clearer manufacturer engagement. Both states have an opportunity to adapt these laws to ensure patients can benefit from promising aging-related interventions sooner.
CANADA:
Canada’s approach to longevity science combines scattered provincial investments with a highly regulated access system for experimental therapies. While several provinces have committed substantial funding to health and biotech innovation, most public research dollars still target disease treatment rather than lifespan or healthspan extension. Ontario committed $75 million in 2025 through the Ontario Research Fund and Early Researcher Awards, supporting health, tech, agriculture, and energy innovation.
Quebec’s Fonds de Rrecherche du Québec (FRQ) has made aging-focused “living labs” a priority under its 2022–2027 intersectoral research strategy. British Columbia invested roughly $6 million in genomics and precision medicine projects as part of its Life Sciences Strategy. Federally, the Tri-Council agencies (CIHR, NSERC, SSHRC) fund aging research broadly, but longevity-specific funding remains minimal.
Canada has no federal Right- to- Try law. Access to unapproved therapies is handled through Health Canada’s Special Access Program (SAP), which allows physicians to request non-marketed drugs for patients with serious or life-threatening conditions who have exhausted conventional options. Applications require medical documentation, patient consent, and manufacturer agreement to supply the drug. The SAP is limited to individual cases and is not designed for cohort or program-wide use. Provincial laws such as Quebec’s M-30 and Alberta’s Priorities Act can further delay or block projects by requiring provincial approval before accepting federal or external funding.
These layers of regulation create significant roadblocks for longevity medicine. Preventative, healthspan-focused therapies often fall outside the SAP’s scope, and the absence of a national Right- to- Try framework prevents early access outside of clinical trials. Longevity is not formally recognized as a federal research priority, leading to fragmented policy and weak national coordination. Health Canada’s review process is slow, especially for treatments targeting gradual biological changes rather than acute disease.
Advocacy groups such as the Alliance for Longevity Initiatives (A4LI) and the Healthspan Action Coalition are pushing for changes to research funding and access frameworks. To position Canada as a leader in healthspan innovation, the country will need coordinated national strategies, streamlined regulatory pathways, and stronger engagement between governments, researchers, and the public. Without these reforms, promising aging interventions may remain locked in the lab, years away from benefiting the Canadians who need them most.
Without bold policy updates, streamlined regulatory pathways, and sustained national coordination, Canada risks falling behind global leaders who are already testing and deploying healthspan-extending innovations. Federal and provincial governments, research institutions, and industry must work together to modernize approval systems, expand early access to promising therapies, and prioritize funding for preventative aging research. Acting now will not only improve quality of life for millions of Canadians but also position Canada as a global hub for innovation in the science of healthy aging.
