A precision therapies-focused biopharmaceutical company was bringing their second product to market. In order to support product access at the provider level and drive market share and utilization, it was critical they understood the oncology clinical pathway landscape within two distinct therapeutic classes.
A large, multinational pharmaceutical company was looking to incorporate the patient voice across all stages of product development for their entire portfolio of oncology/hematology products. Their team needed support from a partner with the expertise to reach patients and advocacy organizations, and to develop an overall strategy for their advocacy relations team.
An emerging pharmaceutical manufacturer sought FDA approval for a first-in-class therapy with potential to offer significant clinical improvement for patients with small cell lung cancer. However, there was concern about reimbursement. For a subset of patients, the therapy had to be administered in an in-patient setting, and current MS-DRG bundled payments were not priced to appropriately cover this type of administration. Without appropriate reimbursement, providers would be less likely to incur the risk in prescribing the novel therapy and access for patients would be severely limited.
A ground-breaking medical device, although recognized by major clinical compendia, was lacking the appropriate Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. This created hesitancy among providers, who feared they would not be reimbursed or prescribing this supportive care technology for their patients.
A clinical-stage pharmaceutical company faced a unique barrier in bringing its first product to market—seeking pan-tumor approval based on a genetic marker, rather than a traditional approval based on cancer type. They subsequently sought recognition for the product across relevant clinical compendia.
