ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2026
Principles and practices for successful gene therapy innovative contracting: Insights from a multistakeholder convening.
Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGene therapies (GTs) offer potentially 1-time, curative treatment approaches for inherited and other rare diseases, but their often high upfront costs and small patient populations challenge traditional reimbursement models. In response, US payers and manufacturers have increasingly implemented innovative contracts (ICs) tied to value and outcomes.
objectiveTo share key stakeholder experiences and identify opportunities for efficient and effective innovative contracting solutions for GTs.
methodsWe used a 6-step multimethod approach, including a literature review, stakeholder interviews, framework development, a virtual convening of stakeholders, and a pre- and postconvening survey. We defined "ICs" as agreements between payers and manufacturers that use real-world outcomes to determine the total price paid for GTs, encompassing various contracting models (eg, rebates, warranties, and performance designs) and terminologies that link outcomes to pricing. We defined "principles" as elements of ICs for successful GT innovative contracting and "practices" as processes and steps for stakeholders to explore feasibility, negotiation, and execution of an IC for a GT. The consensus principles and practices include those that received at least 75.0% of the votes (9 of a possible 12 stakeholders) for minimal or no revisions, prioritizing the top 8 principles and practices with the highest consensus.
resultsEight principles of a possible 18 (44.4%) achieved 75.0% consensus with minimal to no revisions, and 7 of 26 possible practices (26.9%) achieved 100.0% consensus with minimal to no revisions. Principle topics included outcomes, duration, data collection, types of contracts, and patient costs. Practice topics included a focus on feasibility, negotiation, contract term, and evaluation. Stakeholders reviewed additional topics that did not ultimately reach consensus, including the role of patients and providers in innovative contracting.
conclusionsThe mixed methods approach enabled the development of nuanced and contemporary principles and practices in innovative contracting for GTs. As more GTs are approved, there may be a need to refresh the principles and practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.