Pharma Leaders Stress Policy, Value-Based Care, and Collaboration as Key to Improving Drug Access

Sustaining progress in the development of lifesaving cancer therapies will require aligning policy with science, advancing value-based care, and strengthening collaboration to ensure technologies reach patients efficiently, leaders from the pharmaceutical industry said during a session to conclude the Patient-Centered Oncology Care (PCOC) conference in Nashville, Tennessee.

Moderated by Ryan Haumschild, PharmD, MS, MBA, CPEL, vice president of pharmacy for Emory University and Winship Cancer Institute, the panel, “Innovations in Industry: Looking at the Next Decade,” featured Tom Snow, MBA, of Sanofi; Safiya Abouzaid, PharmD, MPH, of Johnson & Johnson; Jim Kilgallon, MBA, of Pharmacosmos Therapeutics; and Bruce Wilson of AstraZeneca.

Innovating in Uncertain Times

Haumschild opened the discussion by highlighting recent federal policy shifts, including tariffs that had been announced on imported pharmaceutical products and the most favored nation drug pricing rule.^1,2 He asked whether the “golden age of therapeutics” can continue amid these changes, and which policies pose the greatest challenges to innovation. (Following PCOC, as this issue of Evidence-Based Oncology went to press, the tariff policy had paused and was being renegotiated.¹)

Wilson responded first, explaining that no single policy poses the challenge; rather, it is the complexity and cumulative impact of these policies simultaneously that create uncertainty across the industry. This uncertainty, he said, makes it difficult to define what future investment should look like to sustain strong drug pipelines.

Kilgallon added that Pharmacosmos Therapeutics is closely examining the impact of these policies on the supply chain, particularly product distribution, the structure of group purchasing organizations, and the associated fees.

“We are really taking just a whole look of how we’re going to adjust with the new wave of movement from the [Trump] administration, how we’re going to adapt, and how we get products to patients in the most efficient manner,” he said.

Haumschild next asked how these policy and funding changes might affect access to clinical trials and whether trial strategies could shift. Drawing on her experience in US and international systems, Abouzaid said the US remains uniquely positioned to deliver patients fast access to a broad range of therapies because it understands how to bring therapies to market efficiently. She noted that Johnson & Johnson has 90 trials planned between now and 2030, but stressed that these depend on collaboration with communities, academia, and other partners across the ecosystem.

“To me, public policy and public infrastructure are critical legs of the stool to bring innovation to patients and actually improve quality of life and improve outcomes,” Abouzaid said. “So, anything that threatens, really, future innovation and future products.”

To round out this section, Snow added that the greatest uncertainty for him centers on pricing risk. With pharmaceutical companies investing hundreds of millions of dollars into clinical programs, he underscored that unpredictable policy shifts make it difficult to forecast returns on investment. To navigate this environment, he emphasized the need for alignment among stakeholders, industry, and regulators to accelerate drug development and bring therapies to patients more efficiently.

Keeping Pace With Precision Medicine

With much of today’s oncology innovation centered on precision medicine, Haumschild asked whether policy infrastructure is keeping pace with scientific advancement. He also invited panelists to highlight treatments in the pipeline that may require new payer strategies.

Wilson said the current policy framework does not align with the rapid progress in oncology. For example, although sequential testing now allows clinicians to identify biomarkers or mutations as soon as they occur, he noted that CMS does not reimburse for such testing. Around 30% of patients do not receive biomarker testing, Abouzaid added, because these are not covered. Because of this, Wilson emphasized the need for policies to evolve “to allow for some of that new science to really start to take shape.”

Haumschild followed up by asking about reimbursement models and access solutions for emerging gene therapies, with the hundreds of clinical trials now under way. Snow explained that the challenges are not technical but rather logistical and resource-related, as programs like outcomes-based agreements and Medicaid partnerships already exist. However, he emphasized that implementing and tracking these payment models requires significant time and administrative effort.

The Future of Value-Based Care and Drug Delivery

Haumschild then turned to the future, asking Wilson where value-based care is headed and whether it is evolving fast enough. Wilson said much depends on whether the most favored nation pricing policy moves forward. If it does, he hypothesizes that value-based care will completely change, as it was historically built around drug costs.

Said Wilson, “If you introduce a whole new system for how drug costs are contemplated within the Medicare segment, how does that then impact everything else that goes from a reimbursement dynamic?… I think this time next year, it’ll be completely different than what we would have thought, let’s say, this time last year, even.”

Next, Haumschild asked about advances in drug delivery expected in 2026 and beyond. Although there are many drugs in development, Abouzaid emphasized that innovation should focus on improving patient access in the community setting, where most receive care, and on maintaining sustainable out-of-pocket costs. She underscored that the most important questions are whether patients can afford their medicines and whether policies are in place to support that.

Snow agreed, adding that many upcoming innovations aim to make the patient experience smoother while improving provider efficiency and access. In particular, he highlighted Sanofi’s development of a subcutaneous formulation with a novel autoinjector, which could shift administration away from infusion centers.

“[This] will hopefully do all those things—make the patient experience better, maybe moving the site of care out of the infusion clinic to some place that’s more efficient and someplace where a patient can access it more effectively,” Snow said.

Wilson concluded the session by emphasizing the promise of computational pathology, which involves digitizing pathology workflows to allow artificial intelligence (AI) to detect previously unseen patterns within cellular structures. He said AI-driven tools could enhance diagnostic accuracy and treatment precision in the coming years. Lastly, he underscored the need to expand cell therapy access, noting that many patients who could benefit from such therapies live too far from a qualified treatment center.

“I bet you three-quarters of the US population can’t even get cell therapy, even if they could afford it, because they’re not close to a center that can actually dispense it,” he said. “[O]ver the next couple of years, seeing more of that in the community setting will give more access to patients. Yes, we will have to figure out affordability, but just having access to it, I think, is a step in the right direction.”

References

1. Smith PL, Halaiko MJ, Abrams D, Denney K. President Trump and White House announce new overseas pharmaceutical tariff. Baker Donelson. October 1, 2025. Accessed November 22, 2025. https://www.bakerdonelson.com/president-trump-and-white-house-announce-new-overseas-pharmaceutical-tariff
2. Delivering most-favored-nation prescription drug pricing to American patients. The White House. May 12, 2025. Accessed November 22, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/delivering-most-favored-nation-prescription-drug-pricing-to-american-patients/