-- Days : -- HRS : -- MIN : -- SEC
Register Now →
Opinion|Videos|August 31, 2026

What FACT Accreditation Requires and Whether It's Necessary

Dr. Graff outlines exactly what FACT accreditation demands operationally, while Dr. Patt argues accreditation should support quality rather than function as a rate-limiting barrier to patient access.

"What FACT Accreditation Requires and Whether It's Necessary" takes up the question of whether accreditation and access can coexist.

Dr. Patt cites real-world data on patients treated at non-FACT-accredited sites, using it to ask whether FACT accreditation is truly necessary for safe CAR T delivery. She credits FACT with pushing practices toward important quality standards and creating a more workable path for community oncology, but argues accreditation should never function as a rate-limiting step to access. She emphasizes that payers, not FACT itself, are the real barrier when they use accreditation status to justify coverage denials.

Dr. Graff walks through what FACT actually requires: rigorous documentation spanning apheresis and manufacturing through post-infusion follow-up, confirmation that a patient's histology matches their diagnosis, extensive staff training, and a program director who understands every step of the process. She describes it as far more detailed than routine clinical documentation, covering years of patient follow-up. She argues many community sites already manage comparable toxicity through bispecific antibody programs, some with higher CRS rates than CAR T itself, using the same escalation protocols and trained teams. She asks why FACT can't create a probationary pathway for sites with a demonstrated safety record, rather than requiring a completed CAR T patient before accreditation can even begin. Practices can apply for FACT while treating patients, she notes, but payers still lean on accreditation status alone to deny reimbursement.

Dr. Patt describes how Texas Oncology used a crawl-walk-run approach, building bispecific step-up dosing infrastructure, including a remote ePRO monitoring system covering roughly 100 nurses with a 3.5-minute average response time, as a foundation before expanding into CAR T delivery. She credits Texas Oncology leader Nate Shumway with adapting that same monitoring model, adding biometric tracking, for lower-risk step-up dosing patients on the path toward CAR T.

Up next, in "Bringing CAR T-Cell Therapy Into Community Cancer Centers," Dr. Porter distinguishes disseminating CAR T-cell therapy access into the community from simply going non-FACT-accredited.

Related to this article

Kenneth Komorny, PharmD, BCPS | Image: Moffitt Cancer Center
At a Stakeholder Interchange convened by The American Journal of Managed Care® in Tampa, Florida, an academic-community mix of hematologist-oncologists and pharmacists debated prior authorization, site-of-care payment disparities, and how aggressively to push bispecific antibody regimens to community practices treating patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.
Andrew D. Zelenetz, MD, PhD, is the chair of the NCCN B-cell Lymphomas panel.  | Image: LinkedIn
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network update on mantle cell lymphoma puts covalent BTK inhibitors, MRD testing, and TP53 sequencing at the center of frontline care, while adding pirtobrutinib and a pair of CAR T-cell therapies for disease that progresses on a BTK inhibitor.