Transplant Cell Ther. 2026 Mar 31. pii: S2666-6367(26)00253-8. [Epub ahead of print]
BACKGROUND: Cell and gene therapies (CGTs) offer the potential for durable or curative outcomes, but come with high upfront costs and uncertainty about long-term safety and effectiveness. To address these challenges, manufacturers and payers have expressed sustained interest in value-based contracts (VBC), which tie reimbursement to real-world outcomes. While publicly disclosed VBCs have been most visible around earlier CGT launches, details on their structure, assessed outcomes, and operational execution remain limited. For treatment centers, understanding this landscape is important because they are well positioned to support data collection, outcome measurement, and validated reporting in the future. These areas represent some of the most commonly cited challenges among manufacturers and payers, suggesting a potential opportunity for treatment centers as uptake of VBCs is anticipated to increase.
OBJECTIVE: To review publicly reported VBCs between payers and CGT manufacturers in the United States and characterize outcomes assessed, implementation features, reporting gaps, and implications for treatment center involvement.
STUDY DESIGN: A scoping review of peer-reviewed publications and press releases (January 2017-January 23, 2026) describing VBCs involving CGTs was conducted across seven databases - PubMed, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, ABI/INFORM, Factiva, Newspaper Source Plus, and Regional Business News. Included articles described real-world VBCs between manufacturers and payers in the United States (US) and written in English. Exclusion criteria included VBCs between stakeholders other than manufacturers and payers, and VBCs implemented in countries other than the US. Extracted elements included therapy type, payer/manufacturer involvement, outcome measures, contract structure, and any disclosed adjudication.
RESULTS: Of 1,324 screened records, 16 studies/ press releases met inclusion criteria, describing 23 VBCs across conditions such as spinal muscular atrophy, sickle cell disease, beta-thalassemia, inherited retinal disorders, hemophilia, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and rare metabolic and dermatologic diseases. Most VBCs involved Medicaid and commercial payers (e.g. Cigna, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care). Reported outcomes focused on patient-level milestones tied to clinical benefit; for example, early remission status, improvement in functional visual testing, sustained transfusion independence, or the need to resume prophylaxis over pre-specified time windows (ranging from one month to five years). Considerable variability was observed across contracts in terms of outcome definitions, assessment time horizons, and contractual structures. Additionally, no contracts disclosed how these outcomes were assessed; adjudication processes, third-party roles, or contract performance results, leaving practical implementation details largely unknown.
CONCLUSION: Current VBCs for CGTs show substantial variability and minimal reporting, offering limited insight into outcome definitions, assessment timing, or how models are implemented in practice. As broader interest in VBCs continues, treatment centers may have an opportunity to help address implementation and outcome-measurement challenges frequently cited by payers and manufacturers. Their experience with clinical assessment, longitudinal follow-up, and existing CGT program operations could help inform feasible, clinically meaningful approaches to scale adoption of VBCs.
Keywords: Cell and gene therapy; outcomes-based agreements; payer–manufacturer agreements; treatment centers; value-based contracting