Legal & Regulatory

Traceability

Trade & Brand Protection

Brand & Product Security

Business and Finance

Containers & Shippers

Devices

Software

Cold Chain

Commercial Channels

Artificial Intelligence

Digitalization

Real World Data

Data & Technology

Manufacturing & Packaging

Supply Chain

Logistics & Transportation

Commercialization

Pricing

Trade & Channel

Market Access

Opinion

Adherence

HUB Services

Patient Assistance Programs

Patient Support

News

Pharma Pulse

Academy

Publications

Partner Perspectives

Webcasts

Resources

Conferences

Conference Coverage

Conference Listing

Events

Videos

Peer Exchange

Podcasts

Editorial Podcasts

Subscribe

Pharmaceutical Commerce connects biopharma executives to insights on business processes, technologies, and strategies for taking approved drugs to market.

About Us

Advertise

Editorial

Contact Us

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Privacy Policy

Terms and Conditions

Pharmaceutical Commerce - Biopharma Business News, Market Insights

Instagram

Facebook

LinkedIn

Threads

Soundcloud

Spotlight

Digital Editions

Security

Asembia AXS25 Summit 

Topics

Data and Technology

Legal and Regulatory

Supply Chain Logistics

1rem

 interview, Renier Brentjens, MD, PhD, deputy director and chair of medicine at the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, discusses:

How he has seen the field evolve since its inception, and what excites him most about its future

How the Roswell Park expansion helps improve patient access to CAR T-cell therapy

The key safety concerns associated with CAR T-cell therapy, along with how Roswell Park aims to mitigate potential risks

How Roswell Park is working to make CAR T-cell therapy more widely available

The steps needed to be taken at the regulatory and healthcare policy levels in order to support the broader adoption of CAR T-cell therapy

Renier Brentjens, MD, PhD outlines the evolution of the space, while offering ways to boost patient access to these treatments. 

Embarking on the CAR-T Journey

 interview, Brandon Newman, Xevant’s CEO and founder, explores:

The implications of the Inflation Reduction Act’s price negotiation provisions, and how these could result in ripple effects across the healthcare system

The role that pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and other intermediaries' play when it comes to determining drug costs, and how spread pricing is involved

How Xevant helps improve drug cost transparency efforts

Strategies for affordability Newman would offer the pharma industry that can be implemented immediately

Brandon Newman joins The Pharmaceutical Commerce Podcast to discuss the evolving role of PBMs, including the importance of drug price transparency. 

A Further Examination of Pharmacy Benefit Managers


New research finds that nearly half of the racial and ethnic disparities in outpatient COVID-19 antiviral prescriptions stem from encounter-level care barriers, such as limited access to rapid tests and telehealth, which emphasizes the need for systemic and practice-level reforms.

Study Connects COVID-19 Treatment Disparities to Gaps in Testing and Virtual Access

Engaging the full workforce—from HR to R&D—can elevate launch outcomes, build trust, and create long-term brand ambassadors.

Beyond the Brand Team: Why Every Employee Needs to Be Part of the Journey

Through a strategic, non-profit agreement, Gilead will supply up to two million doses of the long-acting HIV prevention drug across 120 low- and lower-middle-income countries over the next three years.

Gilead, Global Fund Partner to Expand Access to Lenacapavir

The company joins a wave of global pharma companies reshoring operations to strengthen the US supply chain and meet patient needs through domestic innovation and capacity.

Hikma Commits $1 Billion to Boost US Drug Manufacturing and R&D Services by 2030

As drug development increasingly targets multiple indications, pharma companies must make strategic branding decisions—balancing regulatory requirements, market dynamics, and patient safety—to choose between single-brand or multi-brand approaches.

Multi-Indication Drug Branding in Today’s Pharmaceutical Industry

Sustaining Regulatory Engagement Through Industry and Advocacy Collaboration

PC: In the absence of public participation at the federal level, how can industry leaders collaborate with advocacy groups to sustain meaningful engagement with regulators?

Experienced regulators are very attuned to how patients and caregivers live day to day with a given disease. That understanding is a key part of how they evaluate opportunities to improve patients' lives.

Whether or not there’s a formal mechanism for public dialogue, I believe regulators continue to value this perspective as they engage with drug developers. If you removed the official pathway for open dialogue but retained drug developers’ ability to engage with the patient community, I believe we could still channel that feedback to regulators in meaningful ways.

There are various mechanisms to do this. In our Phase I/II Honeycomb study, for example, we conducted interviews with caregivers to better understand their daily challenges. That qualitative input is crucial, and we’ve shared it with regulators.

The formal path for hearing from patient advocates is valuable and currently exists. But even if that were removed, developers would still have the tools and responsibility to gather this information, integrate it into trial design, and communicate it to regulators. This ongoing work can help mitigate any loss of a dedicated patient advocacy pathway, as long as multinational regulators continue to support these efforts.

The proposed policy change by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that could reduce formal mechanisms for patient advocate input in regulatory discussions poses significant risks to drug development, especially for rare and serious diseases. Patient advocates are crucial in helping developers understand the lived experiences of patients and caregivers, especially in conditions with limited natural history data. Their insights inform decisions around clinical trial design, site and endpoint selection, and regulatory strategies. Organizations such as GRIN Therapeutics have prioritized patient advocacy from the outset, integrating advocates into their teams to ensure ongoing dialogue and collaboration throughout development.

Historically, public participation has been instrumental in shaping healthcare policy. For newly recognized or genetically defined diseases, patient advocates often provide the only frame of reference for symptom progression and caregiver burden. This input is invaluable not only to developers and regulators but also to payers making reimbursement decisions. High-cost, innovative therapies must demonstrate broad impact across disease symptoms to justify value, and advocates help articulate which symptoms matter most to patients. Their contributions help define clinical endpoints that better capture treatment effectiveness, supporting both regulatory approval and reimbursement.

If formal patient input mechanisms at the federal level were removed, drug developers would lose a vital perspective at a critical decision-making stage. While engagement can continue informally—through interviews, surveys, and other methods—losing the regulatory touchpoint would weaken the system. Nonetheless, developers can and should continue gathering robust patient and caregiver insights and proactively share them with regulators. In doing so, they help bridge any gaps left by policy changes and sustain meaningful engagement that ultimately benefits all stakeholders—patients, developers, payers, and regulators alike. This collaborative approach remains essential to ensuring the development of effective, impactful therapies for rare and serious conditions.

Bruce Leuchter, CEO, Neurvati, explains how industry and advocacy groups can work together to ensure patient and caregiver perspectives continue to inform regulatory decisions—even without a formal public engagement pathway.

Rising Costs, Shrinking Margins

, Marschall Runge, MD, PhD, dean of the University of Michigan Medical School and author of 

, addresses the potential impacts of a federal cap on Medicaid provider taxes and how such a policy could affect hospital systems. particularly in states like Michigan that have uniquely implemented Medicaid expansion.

Runge emphasized that hospitals already operate on extremely thin margins when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement. Any policy that restricts revenue opportunities from these programs threatens their financial sustainability. He noted that, contrary to popular belief, hospitals often struggle just to break even under current public payer rates, and additional funding through provider taxes has historically helped improve access to care.

His primary concern centers on patient access. Runge pointed out that healthcare access is already limited due to workforce shortages—especially in primary care—and that wait times are growing. Reducing hospital revenue by capping provider taxes could exacerbate these issues, particularly in underserved areas.

He warned that a federal cap would create new challenges, not only financially but operationally, by potentially limiting patient access across the entire care continuum, from primary to specialty services. He stressed that focusing solely on budgetary savings without considering the downstream impact on health outcomes and system strain is shortsighted. In his view, the proposed cap would have minimal benefit to the federal budget but could lead to long-term harm to patient care and public health infrastructure.

Runge urged policymakers to think beyond dollars and cents and consider how such decisions affect real-world health outcomes, workforce strain, and already fragile access points within the healthcare system.

He also comments on how this proposal might affect access to care for Medicaid patients, particularly in expansion states; alternatives or modifications he would propose to ensure both fiscal responsibility and the sustainability of hospital funding; the role academic medical centers should play in shaping Medicaid policy moving forward; and much more.

How might this proposal affect access to care for Medicaid patients, particularly in expansion states?

The expansion states, in my view, did the right thing, and what they did was try to be able to afford to add physicians in different areas, add services, and again, coming back to creating access. We all have to look at our budgets, and we have a very tight budget in Michigan Medicine, in terms of our proposed budget, which starts July 1. We're looking at a 1.7% margin for the coming year. In most businesses, that would be very difficult to accept. We're not a for-profit, but in a for-profit company, there's no way that would be acceptable.

For us, what it risks is that it's hard to predict everything that may happen in the coming year, and so there may be factors that very negatively influence our budget for different reasons. If you look at it just in the big picture, costs are going up in healthcare. Labor costs are going up, material costs are going up, pharmaceutical costs are going up, and those are all an absolutely critical part of delivering great healthcare. It’s a continuation of what has been going on for the last 10 years, which is as costs increase, reimbursement decreases. We do everything we can to make it more efficient, but there comes a point that we can't afford to pay the people that we would need to continue to provide enhanced access.

In the second part of his Pharma Commerce video interview, Marschall Runge, MD, PhD, dean of the University of Michigan Medical School and author of The Great Healthcare Disruption, outlines how the federal cap on Medicaid provider taxes could affect access to care for Medicaid patients.

What Payers Really Want from High Cost Therapies in Rare Diseases

PC: How might this change affect payer negotiations and reimbursement decisions, particularly for innovative or high-cost therapies?

When it comes to rare diseases, patients often suffer from a wide range of symptoms—some of which receive more attention from drug developers than others. That’s often because targeting specific symptoms can be a higher-probability path to getting a novel therapy to market. But in my view, the most valuable therapies are those that address the underlying disease biology, thereby impacting all symptoms—not just a select few.

From a payer’s perspective, that broader impact is essential. If you're reimbursing a high-cost medicine, you want to see the greatest possible effect across the full spectrum of the disease. Incorporating feedback from patient advocates is key to understanding the full burden of disease—on both patients and caregivers. That input helps shape development plans and endpoints that capture the drug’s impact on a broader array of symptoms.

Ultimately, payers prioritize outcomes and effect size across the disease state. Without patient advocate input, developers may miss opportunities to address the symptoms that contribute most to that overall effect size. Whether you’re a regulator, a developer, or a payer, we all benefit from patient perspectives. They help align development goals, support reimbursement decisions, and justify the value of high-cost therapies by demonstrating broader clinical impact.

Full Interview Summary: The proposed policy change by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that could reduce formal mechanisms for patient advocate input in regulatory discussions poses significant risks to drug development, especially for rare and serious diseases. Patient advocates are crucial in helping developers understand the lived experiences of patients and caregivers, especially in conditions with limited natural history data. Their insights inform decisions around clinical trial design, site and endpoint selection, and regulatory strategies. Organizations such as GRIN Therapeutics have prioritized patient advocacy from the outset, integrating advocates into their teams to ensure ongoing dialogue and collaboration throughout development.

Bruce Leuchter, CEO, Neurvati, explains why aligning drug development with patient-reported outcomes is key to demonstrating value and achieving payer alignment in the rare disease space.

Patient Engagement Is Critical to Developing Breakthrough Treatments

PC: What risks do you foresee for companies developing first-in-class therapies if patient perspectives are no longer formally incorporated into regulatory discussions?

Eliminating patient perspectives from regulatory discussions would remove a key source of value—especially in the context of rare or recently characterized diseases. In many of these cases, there are no formal natural history studies to guide therapeutic development. Without that foundational data, we must rely heavily on the insights and feedback from patients and caregivers to truly understand the disease.

While biological and mechanistic rationales are essential to evaluating a novel therapy, they don’t capture the full picture. The patient experience plays a critical role—not just in shaping our understanding of the condition but also in fostering meaningful engagement with the patient community. Whether you're a regulator, developer, or payer, incorporating these perspectives helps you form a more informed view.

If this input is removed from the regulatory process, a vital component is lost. Companies and payers can still engage with patient groups to gain insight, but the absence of a formal mechanism at the regulatory level limits the consistency and impact of that engagement.

That said, it’s not an all-or-nothing scenario. The patient voice can still influence drug development through other channels, but losing the dedicated regulatory avenue would be a setback. Ultimately, the goal is to develop novel medicines for patients. Involving advocates who deeply understand the disease—and who raise awareness of the real-world challenges patients face—is essential. Removing that from the process would, in my view, be detrimental.

: The proposed policy change by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that could reduce formal mechanisms for patient advocate input in regulatory discussions poses significant risks to drug development, especially for rare and serious diseases. Patient advocates are crucial in helping developers understand the lived experiences of patients and caregivers, especially in conditions with limited natural history data. Their insights inform decisions around clinical trial design, site and endpoint selection, and regulatory strategies. Organizations such as GRIN Therapeutics have prioritized patient advocacy from the outset, integrating advocates into their teams to ensure ongoing dialogue and collaboration throughout development.

Bruce Leuchter, CEO, Neurvati, discusses why patient engagement is essential to understanding rare diseases and driving the development of breakthrough therapies.

How Patient Advocacy Is Guiding Rare Disease Drug Development

PC: What role has public participation historically played in shaping healthcare policy, and why is it important for pharma and biotech companies?

Public participation has played a critical role, for many of the reasons I mentioned earlier. But I’d like to expand on one area I haven’t touched on yet: education. In many cases—especially with rare or genetically defined diseases—we’re dealing with relatively new conditions. For example, at GRIN Therapeutics, GRIN-related neurodevelopmental disorder was only first identified and named in 2014.

The perspective we’ve gained from patient advocates has been essential. They’ve helped us understand the natural history of their children’s conditions, which directly informs how we think about trial design and the regulatory path forward. Their involvement has been instrumental, and I believe everyone—industry, regulators, even globally—has benefited from hearing directly from patients and caregivers when evaluating the best path for a potential therapy.

Public participation not only has played a significant role but should continue to do so—at every level: drug development, regulatory decision-making, and even payer considerations. We haven’t yet talked about how payers evaluate caregiver burden, the day-to-day experience of the patient, and the impact of experimental or approved therapies on symptoms and disease progression. These perspectives influence every part of the ecosystem. That’s why having meaningful mechanisms for patients and caregivers to share their views and collaborate is so important—for all stakeholders involved.

Bruce Leuchter, CEO, Neurvati, discusses the vital role of public participation in healthcare policy, highlighting how patient and caregiver insights shape drug development, regulatory decisions, and payer considerations in rare diseases.

Supply Chain Planning in the Current CGT Climate

, Mark Sawicki, PhD, Cryoport Systems’ president and CEO, discusses the evolving state of global cell and gene therapy commercialization. Sawicki highlighted significant progress in key operational areas, noting that companies are now better prepared for commercial launches than in the past. Early challenges in manufacturing readiness have been largely resolved, with organizations now demonstrating clear strategies, scalable capacity, and well-vetted supply chains. Regulatory hurdles have also been substantially addressed, and most companies are effectively engaging primary launch sites, especially major academic medical centers, ensuring they are trained and ready for product deployment.

However, several persistent challenges remain. Reimbursement, particularly in Europe, continues to be a major hurdle—even for mature companies with marketed therapies. Another notable issue is physician education, especially outside of large teaching hospitals. Many community-based physicians lack a deep understanding of cell and gene therapies, creating a barrier to broader adoption.

Sawicki also pointed to community care engagementas an area needing attention. While major centers are prepared, regional and community sites are lagging in terms of readiness and support. According to available market data, current therapies are reaching only about 20% of the addressable patient population in the United States and Europe, with even lower uptake globally.

Finally, standardization of processes, particularly across clinical sites and within supply chain systems, remains an issue. Inconsistent procedures and infrastructure gaps at these levels hinder the ability of sites to fully support these complex therapies. Addressing these shortcomings will be critical to expanding access and realizing the full potential of cell and gene therapy worldwide.

Sawicki also comments on how supply chain expectations have shifted amid tighter funding, FDA leadership changes and evolving CMC standards; the critical role of cryopreservation, real-time logistics data and AI-enabled fulfillment in protecting product integrity and patient outcomes; what pharma leaders can borrow from CGT’s operational playbook to improve resilience across therapeutic areas; and much more.

How have recent shifts in FDA leadership, funding constraints, and evolving CMC standards impacted supply chain planning for CGT products?

It's really a wait and see. A lot of folks are just taking it slowly to understand any impact. The previous administration was very supportive of cell and gene. The current administration has expressed support, but we obviously have to see that play out, and so I think a lot of folks in the industry are kind of in a wait and see modality right now around that.

From a financing standpoint, there was over $15 billion raised last year in 2024 for cell and gene, which was 30% growth over 2023, which is very positive. There's a potential of 10 EU and 17 US filings, and five to six new therapy approvals this year, representing a record number of approvals last year. That piece continues to be extremely aggressive, and as more of these therapies get into the market, the awareness improves, the visibility improves, the infrastructure improves, the standardization improves, which really ties back into the supply chain planning, and standards—all of those elements, really.

As this becomes more mainstream, there's a lot more impetus to address those issues, and we see a lot of that right now, lots of folks are earnestly looking at standardization, in particular, around supply chain, regulatory, and patient management, which should all have very positive impacts over time.

In the second part of his Pharma Commerce video interview, Mark Sawicki, PhD, Cryoport Systems’ president and CEO, explains how recent shifts in FDA leadership, funding constraints, and evolving CMC standards have each played a role in this process.

Bridging Access Gaps

, Maggie McCullough, PolicyMap’s CEO, highlights how geospatial mapping can play a critical role in identifying and addressing pharmacy deserts—areas where access to pharmacies is limited or nonexistent. With an estimated 17.7% of the US population affected, the issue is increasingly urgent, particularly as major chains like Rite Aid close locations. Using Philadelphia as a case study, McCullough explains that 13% of the city’s pharmacy locations were Rite Aid stores, and their closure could significantly impact local access to medications and health services.

Geospatial tools like PolicyMap allow stakeholders to visualize not just where pharmacies are closing or opening, but also the broader context of the communities they serve. This includes assessing whether alternative pharmacy options exist nearby and evaluating how easily residents can access them. Physical distance is only part of the picture—transportation availability, such as car ownership or access to public transit, is also crucial.

McCullough further emphasizes that pharmacy access now extends into the digital realm. Telepharmacy is a growing solution, but it requires reliable internet access and digital devices—resources not all households have. Understanding these additional barriers is essential for designing effective interventions.

By layering geographic, transportation, and socio-economic data, mapping platforms can help policymakers, health systems, and community organizations proactively identify at-risk areas before they become pharmacy deserts. This data-driven approach enables more targeted responses that account for the real-life conditions affecting healthcare access, including digital equity.

McCullough also comments on what PolicyMap’s data reveals about the relationship between pharmacy access and broader health disparities in underserved communities; how mobile and digital solutions can be deployed effectively to close the gap in areas identified as pharmacy deserts; how data-driven insights support PBMs and healthcare leaders in negotiating fairer drug pricing; and much more.

How can mobile and digital solutions be deployed effectively to close the gap in areas identified as pharmacy deserts?

 Their successful deployment, in my opinion, is completely dependent on understanding the data in the communities, because there are two different solutions for two different types of communities.

For a mobile pharmacy, it's one thing to know, okay, this community is not served by a physical pharmacy. Let's see if we can serve it by a mobile pharmacy. Picking the precise locations where that mobile pharmacy will be successful is crucial. Again, understanding life at a neighborhood level, what are those people doing every day? How can we marry the location of that mobile clinic? How can we marry it to what people are already doing, such as if they're taking public transit, putting it up next to a transit hub where they're going to the grocery store. If this is the community that picks up and drops off its kids at school, being at that school.

These are all community institutions that are mappable, and you can figure out the route that a mobile pharmacy should best take to be successful. The digital one is also fascinating. I think all of us during COVID, well, many of us—not the entire population—was able to access it, but we started doing telehealth. It was fantastic. So telepharmacy is the same idea; it’s an amazing tool. But there are places in this country—and this is where the data is extraordinarily important—particularly in the Midwest and the South, where there are neighborhoods where 50% of the people that live in a neighborhood do not have internet access. If you deploy a telehealth solution in that place, it's not going to be as successful as it could be deployed elsewhere.

Then, there's actually the issue of having a handheld like a smartphone or a computer at home, something that you can access the internet with, because you need to be able to log on to the pharmacy portal or text with the pharmacy, know when it's time to pick up your scripts, know if there's a problem having insurance pay for it. All of that communication happens digitally in a telepharmacy, so if people can't access it, we're just in the same position as we are with having a pharmacy desert. So with those solutions, it's like they about real estate. It's location, location, location.

In the third part of her Pharma Commerce video interview, Maggie McCullough, PolicyMap’s CEO, comments on how mobile and digital solutions can be deployed effectively to close the gap in areas identified as pharmacy deserts.

HHS Policy Shift Could Boost Role of Patient Advocates in Clinical Trials

PC: How do you see the potential impact of HHS's proposed policy change on patient advocacy efforts, particularly for rare and serious diseases?

If I step back and think about how critical it is to receive input, feedback, and partnership from patient advocates—their voice is truly essential—it’s hard to overstate. At Neurvati and GRIN, we’ve embraced that view since our inception in September 2021. Some of our earliest hires were individuals who’ve dedicated their careers to advocating for patients and making their voices heard in the drug development process.

Maintaining mechanisms that allow patient advocates to express their views and collaborate with all stakeholders in drug development is incredibly important. It’s not just about understanding the patient journey—it directly informs how we design clinical trials. Patient and caregiver insights shape everything from trial design and site selection to endpoint development and regulatory strategy. Their lived experiences help us create more thoughtful, patient-centric research from the ground up.

Bruce Leuchter, CEO, Neurvati, discusses the indispensable role of patient advocates—particularly in rare and serious disease drug development—in shaping trial design, site selection, and regulatory strategy.

FDA Uncertainty Sparks Shift Toward Outsourced Pharma Support

, Will Pih, co-founder, Two Labs, shared insights from his recent panel discussion on “Economics and Specialty Pharmacy for Rare Diseases: Challenges and Opportunities.” The conversation explored the growing complexities of delivering care in the rare disease space, particularly as specialty pharmacies and pharmaceutical manufacturers navigate high drug costs, small patient populations, and an evolving regulatory landscape. Pih discussed the need for innovation, patient-centric service models, and policy reform to ensure sustainability and access without compromising the quality of care.

PC: From your perspective, how is the current regulatory landscape either supporting or complicating rare disease access through specialty pharmacy?

That’s a tough question. There’s a lot of turmoil right now, and I think the main challenge is the uncertainty. Take the FDA, for example—there are many moving parts, and that uncertainty creates a kind of paralysis. People feel insecure and unsure of what to do next. They typically have a playbook they want to follow, but now that playbook is being paused or even rewritten. As a result, we’re seeing slower uptake in clinical trials and delays in hiring, as companies question what’s needed. Interestingly, this has actually benefited specialty pharma and pharma services overall—when companies delay hiring but still need to make progress, they often turn to outsourced services to keep things moving.

 The panel on "Economics and Specialty Pharmacy for Rare Diseases: Challenges and Opportunities" focused on the pressing financial and operational challenges within the rare disease specialty pharmacy landscape, particularly from both the pharmaceutical and patient/provider perspectives. With small patient populations and extremely high drug costs, rare diseases present unique difficulties for maintaining sustainable yet affordable care models.

Key innovations discussed included the evolution of patient services through advanced hub models. Pharmaceutical manufacturers are increasingly leveraging internal or third-party hubs that incorporate sophisticated technology and personalized support to enhance patient engagement. Specialty pharmacies, on their end, are refining rare disease training and clinical services, with a growing emphasis on patient-centricity, quality improvement, and tailored communication strategies.

Regulatory uncertainty was highlighted as a significant concern in 2025, with fluctuating guidance from agencies like the FDA creating hesitation in hiring and investment. This paralysis has led some organizations to turn to outsourced service providers, which may benefit specialty pharmacies and support vendors in the short term.

A central recommendation from the panel was to recognize specialty pharmacies serving rare disease populations as a distinct class of trade. The panelists argued that the level of service required for rare disease patients—often involving higher-touch care and more complex coordination—justifies differentiated reimbursement and policy consideration.

Looking forward, panelists expressed optimism about the pipeline for rare disease therapies, particularly with the growth of cell and gene therapies. As these treatments evolve from individualized products to off-the-shelf options, specialty pharmacies must prepare to support more complex therapies and new conditions they’ve never encountered before—marking a transformative phase in patient access and outcomes.

Will Pih, co-founder, Two Labs, explains how ongoing regulatory uncertainty is slowing clinical trial activity and hiring across the industry, prompting greater reliance on specialty pharmacy services and outsourced support.

Latest Conference Coverage

Asembia 2025: FDA Uncertainty Sparks Shift Toward Outsourced Pharma Support

Designing smarter interventions with community insights

As the healthcare industry sharpens its focus on patient-centered care, addressing social determinants of health, health equity, and literacy has become more critical than ever—particularly for individuals with chronic and rare conditions. During the 

"Speaking Health and Human: Bridging the Gap to Quality Patient Care"

 session, Tiara Green will join industry leaders to explore how barriers to access, education, and navigation of the healthcare system directly influence patient outcomes. In an interview with 

, Green previews the key issues shaping the conversation and why understanding these factors is essential to delivering better, more equitable care.

PC: What are some of the most impactful preventive strategies you've seen that truly bridge the gap in healthcare access?

Early in my career, I worked on projects that involved community health workers. People often ask, "Why community health workers?" The answer is simple—they live in the communities we aim to serve. They reflect the population, understand their challenges, and most importantly, they’re trusted. That trust allows them to bridge the gap in access to care. They help ensure patients get the necessary screenings, and they often connect people to critical resources like job support or food assistance. Their role is essential in reducing disparities and improving outcomes.

PC: How can providers and health systems better incorporate community input when designing preventive or educational interventions?

The key is to involve the community from the very beginning—during the planning phase, not just at the implementation stage. Too often, programs are created without community input and then presented as a finished product. That approach risks missing the mark. By giving the community a voice early on, we can better understand their real needs and tailor interventions that truly resonate and succeed.

During the “Health and Human: Bridging the Gap to Quality Patient Care” session, attendees can expect a thoughtful discussion on how health equity, screening and diagnostic services, and health literacy together influence overall healthcare outcomes. The session will explore how social determinants of health—such as income, education level, and geographic location—directly impact the patient experience, especially for individuals living with rare and chronic conditions. Challenges like limited access to specialized care, difficulty navigating complex healthcare systems, and lower levels of health literacy will be key themes.

The conversation will also highlight effective strategies that have successfully bridged gaps in healthcare access. One major focus will be the role of community health workers, who serve as trusted, relatable figures within their communities. By understanding and representing the populations they serve, these workers can connect individuals to essential screenings, care resources, and social services like employment or food assistance.

Another critical point will center on how healthcare providers and systems can better design preventive and educational interventions by involving community members early in the planning process. Rather than imposing pre-developed programs, incorporating the lived experiences and voices of the target population helps create initiatives that are more relevant, effective, and sustainable.

Finally, looking to the future, the speaker emphasizes that achieving a healthier, more equitable society requires systemic and structural change. Addressing issues at the policy and institutional levels, fostering collaboration between healthcare systems and community-based organizations, and rethinking how care is delivered will be essential to creating lasting improvements in health equity.

Tiara Green, president, Accessia Health, explains how empowering trusted local leaders and involving communities early are key to closing persistent gaps in preventive care and healthcare access.

Patient Support

Latest News