When and How to Make DTP Models a Core Commercial Approach

In part two of his video interview at Access USA with Pharmaceutical Commerce, Brok Vandersteen, VP of Business Development at AssistRX, dives deeper into the strategic considerations surrounding Direct-to-Patient (DTP) models in life sciences. Building on the first conversation, Vandersteen explores whether DTP should be treated as a core commercial strategy or remain a specialized approach—and why that distinction can have significant implications for manufacturers navigating today’s complex healthcare landscape.

As life sciences companies face mounting pressures from payer scrutiny, patient affordability concerns, and evolving market expectations, Vandersteen emphasizes that DTP adoption is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Instead, he highlights the importance of aligning the model with a product’s lifecycle, market fit, and commercial objectives. From high-volume specialty drugs to newer therapies, he discusses how manufacturers can strategically determine which components of a DTP model deliver the greatest value without overextending resources or compromising operational efficiency.

Vandersteen also addresses the practical aspects of implementing DTP at scale, including the role of experienced partners and private label pharmacies. By examining real-world examples and sharing insights from his work at AssistRX, he provides a nuanced perspective on how companies can balance innovation, patient access, and commercial strategy. In this segment, the conversation shifts from policy pressures to actionable decisions, offering a roadmap for manufacturers considering DTP as part of a comprehensive portfolio strategy.

Access the first part of his interview with PC below:

• How Policy Pressures Are Driving DTP Adoption

A transcript of his conversation with PC can be found below.

PC: From your BD vantage point at AssistRX, are you seeing Direct-To-Patient positioned as a core commercial strategy, or is it still being treated as a niche add-on — and does that distinction matter?

Vandersteen: It certainly matters. It should be a strategic decision when you think about the product, the market fit, where it's at in its life cycle. you know, we really want to be thinking about it as a core strategy, especially when you consider some of the behavior change that goes into place for a product, especially if it's been on the market for quite a while. And so, you know, you really want a partner that has the experience to place best recommendations in the hands of the manufacturer in order to make those decisions strategically. what you want to do is, really be thinking about does the product lend itself well to drive a direct-to-patient model, and there are certain components of direct-to-patient that do fit every product, no matter where it's at in its life cycle, its price point, or whatever it may be. But whether it's true end-to-end is really something to consider, and how you fold it into your overall portfolio strategy. Can you lend a, can you use a private label pharmacy for the manufacturer as a whole, which we see quite a bit in the GLP-1 space and with other large manufacturers, especially those who are seeing much more, you know, payer scrutiny, for their products, especially those that are high volume. And so you really do need to be thinking about overall what is the right place to go with this. and, you know, direct-to-patient model has components of it that fit for every drug, but not every drug should use it end-to-end.