Availability and financing of CAR-T cell therapies: A cross-country comparative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies (CAR-T therapies) are a type of advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP) that belong to a new generation of personalised cancer immunotherapies. This paper compares the approval, availability and financing of CAR-T cell therapies in ten countries. It also examines the implementation of this type of ATMP within the health care system, describing the organizational elements of CAR-T therapy delivery and the challenges of ensuring equitable access to all those in need, taking a more systems-oriented view. It finds that the availability of CAR-T therapies varies across countries, reflecting the heterogeneity in the organization and financing of specialised care, particularly oncology care. Countries have been cautious in designing reimbursement models for CAR-T cell therapies, establishing limited managed entry arrangements under public payers, either based on outcomes or as an evidence development scheme to allow for the study of real-world therapeutic efficacy. The delivery model of CAR-T therapies is concentrated around existing experienced cancer centres and highlights the need for high networking and referral capacity. Some countries have transparent and systematic eligibility criteria to help ensure more equitable access to therapies. Overall, as with other pharmaceuticals, there is limited transparency in pricing, eligibility criteria and budgeting decisions in this therapeutic area.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".