Dec 17, 2025
Julia Wermerskirchen, Senior Director, Access Experience Team
The FDA has introduced a new regulatory pathway — the “plausible mechanism pathway” — that could fundamentally change how bespoke, n-of-1, personalized gene-editing therapies are developed and approved. This move signals a recognition of the unique challenges faced by patients with rare genetic diseases and offers hope for more accessible treatments. But while the science is groundbreaking, the access implications are complex, and they demand urgent attention.
What is the Plausible Mechanism Pathway?
Unlike traditional drug approvals that rely on large-scale randomized trials, FDA approval under this pathway relies on five forms of evidence:
- Defined molecular causality: The disease itself must have a clear biological cause, such as a specific gene mutation.
- Targeted therapeutic mechanism: The therapy must directly address the underlying cause.
- Evidence of target engagement: Evidence must demonstrate that the therapy achieved its intended effect and that the target was successfully edited or treated. This confirmation can come from animal models, non-animal systems, or clinical biopsy. In certain cases, due to feasibility constraints, the FDA may accept data from the first patient treated (first-in-class subject), or permit patients to serve as their own controls to show clinical improvement.
- Well-understood natural history: Manufacturers must demonstrate a deep understanding of disease progression to compare treated versus untreated patients.
- Clinical improvement: The therapy must deliver measurable benefit, strong enough to rule out statistical noise or “regression to the mean.”
Once a manufacturer shows consistent success across several patients using different bespoke therapies built on the same platform, the FDA could grant platform-level marketing authorization for “similar products in additional conditions – using either accelerated or traditional approval pathways.” Platform-level authorization reflects FDA approval of a platform technology, defined as a “well-understood and reproducible technology, which may include a nucleic acid sequence, molecular structure, mechanism of action, delivery method, vector, or combination of any such technologies that [FDA] determines to be appropriate.”
This marks a major paradigm shift – from approving individual drugs to authorizing platforms that enable personalized therapies. Regardless, post-approval, companies are still required to collect real-world evidence to confirm safety and effectiveness.
Why Does This Matter for Market Access?
FDA approval is only one part of the access equation. Coverage and reimbursement decisions by payers — commercial insurers, employer groups, and government payers — are driven by clinical evidence and cost considerations. The new plausible mechanism pathway changes that dynamic by reducing the evidentiary burden for approval, meaning access decision-makers will need to reassess their coverage requirements. This shift introduces real tension due to:
- Limited clinical data: Under this pathway, approvals may rely on minimal data, thereby raising questions about whether payers will accept even less evidence than they already struggle with in rare disease trials.
- Lack of a “label”: Payer policies typically rely on the FDA-approved label and pivotal trial data. If this pathway enables multiple individual patients or conditions under a single platform approval or “label,” payers will face uncertainty in structuring therapy-level drug policies.
- Precedent of exclusion: Some payers already restrict drugs approved under accelerated pathways. For example, Independence Blue Cross excludes such drugs for 18 months post-launch, and Excellus’ Medication Assurance program denies coverage for therapies with “unconfirmed clinical benefit.”
- Affordability and risk: Employer groups are increasingly questioning coverage for gene therapies given multimillion-dollar price tags and financial exposure. Exclusions may seem like a solution, but they carry compliance risks (disability discrimination, HIPAA violations) and reputational fallout—especially when life-saving treatments for children are involved.
- Valuing the cost of therapy: As manufacturers gain platform approvals and expand into multiple conditions, the challenge becomes scaling evidence to demonstrate overall budget impact. In practice, payers will need to evaluate cost offsets on a condition-by-condition basis to align pricing and contracting—an approach that underscores the ethical and financial complexity of assigning value to treatments that profoundly impact individual lives.
As the FDA moves toward streamlined approvals for personalized treatments, payers and employers will need to create new frameworks to balance scientific progress with affordability and fairness.
Key Questions We Must Address
To ensure that patients benefit from this innovation, stakeholders must grapple with several interconnected challenges:
- Evidence standards: While the FDA’s new pathway reduces the burden of clinical data, the critical question remains—what qualifies as “strong enough” evidence? Approval alone does not guarantee coverage; payers will need to reconcile these standards with their own requirements for clinical rigor and cost justification. Alignment between regulatory and payer expectations will be essential to ensure patient access.
- Reimbursement models: High upfront costs and bespoke designs require new funding frameworks. Payers are accustomed to population-level decisions rather than those for a single patient, creating real ethical challenges. Given the close link between financial and ethical considerations, how can the healthcare system build sustainable models that preserve access without implicitly assigning a price to individual lives?
- Funding and incentives for development: With federal research grants declining, who will bear the cost of innovation and ensure that financial barriers do not stifle progress? Manufacturers, philanthropy, and public-private partnerships may all contribute, but the balance remains uncertain. For manufacturers, investing in ultra-rare conditions is inherently risky, especially when payer coverage is uncertain. Sustaining innovation for the smallest populations will require a viable path to ROI.
- Equitable access: Bespoke therapies could carry high costs, making payer coverage essential for patient access. Yet, we’re already seeing some plans exclude standard CGTs from their riders—let alone bespoke approaches. How do we ensure all patients with genetic conditions benefit from these innovations, rather than only those whose payers cover the therapy? On the flip side, if payers acknowledge the plausible mechanism pathway and create coverage solutions, platform-based approvals could extend across multiple genetic mutations—supporting equity by reaching more rare disease patients who might otherwise have no treatment option.
What Can We Do Now?
To make the plausible mechanism pathway meaningful for patients, stakeholder alignment is essential, with each stakeholder playing a critical role. Manufacturers should engage payers early to align on evidence requirements and develop economic models that incorporate real-world data to demonstrate cost offsets and long-term value.
A clear evidence strategy is essential, covering natural history and post-launch RWE to support ongoing value demonstration. Payers should assess clinical evaluation and payment models to identify gaps and opportunities for managing individualized therapies. Finally, providers and health systems must be educated on operational challenges in delivering bespoke therapies, including infrastructure readiness and reimbursement processes.
The plausible mechanism pathway is a call to action. The science is ready. But without coordinated efforts to align incentives, address affordability, and define evidence standards, patients risk being caught in the middle of a system that cannot keep pace with innovation.