Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Clarifies regulatory and payment differences in cell and gene therapy between China and the United States, suggesting solutions for global access.
With the continuous advancement of CGT technologies, therapeutic regimens worldwide are confronting dual challenges: accelerated regulation and innovation in payment models. The United States has established a regulatory framework characterized by early-stage acceleration and late-stage evidence supplementation based on the 21st Century Cures Act, matching a market-driven payment model supported by commercial insurance and Medicare pilots. China adheres to technology-first with strict risk control, experiencing three regulatory phases and forming a government-led payment model via prudent national medical insurance and local supplementary coverage. Both countries face common dilemmas of long-term evidence shortage, payment system adaptation, and regional accessibility inequality. This study objectively clarifies the institutional differences between the two countries and subjectively proposes targeted solutions including risk-adapted hierarchical regulation, cross-border collaborative payment sharing, and industrial synergy, aiming to provide a reference for global CGT universal access.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: