Pharma's Back-Office to Front-Office GTN Challenge

I had a conversation recently that stuck with me. A manufacturer told me they were selecting one pharmacy for sole-source distribution of their ultra-rare disease product… and that “it doesn’t really matter which one.” That mindset is exactly where risk begins. Because it absolutely matters. In ultra-rare disease, you’re not just choosing a dispenser. You’re choosing an economic gatekeeper to your entire patient population. That decision directly impacts: • Patient access → speed to therapy, adherence, and continuity of care • Data visibility → what you actually see (or don’t see) about your patients • Financial accuracy → how clean your GTN, accruals, and reporting truly are • Compliance exposure → government pricing, 340B, and audit defensibility • Control of your product → who influences substitution, routing, and fulfillment And here’s the part most teams underestimate: When you pick a pharmacy, you’re not just picking a provider…you’re plugging into an entire ecosystem of PBMs, switches, hubs, and financial incentives. If that ecosystem isn’t aligned with your strategy, you don’t control access anymore. They do. In ultra-rare, every patient matters. Every dispense matters. Every transaction matters. This isn’t about limiting access, it’s about designing it intentionally. Because GTN doesn’t start in finance. It starts in how you design your channel. And it always ends as a journal entry. 👉 The real question isn’t “which pharmacy?” It’s: what system are you buying into and do you understand it? #NextGenGTN #PatientsAndProfitability #RareDisease #SpecialtyPharmacy #MarketAccess #PharmaStrategy #GTN #GrossToNet #PharmaFinance #PatientAccess #HealthcareEconomics #DistributionStrategy #PharmacyEcosystem #RevenueIntegrity #ComplianceMatters #FollowTheMoney

Cherry SE, a global manufacturer of computer input devices and digital healthcare solutions, has called an Extraordinary General Meeting for May 22, 2026, to address capital market requirements. The company plans to implement a 4:1 reverse share split to offset accumulated balance sheet losses and restore eligibility. The move comes as Cherry evaluates financing options to support restructuring and growth initiatives. A recent auditor change has delayed the annual financial report publication to July 15, 2026, prompting the company to convene the extraordinary meeting independently of the revised reporting timeline. Preliminary 2025 results were published in March, with the full Q1 quarterly report available May 7.

Playing the long game in our industry means making decisions today that may not fully pay off for years: - It means investing in the right people, even when it would be easier to cut corners. - It means putting time into compliance, clinical validity, payer relationships, documentation, provider education, and operational discipline before there is an immediate return. - It means understanding that the strongest labs are not built on one good reimbursement cycle, one good payer trend, or one hot test menu. They are built through consistency, integrity, and the ability to adapt when the market changes. I love working with legacy labs. The labs that have been around 20+ years always have a story worth listening to. I love asking them, “How did you get here?” The answer is rarely flashy. It is usually some version of: we stayed disciplined, we took care of our people, we protected our reputation, we made hard decisions, and we did not chase every short-term opportunity that came across the table. That is the long game. And in an industry facing payer pressure, audits, policy shifts, and constant uncertainty, I believe the long game matters more than ever.

Patient billing is entering a new phase of standardization. Recent Q1 legislation across multiple states is converging on a common structure: earlier financial assessment, defined affordability thresholds, and stricter prerequisites before collections. Individually, these are policy changes. Collectively, they reshape how patient revenue is expected to be generated and managed. The implication is straightforward. Operating models built around traditional collection workflows will face increasing constraint.  A closer look at the three shifts shaping 2026 ↓ 🔗: https://lnkd.in/gPTUAuMb

Whether you’re a practice owner thinking about a future sale or an investor evaluating healthcare platforms, understanding the connection between consumer-oriented operations and deal economics is increasingly important. https://bit.ly/4sfuZYR

As Theraclion publishes its 2025 financial results this evening, the bigger story is not just the numbers. It is the strength of the foundations now in place for the next phase of growth. 🚀 2025 was not just a year of progress. It was a year of building the foundations for acceleration ahead. 📈 Commercially, the momentum is real. New centers are signing, with 5 new contracts in the last 5 months alone. Our installed base is expanding, and the Pay-Per-Use model continues to prove its relevance by easing adoption for healthcare providers while strengthening recurring revenue. 🔬 Clinically and scientifically, Sonovein® continues to gain validation. Innovation only matters when it translates into confidence, outcomes, and growing interest from the medical community. 🌍 Regulatory-wise, the path is opening up in a very tangible way. Following CE marking under the latest MDR requirements in Europe, progress in China, and the FDA review now underway in the U.S., we are moving step by step toward what we hope will be a major milestone for the company this year. 💶 And just as importantly, we are preparing the next financing round with a solid base already secured, so the company has the means to deliver on its plan with discipline and ambition. 🎯 The focus now is clear: turn these foundations into commercial acceleration and long-term value creation. See the full press release here: https://lnkd.in/erBp9Z9X

Providers and payers are often looking at the same contract from completely different perspectives. On the provider side, it’s usually: 👉 reimbursement, volume, sustainability On the payer side, it’s: 👉 cost control, network strategy, utilization The disconnect isn’t always obvious at first—but it shows up over time in performance, negotiations, and overall relationship dynamics. Having worked around both sides, it’s interesting how often those gaps go unaddressed until they start impacting outcomes. Curious— for those of you on the payer side, what do you think providers most misunderstand about how contracts and reimbursement are structured?

As I step into a new endeavor, I’ve been intentionally leaning into conversations that matter on both sides of the table. Transparency is key—because without it, progress is limited. This is a space I’ve been spending more time in lately—there’s a lot of nuance that doesn’t always get talked about openly.

One patient in remission. 50 million watching. That gap is not a success story. It's the question nobody has answered yet. The door opened. Nobody's checked what's on the other side. Here's what I mean. One case of remission is real. It matters. But it proves exactly one thing: the mechanism didn't kill this patient and it appeared to work. That's it. It doesn't tell you if the response holds at 6 months. It doesn't tell you if the same result appears across different genetic backgrounds. It doesn't tell you if the manufacturing process can reproduce the same product at scale without drift. Prof. Müller is right. Clinical trials aren't bureaucracy. They're the only structure that can answer whether this works or whether it worked once. The difference between those two statements is everything. Companies build strategy around a single compelling case. The excitement is real. The pressure to move is real. But possibility is not evidence. And evidence is what you need before you deploy capital, scale a process, or tell a regulator you're ready. One patient is a proof of concept. Not a proof of scale. The door is open. What's required now is the work of finding out whether what's on the other side is a path or just a room. What question are you asking before you move?

“Our economic value story is strong so coverage should follow.” It’s a compelling narrative. But in the U.S., it’s rarely the deciding factor. A strong value story helps. It just doesn’t win on its own. Many MedTech teams invest heavily in proving cost savings and efficiency. And that work matters. But payer decisions aren’t made on high-level economics alone. They’re shaped by a more specific set of questions, ones that don’t always show up in a traditional value deck. Economic value is part of the story. Understanding how payers evaluate that story is what moves things forward. Swipe through to see what’s really behind coverage decisions Do you have U.S. commercialization questions? Whether it's how the multiple payer landscape works in the U.S., how to validate device or procedure coding, timelines associate with product uptake - we're happy to answer them. 🔗Schedule an introductory call: https://lnkd.in/envMbbQp #CoustierAdvisory #MedTech #MedicalDevices #ReimbursementStrategy #MarketAccess #PayerCoverage