cResponse™ tests a patient's own tumor against the treatment options under consideration, before you commit to covering one, so coverage decisions are grounded in how this patient's tumor responds, not only in a population average.
Get the payer brochureContact payer economicsModern oncology drugs are among the most expensive treatments a plan covers, and the newest classes, biologics, antibody-drug conjugates and immuno-oncology therapies, carry the largest commitments of all. Yet for most of these classes, fewer than half of treated patients respond: objective response rates sit below 50%, and often well below it.
Together, those two facts define the problem: a large share of a plan's most expensive spend goes to treatments that do not work for the patient who receives them, and that failure is not cost-neutral. It wastes budget on a drug that delivers no benefit, harms the patient with full toxicity and avoidable adverse-event costs, and moves the patient sooner to later lines that are typically more expensive and lower-yield.
Improving all three at once requires precision: knowing, before treatment starts, which of the options under consideration this tumor will actually respond to.
A patient tested against the options being considered and found not to respond to any of them is identified before the first dose, not after a full cycle of ineffective, costly treatment.
Avoiding one ineffective line often avoids the downstream cascade it would have triggered, additional lines, hospitalizations, and supportive care that follow a failed treatment.
This is the same economic logic that made genomic companion diagnostics standard coverage, testing before treatment to avoid paying for drugs unlikely to help this patient.
Spend proceeds on a treatment with a tested result behind it, or moves to an equally effective option chosen on tolerability or cost.
A tested-effective alternative among the options under consideration. Spend moves to a therapy that works, before an ineffective line is paid for.
Known before treatment starts: futile, toxic cycles are not paid for, and the patient is directed to clinical trials or timely supportive and palliative care.
Clinical outcome follow-up within this study re-confirmed the test's 90%+ PPV and NPV in routine practice.
Cost per responder, total spend on a treatment divided by the number of patients who actually benefit from it, is a standard health-economics metric in oncology, and the same logic that justified genomic companion diagnostic coverage. Functional testing concentrates spend on patients who will actually respond, improving cost per responder without changing the price of any single drug.
In published genomic-testing precedents, cost per responder for a targeted therapy has been shown to fall several-fold once treatment is directed only at patients confirmed likely to respond, versus treating an unselected population. Functional testing extends this logic beyond genomic markers to actual tumor response.
List price isn't the only lever. We're open to structuring coverage around outcomes rather than list price alone, including risk-sharing and outcomes-based arrangements where CURESPONSE shares in the economic case it helps create.
What that looks like depends on your plan's population, indications in scope, and existing value-based contracting infrastructure. Talk to our payer economics team about what could work for your plan.
CE marked,
ISO 15189:2022 Medical Laboratories
Prediction accuracy, PPV & NPV
against clinical outcomes
Applicable to
all solid tumors
Applicable to all therapy
classes and combinations
A printable overview of the coverage case for cResponse™.
Download brochureDiscuss coverage criteria, evidence, or a reimbursement model for your plan.
Contact payer economics