OnCo
ideasIdea

Pay for residual disease tests only inside a trial or registry

Leftover-cancer blood tests are being sold faster than evidence that acting on them helps. Paying for them only when the result is recorded would generate the missing evidence.

MRD testing is spreading through routine care ahead of randomised evidence that intervention on a positive result improves survival. Coverage with evidence development — reimbursement conditional on enrolment in a registry or trial with mandatory outcome submission — turns uncontrolled adoption into a data-generating engine, as it has for some devices and PET indications.

Hypothesis
Conditional coverage produces an analysable dataset of over 50,000 tested patients with linked outcomes within three years, and identifies at least one tumour setting where MRD-guided intervention does not help.
Rationale
The National Oncologic PET Registry showed that conditional coverage can produce practice-changing evidence quickly at low cost. The alternative, unconditional payment, has repeatedly left the field with widespread use and no answer.
What would test it
One national payer or insurer pilots conditional coverage for one tumour type, publishing enrolment, completeness of outcome capture and cost per patient after 18 months.
Maturity
speculative
Who has to act
payer
Cost to try
Small (under $1M)
Years to first evidence
3
Bottlenecks it attacks

Key papers

1top

Connected

8top

Pages like this

not linked directly; found by shared links