Proof that strategy can become reality.

acCELLapy helps clients move from planning to real-world execution by combining specialized expertise, implementation-ready assets, and hands-on support across the full cell therapy program journey.

"The acCELLapy Team, with their Cell Therapy program methodology was instrumental in providing Saint Thomas a detailed blueprint to launch our program. The key differentiator in working with acCELLapy was the deep expertise of their physicians, APPs and Cell Pharmacy-Lab advisors. The Team understood detailed nuances of building a program. Through our work with acCELLapy we developed a clear understanding of the operating and financial implications to confidently move forward. They answered our questions as well as educated our teams on what to anticipate at different stages of program maturity. Cell Therapy is the future of cancer care. If your cancer program aims to provide Cell Therapy, I highly recommend working with acCELLapy."
- Fahad Tahir, President and CEO, Ascension Saint Thomas

Why clients choose acCELLapy

Hands-on implementation support, not just recommendations
Pre-developed tools and program assets
Integration of clinical, operational, financial, and quality workstreams
Support from readiness through post-launch optimization

Proof themes

Faster path from readiness to launch
Stronger alignment across clinical, operational, and financial planning
Practical use of pre-developed assets and tools
Better preparation for payer and quality requirements
Support across the full patient journey
Ongoing optimization after go-live

Featured case studies

Case 1: From Last to First in CAR T

Building a first-in-market hospital–physician CAR T-cell program model

Outcomes

The health system elected to move forward and pursue a joint program with the independent oncology group. Leadership committed to establishing a collaborative governance and joint-venture structure, recruited a dedicated physician leader for the program, and used acCELLapy's strategy, requirements inventory, and implementation blueprint as the foundation for subsequent planning.

Implementation began after the joint-venture structure and leadership were in place and ultimately led to the first hospital–physician practice Authorized Treatment Center model of its kind in the country.

Key takeaways

Cell therapy is strategically important: Advanced cell therapy is no longer a niche capability. For community cancer programs seeking to remain relevant and expand access, it is becoming increasingly important to future service line strategy.
The business case is compelling: The analysis demonstrated that a well-designed program could justify investment with manageable capital requirements, a realistic path to break-even, and meaningful long-term revenue and margin potential.
Success depends on more than clinical intent: The opportunity depended on aligning market opportunity, reimbursement strategy, physician practice collaboration, staffing, facilities, patient-centric care coordination design, and operating model decisions into one coherent plan.
Partnership structure matters: Because the health system did not employ medical oncology, formal collaboration with an independent practice was essential to how the model would be designed, governed, and sustained.

Client Context

A regional health system in a highly competitive market held leading market share across most major service lines but lagged in oncology and was the only major provider in its market not offering CAR T-cell therapy. Because the system did not employ medical oncology, any future program would need to be built in collaboration with an independent oncology practice.

acCELLapy was engaged to determine whether a cell therapy program was strategically justified, operationally feasible, and financially viable, and to define what it would take to build the program successfully.

The client's challenge

The system needed to decide whether to invest in a CAR T-cell program and, if so, how to structure it with an independent oncology practice as a core partner. The questions were not only clinical. Leaders needed to understand:

Whether projected demand and share of services would justify the investment.
What capabilities and resources would be required across both organizations.
How a joint model would work financially and operationally over time.

The questions we helped answer

The engagement was designed to answer three core questions:

What market demand and share of services could a new cell therapy program realistically address in a highly competitive regional market?
What full set of requirements would be necessary to establish a program, including clinical, operational, financial, facility, talent, regulatory, and reimbursement needs?
What would be the investment and financial implications of establishing and operating the program across current and future indications, projected patient volumes, and negotiated case rates with payors?

acCELLapy's Role

acCELLapy worked with leadership to evaluate the opportunity from multiple angles and create a practical foundation for action.

Assess market demand, referral patterns, and competitor positions to estimate the opportunity for recapturing cases and serving new patients.
Develop a detailed requirements inventory across staffing, infrastructure, workflows, quality, regulatory, and payer-related needs.
Build a base-case financial model capturing volume, market share, payor mix, inpatient versus outpatient service mix, reimbursement rates, and program build decisions.
Estimate capital and operating expense requirements and identify key sensitivities.
Create a practical implementation blueprint that both organizations could use once governance and leadership were in place.

What the analysis showed

Strong strategic rationale: The work confirmed that cell therapy represented an important strategic capability for the client's oncology future. The health system was one of only a few major health systems in the market and the only one without transplant or cell therapy capabilities, while a substantial portion of current cases were already being treated by competitors.
Reasonable volume opportunity: The analysis indicated that a meaningful number of cases were either already going to competitors or were of uncertain destination within the market. A conservative market capture opportunity of just a 5-10% market share suggested a realistic basis for program development.
Compelling financial potential: The program was projected to generate $40M+ in annual revenue by year five, with a healthy seven-figure annual program margin and a meaningful cumulative margin over the first five years.
Clear break-even path: The base-case analysis indicated that the program could become cash flow positive in year 2, with break-even also occurring in year 2.

What this demonstrates about acCELLapy

Decide whether a cell therapy program is strategically and financially justified.
Understand what it truly takes to build a safe, compliant program in a complex competitive environment.
Design a collaborative implementation blueprint that both hospital and physician partners can use to move from concept to launch.

Related services →

Case 2: Proving a Shared ATC–Community Model Can Work

Developing a shared ATC – Community CAR T-cell Care Delivery Model

Outcomes

The engagement delivered:

A clear picture of what a shared ATC–community model could look like operationally.
An inventory of capabilities and process changes that would likely be needed at each site.
A list of practical questions and risk considerations to inform any future pilot or scaling strategy.
Early validation that a shared delivery model between an ATC and a community hospital is feasible when roles, workflows, and safeguards are clearly defined.

Key takeaways

Translate high-level delivery concepts into grounded, site-level planning.
Clarify "what would need to be true" for new care models to be tested safely.
Show that thoughtfully designed shared models can accelerate the development of cell therapy capabilities in community hospital programs, expanding access beyond traditional ATC walls and doing so at a time when very few organizations in the country were exploring this approach.

Client context

A cell therapy manufacturer wanted to understand how a shared delivery model between an Authorized Treatment Center (ATC) and a community hospital might expand access to CAR T-cell therapy. A conceptual "foundational" model had been developed previously, and the next step was to explore what it would take for sites to participate in a future pilot.

Objective

The engagement was structured as an observational, advisory case study. The aim was to:

Work with one ATC and its affiliated community hospital to explore how a shared care model could operate in practice.
Identify capabilities, responsibilities, and coordination needs at each site.
Surface operational and organizational questions that would need to be addressed before any formal pilot or implementation.

acCELLapy's role

acCELLapy facilitated a series of structured planning sessions with the manufacturer and both sites to:

Memorialize current-state CAR T-related capabilities and workflows.
Design how responsibilities might be shared across the treatment journey in a future model.
Identify potential gaps in process, governance, communication, and training.
Summarize key considerations for any subsequent pilot design and site readiness planning.

Related services →

Case 3: Evolving an Established Cancer Program into a Cell Therapy Destination

Outcomes

The engagement produced several tangible outcomes for the health system:

A clear strategic rationale: Leadership gained a fact-based understanding that cell therapy aligned with the system's mission, offered meaningful access benefits for patients in its region, and was increasingly important for maintaining competitiveness and recruiting oncologists.
A grounded, decision-ready business case: The organization received a structured business case with clear assumptions, sensitivities, and financial projections, demonstrating that the program could be viable under realistic conditions.
Clarity on readiness and focus areas: The capability assessment highlighted where the system was already strong and where targeted investment in governance, quality, workflows, staffing, apheresis, and pharmacy capabilities would be required to safely launch and sustain a program.
A practical implementation roadmap: A plan provided a concrete starting point for mobilizing the program, including quality and safety planning, staff training, SOP and guideline development, workflow design, and key decisions for apheresis and pharmacy build-out.

Key takeaways

Evaluate whether an existing oncology program should add cell therapy based on demand, competition, and strategic fit.
Understand what is required to move from interest to readiness, even when current oncologists have limited experience with cell therapy.
Build a financially grounded, operationally realistic business case and implementation plan that leadership can use to make informed decisions and chart a path toward launch.

Client context

A large regional health system with an established oncology program wanted to understand whether and how to add cell therapy to its capabilities. Unlike markets that rely on independent oncology practices as partners, this organization already delivered oncology care through its own dedicated outpatient cancer center and associated inpatient unit.

None of the medical oncologists had direct experience with cell therapy or CAR T-cell treatment. Leadership was also hearing from oncology fellows and early-career oncologists that the absence of CAR T-cell capabilities was becoming a barrier to recruitment and long-term career interest.

The client's challenge

The system needed to determine whether a cell therapy program made sense within its existing oncology service line and, if so, how to build it using internal resources and infrastructure. Leadership wanted clarity on:

The size and durability of the opportunity in its service area.
How prepared the organization was to deliver cell therapy safely and compliantly.
What level of investment and operational change would be required, and when the program could reasonably be expected to break even.

Objectives

The health system engaged acCELLapy to:

Assess current and forecasted market demand and the share of services the system could realistically serve by offering cell therapy.
Identify requirements and gaps across clinical, operational, financial, facility, talent, regulatory, and reimbursement dimensions.
Confirm the investment, financial, and reimbursement implications of establishing and operating a program over time.
Develop an initial six-month implementation plan to guide program launch, including quality planning, staffing, training, education, SOPs, and care guidelines.

acCELLapy's role

acCELLapy partnered with clinical, administrative, and advisory group leaders to:

Analyze market demand, referral patterns, and competitor activity to estimate the potential scale of a cell therapy program in the system's service area.
Conduct a capability and gap assessment across the outpatient cancer center, inpatient unit, pharmacy, and supporting functions to understand readiness and barriers to entry.
Build a base-case financial model using key sensitivity variables such as volume and market share, payor mix, inpatient versus outpatient service mix, reimbursement assumptions, and product cost.
Facilitate advisory group discussions to align on priorities, interpret findings, and develop actionable recommendations.
Design an implementation roadmap outlining major workstreams required to initiate the program.

Key findings

The work surfaced several pivotal insights:

Patient access and relevance: The system was well positioned to improve access to cell therapy for patients across its state and service area. Offering cell therapy was seen as essential to keeping the oncology service line relevant and attractive to both patients and new oncology talent.
Sufficient program volume: Forecasts indicated that projected volumes would be sufficient to support a self-sustaining program, with the opportunity to retain patients currently leaving the market and to extend reach beyond the immediate metropolitan area.
Low structural barriers to entry: The capability assessment showed relatively low hard barriers to establishing a program. Most gaps were programmatic, including quality infrastructure, workflows, governance, leadership, staffing ratios, and selected operational support functions, areas that could be addressed with focused planning and investment.
Capital and operating profile: Initial capital investment was estimated in the low six-figure range, primarily related to pharmacy equipment, space adjustments, and apheresis equipment.
Financial results: The program was projected to grow with a solid seven-figure cumulative margin over the planning horizon and a positive net present value, with positive cash flow anticipated beginning in the early years of operation.

Related services →

See what the right implementation partner can change.

If your organization is evaluating a launch, scaling an existing model, or expanding access across a broader network, acCELLapy can help you define the right path forward.

Talk with an expert