On October 27, 2026, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced coordinated actions by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to advance the development of and access to individualized gene therapies. FDA issued draft guidance, Individualized Human Genome Editing Products: Considerations for BLA Submission and Post-Approval Management, while CMS announced plans to expand its Cell and Gene Therapy (CGT) Access Model beyond sickle cell disease. Together, the actions aim to address two key barriers facing individualized therapies: navigating the regulatory approval process and ensuring patient access once therapies reach the market.
FDA Guidance: A More Flexible BLA Framework
The central purpose of FDA's draft guidance is to allow companies to seek approval for multiple patient-specific versions of a therapy under one Biologics License Application (BLA), and later add other qualifying versions without a separate clinical development program for each. The guidance is limited to certain individualized genome-editing products for single-gene disorders caused by known pathogenic gene variants, with the same intended editing outcome. It does not apply generally to conventional drugs or biologics, establish a new approval pathway, or change FDA's standards for approval.
The distinction between a genetic variant and a new indication is important. A pathogenic variant is a disease-causing change in a patient's DNA; a product variant is the version of the therapy designed to address that change. Two patients may have different mutations in the same gene that cause the same disease, requiring different guide RNA sequences but not treatment of a different disease. By contrast, mutations in the same gene can sometimes cause clinically distinct diseases. Treating that different disease would be a new indication requiring supporting clinical evidence, even if the genome-editing technology and intended edit are unchanged.
Central to FDA's proposal is the "Individualized Feature Space" (IFS), which defines the range of product components that may vary while still being treated as part of the same licensed product. For example, a sponsor could specify allowable changes to guide RNA sequences to target different mutations in a particular gene while retaining the same editing mechanism, intended editing outcome, delivery vehicle, and formulation. The IFS must be supported by clinical evidence and defined laboratory safety and activity criteria; it is not an open-ended authorization to introduce any new variant.
Under this approach, the initial BLA could cover some product variants not individually tested in clinical trials if laboratory data demonstrate adequate safety and activity, and clinical evidence from tested variants reasonably supports extrapolation to the untested variants. FDA expects the clinically studied variants to represent the full range proposed for the IFS. Thus, sponsors would still need an adequate clinical foundation for approval, but potentially could avoid separate clinical trials for each mutation-specific version.
The same approach would facilitate expansion after approval. A new product variant within an established IFS generally could be added through a BLA supplement as a manufacturing change, relying on appropriate in vitro activity, on-target and off-target editing, manufacturing, and other supporting data rather than a new clinical trial. FDA could still require clinical evidence if a new variant's safety or effectiveness cannot reliably be predicted from existing data. Expanding beyond the approved IFS requires a prior approval supplement; a fundamentally different editing mechanism or significant new risks may require a new BLA.
These efficiencies depend on early development planning. FDA encourages sponsors to define and discuss the proposed IFS before pivotal studies, develop potency assays and laboratory acceptance criteria that link to clinical results, and design manufacturing processes and validation programs capable of accommodating anticipated variants. FDA also recommends postapproval change management protocols that establish, in advance, how later variants will be assessed and submitted. Labeling would need to identify the mutations covered and distinguish clinically studied variants from those supported by laboratory data, while product identification and tracking controls help ensure the correct variant reaches the intended patient.
The guidance does not change accelerated approval, Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, or orphan-drug designation requirements. In particular, authorization to add mutation-specific versions to one BLA should not be confused with approval for a new disease or entitlement to additional designations. Sponsors relying on a mutation-defined orphan subset of a more common disease should also consider whether a broad IFS affects the scientific basis for that subset; FDA does not resolve that separate question in this draft.
If finalized and successfully implemented, the framework could have meaningful development, financing, licensing, and M&A implications. The opportunity is not to multiply approvals or regulatory designations, but to make a single genome-editing program scalable: clinical and manufacturing data from an initial group of variants could support treatment of additional patients with different mutations. The commercial value will depend on the breadth of the FDA-accepted IFS, the strength of the clinical-to-laboratory bridge, and the sponsor's ability to manufacture and validate additional variants reliably.
CMS Expands the CGT Access Model
The CMS Innovation Center (CMMI) previously launched the voluntary CGT Access Model to improve Medicaid access to cell and gene therapies, initially focusing on FDA-approved treatments for sickle cell disease. Under the model, CMS negotiates outcomes-based agreements with manufacturers on behalf of participating states. Under the model, if a therapy does not meet agreed-upon patient outcomes over time, manufacturers provide additional rebates, helping states manage the financial risk associated with high-cost therapies.
Due to the success of the model for sickle cell disease, CMS is now expanding the model beyond sickle cell disease to include cell and gene therapies for other rare diseases. CMS plans to issue a new Request for Applications for manufacturers that will establish a pathway for additional therapies to enter the model and for CMS to negotiate outcomes-based agreements on behalf of participating state Medicaid programs.
The expansion of the CGT Access Model to include cell and gene therapies for other rare diseases represents an opportunity for the overall advancement of CGT.
What the Coordinated FDA and CMS Actions May Signal
The coordinated FDA and CMS actions are notable because they address two major hurdles for personalized gene therapies at the same time: regulatory approval and payment. FDA is working to create a more flexible pathway for bringing highly individualized therapies to market, while CMS is building a payment model designed to expand patient access once they get there. The coordination signals a broader federal effort to reduce barriers to personalized therapies, from development and approval to patient access.
The CMS approach also reflects a continued shift toward paying for outcomes, particularly when therapies carry high upfront costs. For manufacturers, that creates both opportunity and risk. The CGT Access Model could provide a more streamlined path to Medicaid coverage across participating states, but manufacturers also take on greater financial risk if therapies do not deliver the agreed-upon results.
The expansion of access to CGT also presents opportunities for providers treating patients, particularly low-income patients, that can benefit from CGT.
FDA's proposed framework for individualized genome-editing products also raises important intellectual property considerations for life sciences companies. In particular, the guidance's proposed Individualized Feature Space (IFS)—which would define the permissible variation among individualized genome-editing components covered by a single BLA—could influence how developers structure and protect IP portfolios for these therapies.
As individualized therapies become increasingly platform-based, the most commercially significant IP may extend beyond patents covering a particular therapeutic sequence or patient-specific product. Developers should consider whether their portfolios adequately protect the broader technologies that enable individualized products, including genome-editing systems, delivery technologies, guide-design methodologies, manufacturing processes, analytical methods, assays, and computational tools. Companies may also want to evaluate whether the scope of their patent protection appropriately corresponds to the range of product variation contemplated by their proposed IFS.
The framework could also increase the importance of trade-secret protection. Proprietary algorithms, guide-selection methodologies, off-target prediction tools, manufacturing know-how, analytical techniques, and other platform capabilities may provide significant competitive advantages but may not always be appropriate for patent protection. Developers should therefore carefully coordinate patenting and trade-secret strategies.
In addition, a platform capable of generating numerous patient-specific variants may create new freedom-to-operate and licensing challenges. Companies should consider processes for efficiently evaluating whether new variants implicate third-party patent rights. Existing and future license and collaboration agreements should also be reviewed to ensure that definitions of licensed products, improvements, royalties, and intellectual property ownership adequately address evolving individualized products.
More broadly, FDA's effort to create a scalable regulatory pathway, coupled with CMS's effort to expand reimbursement access, could increase the strategic value of well-protected genome-editing platforms. Companies, investors, and transaction parties should therefore evaluate IP protection at the platform level, rather than focusing exclusively on individual therapeutic candidates.
A full-service national law firm with a cross-practice healthcare and life sciences team covering the needs of diverse clients, Venable helps our clients understand emerging law and regulation, manage compliance, and anticipate trends, empowering them to advance their goals while mitigating risk. You can find information on the healthcare and life sciences resource pages of many of our industry and practice group teams, including health policy, healthcare industry, food and drug, and intellectual property.