At first glance, choosing a low-cost vendor to manage your access program may seem like the most practical business decision. However, some Sponsors quickly find that the “low-cost” option results in higher long-term expenses, lack of dedicated support, and program inefficiencies that negatively impact patients, sites, and ultimately the Sponsor.
Over the past five years, WEP, has stepped in to rescue 20+ access programs, that started with a low-cost vendor but required intervention early-on or mid-way through the program. Below we discuss some of the most common challenges we hear from Sponsors who have been through this experience.
The Quoted Price Does Not Reflect the Final Cost
The initial low-cost proposal may look attractive on paper. However, hidden costs often occur at or post- program kick-off. Change orders, added service requests, and unexpected regulatory support are often layered on as additional fees, meaning that the final price far exceeds the original quote. Most of our Sponsors were new to the expanded access space, thus the cost increases described above were understandably hard to anticipate. Furthermore, many Sponsors informed WEP, that the increase in cost did not scale with an increase in service quality & delivery.
No Continuity from Sales to Delivery
Sponsors reported a disconnect between the business development team that sold their services and the operations team that delivered the program. In most cases, once the contract was signed, the experienced sales team disappeared, and the program was handed off with minimal context or follow-up. This resulted in confusion, missed expectations, and frustration. It takes considerable time, effort, and collaboration to ensure that the teams who design the access program are involved during set-up, or that a robust knowledge‑transfer process is in place and executed. Many of our Sponsors experienced cost increases during set-up, due to a lack of internal coordination with the low-cost vendor they originally chose.
Regulatory Expertise is Exaggerated
The most common complaint our Sponsors reported was that their original vendors oversold their regulatory knowledge and experience. Sponsors discovered that the vendor they chose lacked internal expertise in complex regions or relied heavily on external consultants. This significantly slowed program timelines and increased compliance risks. When vendors rely heavily on third-party contractors to manage key program elements, like regulatory affairs, teams often operate in silos. This fragmented structure results in unclear ownership of tasks, inconsistent service, and delayed access for patients who can’t afford to wait.
Lower Costs Equal Lower Service Levels
Competitive pricing sometimes relies on lean resourcing and defined rigid processes. This may work well for straightforward programs. However, complex, multi‑regional programs benefit from senior project management, flexible delivery models, proactive site engagement, and dedicated regulatory support. Combined, these attributes help a vendor anticipate and mitigate challenges and ensure smooth compliant delivery. The Sponsors that require high-touch, high-quality support often reported that they regretted selecting a low-cost vendor who ultimately failed to provide the service they were promised from the business development team.
Conclusion
Price is an important consideration when evaluating access program vendors – but it is only one dimension of value. A partner that can anticipate challenges, adapt to change, and maintain momentum often proves more economical and more reassuring over the lifecycle of an access program.
WEP takes immense pride in our pricing transparency, wherein we make best efforts to provide Sponsors with the total estimated cost of a program in the first instance. We are an organization that firmly believes you get what you pay for, while maintaining a financial responsibility to our clients.
