Market access is littered with myths that sound plausible — until they quietly drain millions from your launch budget. Believing them isn’t just harmless optimism; it’s expensive optimism. Let’s unpack the three most common offenders.

Myth 1: Approval guarantees access.

Regulatory approval is not a golden ticket to reimbursement. It’s permission to market, yes, but payers still get to decide whether they’ll fund it. I’ve seen therapies with perfect Phase III data sitting idle for months because the team assumed approval meant adoption. The result? Lost revenue, frustrated teams, and even worse, patients waiting for treatment that exists but is practically invisible.

Myth 2: One global value story fits all.

Every market has its quirks. Germany, the UK, Brazil — different systems, different pressures, different thresholds for value. Trying to use the same evidence package everywhere is like serving black pudding to someone expecting haggis. Sometimes, it works. Often, it satisfies no one. Tailoring evidence and messaging to each market takes effort, but it saves millions in downstream rework and delays.

Myth 3: Access can be “fixed” after launch.

Post-launch remediation is expensive and rarely perfect. If payer needs weren’t accounted for in trial design, no glossy slide deck, health economic model, or last-minute discount will reverse the consequences. Fixing access later is like patching a leaky roof during a monsoon — you’re still getting soaked, and the buckets aren’t enough.

Why do these myths persist? They’re comforting. Approval equals access simplifies planning. Global evidence stories reduce complexity. Post-launch fixes let teams avoid difficult conversations upfront. But comfort here is costly.

The fix is simple in principle, tricky in practice: embed access thinking from day one. Design trials that answer payer questions. Segment markets strategically. Build pricing and patient support models into the product plan, not as an afterthought. Early attention prevents expensive firefighting later.

A few practical tips:

• Map payer evidence requirements early — every indication, every market.
• Stress-test assumptions — what if reimbursement is delayed six months?
• Simulate adoption scenarios — including budgets, pathways, and patient impact.
• Iterate evidence packages — ensure they resonate locally, not just globally.

In short, believing myths about market access costs more than just money — it costs credibility, adoption, and patient benefit. The companies that succeed are the ones that confront these myths head-on, design access into the strategy, and accept that shortcuts in this arena are expensive and visible.

Why Speed to Market Doesn’t Equal Speed to Adoption

Pharma loves a race. “Fastest to file,” “first to market,” “beat the competition.” Speed is treated like a badge of honour, a measure of competence, daring, and corporate vitality. But here’s the inconvenient truth: speed to market does not equal speed to adoption.

Launching quickly is meaningless if the ecosystem isn’t ready. Payers may not have evaluated the evidence, clinicians might not be trained, and patients might struggle to access the therapy. The fastest launch without these pieces in place is just a premature reveal — a very expensive form of impatience.

Take, for instance, a recent rare disease therapy in Europe. The company prided itself on filing first, getting approval months ahead of competitors. Yet adoption lagged for nearly a year. Why? Clinics weren’t prepared, patient support programmes weren’t fully operational, and payers hesitated to reimburse. The launch was “fast,” yes, but the therapy barely reached those who needed it most.

Rushing can backfire in other ways. Early, incomplete data might frustrate payers. Confused clinicians may delay prescriptions. And patients, the very people your therapy is meant to help, end up in limbo. Speed without readiness risks reputational damage that can last far beyond the first quarter’s results.

The actual race is to readiness, not merely to approval. Teams need to ask:

• Are payers confident in the evidence package?
• Are clinicians trained and pathways defined?
• Can patients navigate access easily, financially and practically?
• Have support programmes been tested and scaled?

In essence, speed is a vanity metric. Adoption is the true marker of success. Sometimes, slowing down is the fastest way forward. In practice, a carefully orchestrated, slightly slower launch can achieve higher uptake, better payer relationships, and stronger long-term value than a headlong rush to be first.

It helps to think of pharma launches like tea: boiling water is fast, but steeping the leaves properly produces a far better result. Launching early without readiness is just hot water — fast, visible, but lacking substance.

Finally, the internal culture must support this mindset. Teams must resist the pressure to announce “first to market” in meetings and press releases if the system isn’t prepared. Align functions early, anticipate barriers, and build adoption into the plan from day one.

Because at the end of the day, the therapy that reaches the most patients and demonstrates impact isn’t the one that got regulatory clearance first — it’s the one that was truly ready for the world.