INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Cell therapies can be classified into three main categories of products: advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), ATMPs prepared on a non-routine basis (hospital exemptions), and minimally manipulated cells. Despite the benefits that cell therapies can bring to patients, they are subject to complex pathways to reach the market in France. The objective of this study was to identify and describe routes to market access for cell therapies in France and how these vary by regulatory status. METHODOLOGY: The research was structured following five main steps: (1) identification of the French regulatory framework for cell therapies; (2) identification of the health products categorised as cell therapies in France; (3) mapping of the market access pathways per category of cell therapy; (4) validation of findings by interviewing experts; and (5) development of a roadmap summarising market access pathways for cell therapies in France. The secondary research methodology included a comprehensive literature review conducted on websites of French public health institutions, complemented by a research for peer-reviewed articles, abstracts, and grey literature. RESULTS: Different market access pathways are possible depending on the cell therapy category. For ATMPs, market access pathways depend on the licensing status of the therapy. Licensed ATMPs followed the same market access pathways as ‘conventional’ pharmaceuticals, whereas not-yet-licensed ATMPs can be funded via a specific financial allowance under the framework of a Temporary Authorisation for Use procedure or various research programmes. For new ATMPs that are associated with a separate medical device (not considered as ‘combined ATMPs’) or associated with a new medical procedure, additional pathways will apply for the medical device and/or medical procedure to be reimbursed in the ambulatory settings or at hospital. The most likely funding option for ATMPs prepared on a non-routine basis is outside the diagnosis-related group (DRG) system through Missions of General Interest and Support to Contracting (MIGAC). For minimally manipulated cells, four different funding processes are applicable, depending on the type of activity: (1) inclusion in a DRG; (2) inclusion in the list of products and services qualifying for reimbursement (LPPR) (as a medical device); (3) an annual lump sum provided by regional health agencies; and (4) a financial allowance under Missions of General Interest (MIG). CONCLUSION: Cell therapy is a diverse and promising category of medical interventions. Its heterogeneity and complexity mean that several funding options and market access pathways apply. The main challenges facing cell therapies relate to (1) the identification of the most appropriate path to reimbursement, and (2) price setting, whereas high manufacturing costs of these therapies will dictate a high price that could only be achieved by a product that leads to important additional patient benefits compared to available treatment options. More specific funding options could emerge as the number of cell therapies increases and the authorities face the need to structure and stabilise funding. It will be vital for manufacturers to have a clear understanding of the various temporary funding opportunities early in a product’s lifecycle for the adoption of a stepwise approach to secure permanent funding. Furthermore, due to the very limited Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies experience for cell therapies, manufacturers should enter into dialogues with HTA agencies at an early stage to optimise market access conditions.