Value-based pricing vs best price? Medicaid's best price problem

In December 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved two groundbreaking gene therapies for sickle cell disease (SCD), offering a new lease on life for individuals battling this severe condition. However, while these therapies bring significant clinical improvements, their cost has emerged as a formidable challenge, particularly for Medicaid, which covers approximately half of the 100,000 individuals in the U.S. with SCD.

The Financial Strain of Sickle Cell Disease on Medicaid

Gene therapy represents a revolutionary treatment for SCD, a condition that has traditionally required ongoing management through therapies like allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT). While HSCT offers a potential cure, its use has been limited due to donor availability and high toxicity. Now, gene therapy provides a much-needed alternative, but the steep price tags—approximately $2.29 million per treatment—pose a significant challenge for Medicaid programs across the country.

The latest budget impact analysis updates previous findings on how these high-cost therapies could impact 10 Medicaid plans with the highest prevalence of SCD. The study reveals that even cost-effective treatments with exceptional clinical benefits may be unaffordable for payers, particularly given the expanding Medicaid enrollment and higher-than-expected launch prices for these therapies.

Short-Term Costs vs. Long-Term Savings

For Medicaid plans, the financial challenge of gene therapy is primarily in the upfront, one-time cost of the treatment. The updated model projects that in the first year alone, gene therapy for SCD will result in an average budget impact of $65.8 million per state program, with a per-member per-month (PMPM) cost of $3.11 across the 10-state sample. Although the cost decreases over time—with the PMPM dropping to $2.08 by year five—the initial budgetary strain is a significant concern.

Despite these costs, the long-term benefits of gene therapy are undeniable. By offering a potentially curative solution, gene therapy could avert future medical expenses associated with SCD, such as hospitalizations, pain management, and ongoing treatments. The model conservatively assumes perfect effectiveness and durability, projecting that the therapy would eliminate all future SCD-related healthcare costs for treated patients. While these assumptions may not reflect real-world outcomes, they provide a glimpse into the potential for long-term savings.

Market Diffusion and Budgetary Impact

A critical factor influencing the budget impact is the market diffusion rate—the speed at which patients adopt the new therapy. The analysis assumes an annual diffusion rate of 7%, meaning that a subset of eligible Medicaid enrollees will receive the therapy each year. This rate could vary, influenced by factors such as manufacturing capacity, delivery center availability, and payer policies. Notably, if the diffusion rate falls below 4%, the PMPM cost could remain below the affordability benchmark set by prior high-cost treatments, such as sofosbuvir for hepatitis C, which generated a PMPM cost of $1.89 in 2024 dollars.

The model also reveals that 35% of Medicaid enrollees with SCD are expected to have a severe phenotype, defined by two or more severe pain episodes annually. This percentage is a key driver of cost, as patients with more severe disease are more likely to be eligible for gene therapy.

State Medicaid Plans Face Varying Impacts

The updated analysis highlights significant variability in how different state Medicaid plans will be affected. For example, in Georgia, where SCD prevalence is higher, the projected PMPM cost is $3.92 in the first year, while Florida faces a slightly lower cost of $2.50 PMPM. These variations reflect differences in both disease prevalence and state enrollment levels.

By the fifth year, the PMPM costs across all state programs are expected to decrease, driven by reduced new therapy adoption and the absence of ongoing SCD-related costs for treated patients. However, the affordability challenge remains a pressing concern, particularly in the early years of gene therapy adoption.

Balancing Access with Affordability

Medicaid plans, payers, and policymakers are now tasked with finding ways to balance the promise of gene therapies with their potential financial burden. The affordability challenge could limit patient access, echoing the struggles faced during the rollout of high-cost hepatitis C treatments.

One potential solution is the development of novel payment models, such as annuity-based approaches, which could spread the cost of gene therapy over several years, easing the immediate budgetary impact. Additionally, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation is exploring alternative payment strategies specifically for gene therapies within Medicaid, aiming to ensure access without jeopardizing the financial sustainability of state programs.

The Role of Technology in Managing Costs

As gene therapies become more prevalent, platforms like Lyfegen can play a key role in helping payers manage the financial complexities associated with these high-cost treatments. Lyfegen’s platform simplifies the process of tracking the economic impact of gene therapies, providing payers and providers with the tools they need to assess real-world outcomes, monitor costs, and adjust strategies accordingly. By leveraging technology, healthcare systems can better navigate the financial risks and ensure that patients continue to benefit from the latest innovations in care.

Unlock smarter budget management strategies with Lyfegen’s powerful tools! The Lyfegen Drug Contracting Simulator helps payers and healthcare providers model the financial impact of high-cost therapies like gene therapy for SCD, optimize payment strategies, and make informed decisions. Coupled with the Lyfegen Library’s extensive database of pricing models, you’ll be equipped to tackle the financial challenges posed by the latest innovations in healthcare.

Act Now – Book a demo of Lyfegen’s platform and discover how we can support your budgeting and contracting needs: https://www.lyfegen.com/demo

References

Meyer, K. B., Kilburg, M. M., Johnson, K. B., & Meyers, M. A. (2024). A budget impact analysis of gene therapy for sickle cell disease: an updated analysis. Blood Advances, 8(17), 4658–4666. https://ashpublications.org/bloodadvances/article/8/17/4658/517069/A-budget-impact-analysis-of-gene-therapy-for-sickle-cell-disease

‍

A new study investigated how drug rebates affect out-of-pocket costs for health plan beneficiaries. Rebates lower costs for payers, but depending on the health plan, they can raise costs for the patient.  

There is a lot of secrecy surrounding the final price paid for a drug at the pharmacy, as official data on drug prices does not factor in rebates or the end price for the patient. The rebates paid by manufacturers to pharmacy benefit managers is not publicly available. The study therefore sought out to understand the relationship between rebates and the prices paid by insurers and beneficiaries.  

Results: The negotiated price, defined as the price paid by the beneficiary at the pharmacy and by the payer after rebates are taken into account, rose 4.3% from 2007 to 2020. However, the out-of-pocket price, or that paid by the patient at the pharmacy, rose 5.8% annually. Retail pharmacy prices increased 9.1% annually.

Implications: Low-income families may be especially impacted by plans with higher deductibles and lower premiums, as they are not prepared for surprise costs associated with cost-sharing. As the authors stated: “consumers with a low deductible or capped copays appear to be shielded from steep pharmacy price increases.” The main contributor to increases in out-of-pocket expenses were increasing deductibles and co-insurance payments.  

The authors emphasize that drug price transparency is important for health policy recommendations and more work needs to be done to understand drug price inflation.

‍