Who does it better? Assessing a value-based drug price in Europe vs the US
READ MORE
.webp)
READ MORE
U.S. and European healthcare payers are increasing their utilization of value-based drug pricing agreements to hold down drug costs, bring better value and improvements to health outcomes, and determine a fair price for new drugs. The question of who does the assessments to determine a drug’s fair price is answered differently in the EU than in the U.S.
National healthcare leaders have a common problem to solve and a common goal to achieve. The problem is how to protect national healthcare budgets from overwhelming drug costs without discouraging pharmaceutical manufacturers from developing new products. The goal is to provide populations with equitable access to innovative, safe, clinically effective, and cost-effective healthcare therapies.
In the U.S., payers and policymakers are trying to control drug expenditures and determine the value of new drugs in an opaque, free-market environment. In Europe, government price controls and centralized clinical and economic evaluations of new drugs are standard. For both these pharmaceutical markets, drug pricing agreements based on value instead of volume are gaining traction.
The problem: drug prices keep rising
Pharmaceutical sales in Europe are almost a quarter of all drug sales globally. From 2015 to 2020, the top five European markets–the UK, Germany, France, Italy, and Spain–accounted for 17.4% of sales of new drug therapies. These top five markets are predicted to increase spending by $51 billion through 2026.
North America is the largest pharmaceutical market, accounting for almost half of the total global sales. From 2015 through 2020, the U.S. purchased 63.7% of all the new medicines introduced. The U.S. is expected to increase drug spending by an estimated $119 billion through 2026.
According to IQVIA, a leading healthcare consulting firm, the change in drug spending in the U.S. and European markets through 2026 will be due, in large part, to new brands.
The goal: access to new, high-quality drug treatments at a fair price
Healthcare payers don’t want to take on the financial risk and clinical uncertainty of a new, high-cost pharmaceutical product. Payers want to provide patients with equitable access to innovative treatments that improve health outcomes, especially in therapeutic areas with unmet health needs.
Value-based drug pricing arrangements address these concerns with evidence-driven, outcome-based agreements. The payer and manufacturer share the risks of a new drug not performing as expected. In both the U.S. and the EU, payers and manufacturers are engaged in more finance-based drug pricing contracts than performance-based contracts–but this trend is shifting.
Assessing a drug’s value in the EU healthcare system
Value-based drug pricing arrangements are called managed entry agreements (MEAs) in Europe. MEAs between drug manufacturers and healthcare payers can be finance-based (FBAs), performance-based (PBAs), or service-based agreements (SBAs).
Unlike the U.S., the EU has a centralized system for assessing a drug’s value. Each EU member state has an agency that uses an evidence-based data gathering process called health technology assessments (HTAs). HTAs include nine domains for assessment–four clinical and five non-clinical–that evaluate the efficacy and added value of a new drug compared to other treatment options already available on the market.
The work of the member states’ HTA bodies is coordinated by the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). However, conclusions and decisions related to drug pricing and reimbursement remain de-centralized.
Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) may be a part of an MEA and come after the HTA. CED is a way for urgently needed treatments to come to market under conditional approval while real-world evidence continues to be collected. This additional data should help payers decide about coverage. CED use varies by country, with the most CED found in the UK and the U.S. (through Medicare).
Related Post: Indication-specific pricing to make inroads in the U.S.
Assessing a drug’s value in the US healthcare system
The possibility of developing a centralized Health Technology Assessment for the U.S. Healthcare System was the focus and title of a white paper published in early 2020 by the University of Southern California Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics.
The white paper describes the complexities of creating a national HTA organization in the U.S. It examines the difficult dynamics of the many stakeholders in the healthcare system; few are operating with enough transparency and coordination with other stakeholders to support value-based drug pricing. The authors conclude that in the current polarized legislative environment in the U.S., an attempt to develop a national HTA organization would be met with strong political resistance.
In the absence of the European-style centralized HTA body, U.S. payers look to alternative sources for the data they need for drug pricing negotiations. Private and public payers may find clinical and economic evaluations from various agencies that do HTAs on a limited scale. These include government and independent organizations, such as the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, Medicaid, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). One of the most influential organizations in this space is the independent, non-profit Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER).
Unfortunately, these organizations don’t do value-based pricing evaluations for every drug that comes on the market, and some of their work is not publicly available. Even if analysis of a selected drug is available, it may not cover the key metrics a customized value-based drug pricing agreement needs to track.
When real-world data about a drug’s performance is limited, it’s often up to the manufacturer and payer entering the value-based contract to develop the framework and the data collection and analysis capability, either in-house or through a third-party vendor.
The Lyfegen Solution
The Lyfegen Platform is a customizable solution for healthcare payers, pharma, and medtech companies who need to gather and analyze real-world evidence about a drug’s performance for value-based drug pricing agreements. Lyfegen’s value-based contracting software collects real-world data and uses intelligent algorithms to provide valuable insights into clinical effectiveness and costs.
Lyfegen’s contracting platform helps implement and scale value-based drug pricing contracts with greater efficiency and transparency. By enabling the shift away from volume-based, fee-for-service healthcare to value-based healthcare, Lyfegen increases access to healthcare treatments and their affordability.
To learn more about Lyfegen’s software solutions, contact us to book a demo.
READ MORE
When pharmaceutical manufacturers share clinical and economic data about their products in the pipeline, payers can prepare their budgets and formularies to launch value-based drug pricing arrangements as soon as a new treatment receives FDA approval. Pre-approval data sharing between manufacturers and payers gives patients quicker access to newly approved treatments.
As the healthcare system in the U.S. continues its transition from fee-for-service to value-based care, the sharing of healthcare economic information (HCEI) is becoming increasingly important to pharmaceutical manufacturers and healthcare payers seeking to enter value-based drug pricing arrangements.
In the past, drug manufacturers were hesitant to share HCEI and other pre-approval information with payers because regulations were unclear about the legal limits of this type of communication. But payers want HCEI from drug manufacturers for planning, formulary design, budgeting, and purchasing decisions. And lawmakers want to eliminate legislative barriers that inhibit the sharing of HCEI and the increased adoption of value-based healthcare.
The history of legislation surrounding manufacturer/payer communications
Policymakers and regulators, like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), recognize the importance of big data and the sharing of HCEI for promoting value-based payment arrangements. Their first attempts to remove the legislative barriers to the exchange of HCEI between drug and device manufacturers and population healthcare managers did not produce the desired effects.
The first U.S. federal consumer protection law, the Food and Drugs Act, was enacted in 1906. This law’s consumer protections and law enforcement capabilities were strengthened by the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C). Section 502(a) of the FD&C introduced and defined HCEI, giving the pharmaceutical industry their first instructions about what kind of economic data promotion could be communicated and with whom. But manufacturers refused to share information, fearing the penalties of accidentally disseminating off-label information.
Section 114 of the FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA) of 1997, amended FD&C Section 502(a) and provided a safe harbor for HCEI sharing. But manufacturers continued to resist sharing economic data because they felt the guidelines were still too vague about some topics, such as the definition of reliable scientific evidence and who was authorized to receive HCEI. The FDA failed to issue guidance on how to interpret the law.
The industry-wide push towards value-based care after the Affordable Care Act passed made clarification of Section 114 a priority again. In 2016, policymakers issued clarifying guidance about communications and transparency of HCEI, both pre- and post- FDA approval. The 21st Century Cures Act, Section 3037 further defined what types of HCEI and analyses could be used for drug promotion and to whom the HCEI should be communicated. The FDA published a draft payer guidance document in 2017 and then final guidance documents in 2018 suggesting ways to operationalize communications between pharmaceutical manufacturers and payers.
Current FDA guidance
An FDA press statement from June 2018 emphasizes that the 2018 guidance documents are meant to help pharmaceutical manufacturers provide payers with truthful, non-misleading background and contextual information about their products. Furthermore, manufacturers are encouraged to share both clinical data and HCEI payers need to make informed decisions about formulary management, cost-effectiveness, and reimbursement; this may be more and different data than the safety and efficacy data submitted by the manufacturer to the FDA for drug approval decisions. Rebate management for payer is also a critical aspect of this process, enabling payers to optimize their strategies for cost containment and value-based care.
The guidance, Drug and Device Manufacturer Communications with Payors, Formulary Committees, and Similar Entities–Questions and Answers, expands upon the sources of scientific evidence for HCEI as defined under Section 502(a). And the guidance clarifies who can receive HCEI, including public and private sector payers, formulary committees, technology assessment panels, third-party administrators, and other multidisciplinary parties.
This first guidance also addresses manufacturers’ communications with payers regarding unapproved uses of FDA-approved products. The FDA does not object to the sharing of this type of information as long as the manufacturer makes it abundantly clear in its communications what uses the product is not approved for.
The second guidance introduced in the FDA press statement is titled Medical Product Communications That Are Consistent With FDA-Required Labeling–Questions and Answers. It pertains to information not included in a drug’s labeling but information that a manufacturer may want to share with payers. Examples can include data from pre- and post-market studies or surveillance of patient compliance that can affect the measurement of a drug’s benefits to health outcomes in value-based contracts. (The first guidance offers safe harbor for communications related to the negotiations or implementation of value-based drug pricing agreements.)
Timing of information exchanges
Payers prefer to receive information regularly from manufacturers during the latter part of the FDA drug approval process. Annual budgets and formulary planning are more difficult to forecast if payers don’t have data in advance to prepare for the coverage of a new drug. Payers are more likely to make a newly approved treatment available to patients without delay when manufacturers share the clinical data and HCEI needed to make formulary and pricing decisions during pre-approval.
Looking for Pharmaceutical Forecasting Software?
Get personalized advice and take the next step in enhancing your pharmaceutical planning with cutting-edge forecasting solutions.
Under the FDA’s accelerated approval process, therapies sometimes become available to patients even before the publication of clinical trial data is complete. Payers say, ideally, they would like clinical and HCEI data about new products 12 to 18 months before the projected FDA approval date.
Many manufacturers wait to begin communications with payers until just 6 to 12 months before their product’s expected approval date. Recognizing the importance of HCEI in negotiating value-based drug pricing arrangements, some manufacturers have included HCEI in their FDA product dossier and promotional materials for payers.
The FDA guidance recommends increased transparency about cost data, including price range, price parity with competitors, price premiums, discounts, and inflation adjustments. Some manufacturers and payers prefer to wait for final clinical trial data before discussing pricing. Post-approval data-sharing of real-world evidence must continue between manufacturers and payers to implement value-based drug pricing agreements.
The Lyfegen solution
With most regulatory barriers removed and value-based contract communications exempted from FDA reporting, policymakers hope to see an increase in value-based drug pricing arrangements. Manufacturers and payers can partner with third-party vendors like Lyfegen to employ technology that facilitates easy, continued data-sharing for innovative pricing agreements.
Lyfegen is an independent, global analytics company that offers a value-based contracting platform for healthcare insurances, pharma, and medtech companies wanting to implement value-based drug pricing arrangements with greater efficiency and transparency. The Lyfegen Platform collects real-world data and uses intelligent algorithms to provide valuable information about drug performance and cost.
By enabling the shift away from volume-based and fee-for-service healthcare to value-based healthcare, Lyfegen increases access to healthcare treatments and their affordability.
To learn more about our services and the Lyfegen Platform, book a demo.
When pharmaceutical manufacturers share clinical and economic data about their products in the pipeline, payers can prepare...
Read More
READ MORE
Medicaid’s launched its multiple best price program in July 2022 to address a major regulatory barrier to value-based drug pricing arrangements. Policy makers hope with this potential contracting risk and liability gone, manufacturers and healthcare payers will increase their participation in value-based drug pricing agreements.
In 1990, the Medicaid Prescription Drug Rebate Program (MDRP) was created to help slow the expenditures of outpatient prescription drugs to Medicaid patients. Under the MDRP, drug manufacturers who want their drugs covered by state-run Medicaid programs must sign a National Drug Rebate Agreement (NDRA) with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The NDRA requires participating manufacturers to reveal the lowest available price of their products and pay rebates on their products. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), there are around 780 drug manufacturers with NDRAs currently in effect.
The rebates of the Medicaid Best Price Policy
Under the MDRP, manufacturers must inform CMS of the “best price” available for its products. Excluding the price negotiated with some government programs, manufacturers are required to report the lowest price it offers to any drug wholesaler, retail outlet, or healthcare provider. This best price is then used to calculate rebates. Manufacturers pay rebates quarterly to states for the drugs covered under state Medicaid programs.
The rebate for most brand name drugs (excluding certain clotting drugs and pediatric drugs) is 23.1% of the average manufacturer price (AMP) paid by wholesalers and retail pharmacies. If the difference between the AMP and the best price on the market is more than the AMP, then this percentage would become the rebate. The rebate amount for generic drugs does not include a best price provision and stands at 13%.
Rebate analysis plays a critical role in understanding these calculations, as it enables manufacturers and payers to evaluate the financial implications of pricing agreements and compliance with regulatory requirements under the MDRP.
Outcome-based drug pricing can affect rebates
Despite the industry-wide push from stakeholders and policy makers towards value-based drug pricing arrangements, manufacturers have been wary of signing on to these agreements. They argue these outcomes-based pricing agreements could have unintended consequences that affect the AMP and best price. This, in turn, can skew the calculations for a manufacturer’s rebate liability.
In value-based drug pricing, a drug’s purchase price is linked to the effectiveness of the drug; if the drug underperforms, the manufacturer must pay a rebate, or other form of reimbursement, to the purchaser. Depending on the terms of the value-based pricing arrangement, this could be a substantial reimbursement to a payer for poor patient outcomes. The reduced price after the rebate–even if it’s paid on behalf of only one patient’s poor outcome–could become the new, lower best price.
The new Multiple Best Price policy
Before the multiple best price policy went into effect, manufacturers feared that, in theory, if the terms of a pricing agreement resulted in a 100% reimbursement to a payer for a drug proven to be ineffective, the manufacturer could find themselves in a situation where they had to give away their drug for free to every state Medicaid program.
In response to this interpretation of the best price policy–which became a regulatory barrier to value-based drug pricing arrangements–CMS revised the best price policy with the Final Rule. Under the Final Rule, as of July 2022, manufacturers can now report multiple best prices: the single best price for traditional sales and the prices negotiated under value-based pricing arrangements.
This option to report multiple best prices to CMS is only available for manufacturers who offer states the same terms negotiated in the value-based drug pricing arrangements with commercial insurances. State Medicaid programs can choose to take part in the value-based arrangements or continue to make purchases using the traditional best price.
Critique of the Multiple Best Price policy
Although CMS’ goal with the multiple best price policy was to reduce a significant regulatory barrier, this change still draws critics. And CMS has acknowledged that there will be implementation challenges. Here are some examples of criticisms of the new multiple best price policy.
• Critics find the Final Rule’s updated definition of a value-based drug pricing agreement to be too narrow or too broad. Before the Final Rule went into effect, organizations such as the Coalition for Affordable Prescription Drugs (CAPD) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) were concerned the CMS definition of value-based contracting is too narrow and will exclude some value-based pricing arrangements that are already in effect or in negotiations.
By contrast, AARP worried there is a lack of clarity on the definition of value in the Final Rule that could lead to the designation of almost any drug purchasing agreement as a value-based agreement and open the door to fewer rebates for Medicaid programs and more revenue for manufacturers. Time will tell which is the real problem.
• There may not be a non-value-based price for a drug. If a manufacturer is not offering its product outside of a value-based pricing arrangement, there may not be a single, traditional best price to report. When there are no non-value-based sales to look at, CMS advises manufacturers to use reasonable assumptions to set a non-value-based price. Critics, of course, question the loose guidance of a “reasonable assumption” and see this as an opportunity for manufacturers to game the system.
Some stakeholders are also concerned manufacturers will shift most traditional sales contracts to value-based pricing arrangements with the goal of eliminating less profitable, non-value-based best prices. AARP and National Association of Medicaid Directors (NAMD) have warned that the new rule could undermine the MDRP best price policy that has been so successful in reducing Medicaid drug expenditures.
• There may be technological and operational barriers for State Medicaid programs who want to take part in value-based drug pricing agreements. Like NAMD and AARP, the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) worries manufacturers could be working to erode the MDRP’s best price policy by providing better rebates to commercial insurance companies under value-based pricing arrangements.
Manufacturers and CMS know that some state Medicaid programs will not have the infrastructure needed to implement value-based pricing agreements with more favorable terms. In its Technical Guidance for using multiple best prices, CMS makes suggestions for creating alternative, innovative agreements when intensive data collection and analysis are not feasible.
Related Post: Indication-specific pricing to make inroads in the U.S.
The Lyfegen Solution
A lack of resources and staff prevents some state Medicaid programs from operationalizing value-based drug pricing arrangements. Lyfgen assesses an organization’s current data gathering capacity, then offers customized solutions using its contracting software platform to support the execution of value-based drug pricing arrangements.
Lyfegen’s Platform helps healthcare insurances, pharma, and medtech companies implement and scale value-based drug pricing contracts with greater efficiency and transparency. By collecting real-world data and using intelligent algorithms, the Lyfegen solution can provide valuable insights into drug performance and cost in value-based contracts.
Lyfegen helps increase affordability and access to healthcare treatments by enabling the shift away from volume-based and fee-for-service healthcare to value-based healthcare.
Contact us to learn more about Lyfegen’s software solutions and to book a demo.
Medicaid’s launched its multiple best price program in July 2022 to address a major regulatory barrier to value-based drug...
Read More
READ MORE
Value-based contracting focuses on patient outcomes by identifying value-based and outcomes-based measurable goals. By creating a set of outcomes as well as how to best measure them – value-based pricing for therapies can be determined.
As you can see – value-based contracting requires a lot of moving pieces and agreed-upon standards. This leaves the question of how best to facilitate these value-based healthcare agreements? The answer lies with Lyfegen.
Lyfegen works as a neutral third party with healthcare payers and manufacturers to implement a new way of paying for high-cost prescription drugs: value and outcome-based pricing and contracting. This groundbreaking platform enables patients to receive the best treatments and live a better and longer life.
With its innovative technology platform, Lyfegen is the catalyst for these entities to define, agree, and execute value-based and outcome-based pricing agreements while keeping costs at a sustainable level – allowing patients to receive innovative therapies at the right time and for the right price.
Lyfegen is the first of its kind, a company created to help patients in need. Lyfegen makes value-based healthcare contracting for high-cost therapies a reality for all healthcare stakeholders. With our expertise and secure state-of-the-art platform – we are trusted by some of the largest manufacturers, healthcare payers, and care providers in the world.
Lyfegen generates value-based contracts which combine outcome-based, pay-for-performance, and risk-sharing philosophies – creating value that matters:
-Better outcomes for patients-Accelerate, broaden, & sustain access to healthcare innovation-Facilitate & incorporate pay for performance healthcare pricing models-Improve appropriate use & compliance of treatments
READ MORE
In light of Swiss National Day on August 1st, Lyfegen’s CFO Michel Mohler gives his take on the recently released European Innovation Scoreboard & the role of the Swiss HealthTech industry.
A month ago, the European commission released the European Innovation Scoreboard, which provides a comparative analysis of innovation indicators between EU/European countries and regional neighbors. Based on scores for 27 separate indicators, the countries fall into four performance groups: Innovation Leaders, Strong Innovators, Moderate Innovators, and Modest Innovators.
Switzerland is the overall Innovation Leader in Europe, outperforming all EU Member States, as shown in the figure below.
Are we surprised? Since 2012, Switzerland’s performance relative to the EU countries has improved by 22.6% points. This being the second year where the Switzerland’s innovation score even surpassed the United States.
While most know Switzerland for its banks and timely precision, this little country has positioned itself globally as an innovation leader, scoring particularly high due to certain innovation dimensions. For the purpose of simplicity, we will focus on the three dimensions scoring the highest in relation to the EU.
1) “Human resources”: Switzerland scored particularly high when analyzing the quality of talent: this mainly being compromised of new doctorate graduates, population with a tertiary education and lifelong learning.
2) “Attractive research systems”: An attractive research ecosystem, leading in international scientific publications, most cited publication, and foreign doctorate students.
3) “Firm investments”: Overall company innovation and R&D expenditure.
Keeping in mind that the European Innovation Scoreboard is not specifically oriented towards indicators within the healthcare industry, it is unquestionable that the above mentioned dimensions are strongly influenced by the country’s leading position in Healthcare. Life Sciences being a pillar of the above seen growth, strongly dependent on skilled workforce and continuous innovation.
Lyfegen’s headquarters being in Basel, Switzerland, is not coincidental and allows us to be on the forefront of healthcare innovation, contributing actively.
The innovative Swiss ecosystem partnered with Lyfegen’s solutions and patent-pending technology are doubtlessly a winning combination for saving patient lives and driving Swiss innovation forward!
Sources:https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_20_1150
READ MORE
Basel, Switzerland –28, January 2025 - Lyfegen, a global innovator in drug market access, pricing, and rebate management, has announced a transformative collaboration with EVERSANA®, a leading provider of global commercial services to the life sciences industry, to revolutionize drug pricing and access through artificial intelligence-driven insights.
By combining data and information from the global pricing and market access platform, NAVLIN by EVERSANA®, with Lyfegen’s Public Drug Agreement Library, the two organizations will harness cutting-edge AI to empower market access and pricing professionals and payers with actionable insights. The joint agreement marks a key step in tackling rising drug costs and improving patient access globally.
Simplifying Complexity with AI
Drug pricing and access are increasingly difficult to navigate, with healthcare payers and pharmaceutical companies facing inefficiencies, missed opportunities, and delays in delivering therapies to patients.
The collaboration combines two leading platforms to address these challenges:
Together, these tools deliver a 360-degree view of pricing trends and access frameworks, enhanced by AI-driven capabilities. This integration helps users:
Driving Smarter and Fairer Decisions
Together, Lyfegen and EVERSANA will empower market access teams to make smarter, faster, and more equitable decisions. By combining AI-driven insights with robust data, payers and pharmaceutical companies can reduce inefficiencies and ensure patients receive timely access to life-saving therapies.
“Together with Lyfegen we can harness the power of AI to address one of the biggest challenges in healthcare—helping patients get timely access to life-saving medicines,” said Jim Lang, CEO, EVERSANA. “By uniting our expertise and our global pricing innovations, we have the opportunity to deliver a solution that simplifies decision-making and improves access in healthcare systems worldwide.”
A Vision for the Future of Drug Access
The healthcare industry is rapidly adopting AI to drive efficiency and innovation. This partnership positions Lyfegen and EVERSANA at the forefront of this transformation, enabling stakeholders to overcome affordability and access challenges.
“Our mission at Lyfegen has always been to create a more sustainable and equitable healthcare environment,” said Girisha Fernando, CEO of Lyfegen. “Through this partnership with EVERSANA, we are taking a giant step toward that future. By integrating EVERSANA’s price and access data into our combined offerings, we’re not just solving today’s challenges—we’re building a foundation for a smarter, more efficient drug access and pricing landscape.”
About Lyfegen
Lyfegen is an independent provider of rebate management software designed for the healthcare industry. With the world’s largest repository of drug access agreements and a powerful pricing simulator, Lyfegen helps payers and pharma implement and optimize rebates, reduce administrative effort, and understand financial impacts. Founded in 2018, Lyfegen is headquartered in Basel, Switzerland. Learn more at Lyfegen.com or connect with us on LinkedIn.
About EVERSANA
EVERSANA® is a leading independent provider of global services to the life sciences industry. The company’s integrated solutions are rooted in the patient experience and span all stages of the product life cycle to deliver long-term, sustainable value for patients, prescribers, channel partners and payers. The company serves more than 650 organizations, including innovative start-ups and established pharmaceutical companies, to advance life sciences solutions for a healthier world. To learn more about EVERSANA, visit eversana.com or connect through LinkedIn and X.
Media Contacts
For Lyfegen
For EVERSANA
Matt Braun
Vice President, Corporate Communications
.jpg)
READ MORE
Basel, Switzerland / Boston, USA – December 11, 2024
Lyfegen, a global leader in drug rebate management technology, today announced the successful close of its additional CHF 5 million Series A funding round. The round was led by TX Ventures, a leading European fintech investor, with additional participation from aMoon, a global health-tech venture capital firm, and other institutional investors. This funding represents a significant milestone for Lyfegen, enabling the company to accelerate its global expansion and innovation efforts, with a focus on extending its reach beyond Europe into new markets worldwide.
Addressing Rising Drug Costs with Intelligent Drug Pricing and Rebate Solutions
The healthcare industry faces increasing challenges with rising drug costs and the complexity of managing growing volumes of rebate agreements. For payers and pharmaceutical companies, manual processes often lead to inefficiencies, compliance risks, and operational delays. Lyfegen is transforming this process with its fully automated platform that ensures secure, real-time tracking, compliance, and operational efficiency at scale.
Today, 50+ leading healthcare organizations across 8 geographical markets rely on Lyfegen’s solutions to streamline 4'000+ rebate agreements while tracking over $1 billion in pharmaceutical revenue and managing over $0.5 billion in rebates annually. These solutions enable healthcare organizations to improve pricing strategies, accelerate access to modern treatments, and better manage rebate complexities.
Learn more about Retrospective Payment System
Need help navigating rebate options?
Explore how to choose the right drug rebate management solution.
Scaling Globally with a Leading Rebate Management Platform
Already used by healthcare payers and pharmaceutical companies in Europe, North America, and the Middle East, Lyfegen’s rebate management platform is poised for broader global deployment. By automating rebate management, the platform enables healthcare organizations to simplify complex agreements, save time, reduce errors, and enhance financial performance.
“The market for innovative and personalized treatments is expanding rapidly, but with that comes increasingly complex and costly pricing models,” says Girisha Fernando, CEO of Lyfegen. “Lyfegen’s automated solution simplifies this complexity, helping payers and pharmaceutical companies unlock the full potential of rebates while improving patient access to modern treatments. With this funding and our new partners, we’re ideally positioned to accelerate our growth and make a meaningful impact globally.”
Jens Schleuniger, Partner at TX Ventures, adds: “Lyfegen is at the forefront of innovation, offering payers and pharmaceutical companies a powerful solution to address the rising complexities of pharma rebates. We’re proud to lead this funding round and support Lyfegen’s mission to bring greater efficiency and cost savings to healthcare systems worldwide.”
About Lyfegen
Lyfegen is an independent provider of rebate management software designed for the healthcare industry. Lyfegen solutions are used by health insurances, governments, hospital payers, and pharmaceutical companies around the globe to dramatically reduce the administrative burden of managing complex drug pricing agreements and to optimize rebates and get better value from those agreements. Lyfegen maintains the world’s largest digital repository of innovative drug pricing models and public agreements and offers access to a robust drug pricing simulator designed to dynamically simulate complex drug pricing scenarios to understand the full financial impact. Headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, the company was founded in 2018 and has a market presence in Europe, North America, and the Middle East. Learn more at Lyfegen.com.
About TX Ventures
TX Ventures is one of Europe’s emerging leaders in early-stage fintech investing. The venture capital fund invests predominantly in B2B Fintech across Europe - preferably in seed to series A stage.
For more information about Lyfegen’s solutions or to schedule an interview, please contact:
marketing@lyfegen.com
READ MORE
In an industry often characterized by incremental changes, Girisha Fernando, the CEO and founder of Lyfegen, is making leaps. We sat down with Fernando to discuss the recent landmark partnership between Lyfegen and Newfoundland and Labrador Health Services—a collaboration that heralds a significant shift in the Canadian healthcare landscape.
Your partnership with Newfoundland and Labrador Health Services is quite a milestone. Can you share with us what this means for the current state of rebate management in Newfoundland?
Girisha Fernando (GF): Absolutely. This partnership is a transformative step for rebate management in Newfoundland. The current system, largely manual and complex, is ripe for innovation. With our digital platform, we're bringing a level of automation and accuracy that was previously unattainable. This means more efficient processing, less room for error, and a better allocation of resources, which is critical in healthcare.
That’s quite an advancement. And how does this impact the management of drug products, especially in areas like oncology?
GF: It’s a game-changer, especially for critical areas like oncology. Newfoundland and Labrador, as the first in Canada to use our platform, sets a precedent. The region, through the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance, has been managing complex product listing agreements for drugs, including those for oncology. These agreements are vital for making treatments affordable. Our platform simplifies this, managing the various terms of these agreements efficiently, which is crucial for timely and affordable access to treatments.
It seems like a significant step forward for healthcare management. How does this align with the broader goals of Lyfegen?
GF: This partnership aligns perfectly with our goal to make healthcare more accessible and efficient. Automating the rebate process in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially for critical treatments in oncology, directly contributes to the sustainability and accessibility of healthcare treatments.
Looking to the future, what does this partnership mean for Lyfegen and healthcare systems globally?
GF: This is just the beginning. We're looking to extend our platform to healthcare systems around the world. Our aim is to make this technology a standard in healthcare management, fostering more efficient, sustainable, and equitable healthcare systems globally.
Read more about the partnership in the official press release.
READ MORE
Basel, Switzerland, October 27, 2021
Lyfegen announces that Swiss health insurance Sympany is using the Lyfegen Platform to implement & execute complex drug pricing models. Sympany applies the Lyfegen Platform to execute and efficiently manage all value and data-driven pricing models. Sympany gains efficiency and transparency in managing pricing models with the Lyfegen Platform. It offers many pricing models, including pay-for-performance, combination therapy and indication-based models.
The Lyfegen Software Platform digitalises all pricing models and automates the management and execution of these agreements between health insurances and pharmaceutical companies. This is done using real-world data and machine learning enabled algorithms. With the Lyfegen Platform, Sympany is also creating the basis for sustainably handling the increasing number of value-based healthcare agreements for drugs and personalized Cell and Gene therapies. These new pricing models allow health insurances to better manage their financial risk by only paying for drugs and therapies that benefit patients.
"The Lyfegen Platform helps Sympany execute complex pricing models efficiently, securely and transparently. We are pleased to extend our pioneering role in the health insurance industry by working with Lyfegen. This is another step for Sympany to provide our customers with the best possible access to therapies in a sustainable way," says Nico Camuto, Head of Benefits at Sympany, about the use of the Lyfegen Platform.
Girisha Fernando, CEO of Lyfegen, says: "We are very proud to support Sympany in strengthening its focus on value creation, efficiency and transparency amidst the growing complexity of pricing models. It is clear that the trend is increasingly towards complex pay-for-performance arrangements. Ultimately, our goal is to help patients receive their much-needed treatments while helping health insurances better manage risk and cost."
The Lyfegen Platform aims to help patients access innovative medicines and treatments by enabling innovative drug pricing agreements. The Platform collects and analyzes real-time pricing data, allowing health insurances and pharmaceutical companies to obtain relevant information on drug benefits and related financial planning.
About Sympany
Sympany is the refreshingly different insurance company that offers tailored protection and unbureaucratic assistance. Sympany is active in the health and accident insurance business for private individuals and companies, as well as in the property and liability insurance business, and is headquartered in Basel. The group of companies under the umbrella of Sympany Holding AG comprises the insurance companies Vivao Sympany AG, Moove Sympany AG, Kolping Krankenkasse AG, and Sympany Versicherungen AG, as well as the service company Sympany Services AG.
In 2020, profit amounted to CHF 68.8 million, of which Sympany allocated CHF 27.5 million to the surplus fund for the benefit of its policyholders. Total premium volume amounted to CHF 1,058 million. With 575 employees, the company serves around 257,100 private customers, of which around 204,500 are basic insurance policyholders under the KVG. In the corporate customer business, Sympany offers loss of earnings and accident insurance.
More about Sympany: https://www.sympany.ch
About Lyfegen
Lyfegen is an independent, global software analytics company providing a value and outcome-based agreement platform for Health Insurances, Pharma, MedTech & Hospitals around the globe. The secure Lyfegen Platform identifies and operationalizes value-based payment models cost-effectively and at scale using a variety of real-world data and machine learning. With Lyfegen’s patent-pending platform, Health Insurances & Hospitals can implement and scale value-based healthcare, improving access to treatments, patient health outcomes and affordability.
Lyfegen is based in the USA & Switzerland and has been founded by individuals with decades of experience in healthcare, pharma & technology to enable the shift away from volume-based and fee-for-service healthcare to value-based healthcare.
Contact Press: press@lyfegen.com
Contact Investors: investors@lyfegen.com
READ MORE
New York, NY - March 29, 2023 - Lyfegen, a global healthtech SaaS company driving the world’s transition from volume to value-based healthcare for high-cost drugs, announced at the World EPA Congress the launch of its latest solution: the Model & Agreement Library. The purpose of the library is to help payers and pharma negotiate better drug prices while providing an in-depth view on current international drug pricing models and value-based agreements. The database library serves as the basis for successful drug pricing negotiations, resulting in accelerated access and drug prices better aligned to their value for the patient.
The shift towards value-based healthcare, rather than volume-based, has been steadily increasing over the years. This evolution has further reinforced Lyfegen's mission to remain at the forefront of analytics and digital automated solutions for the healthcare sector. Indoing so, Lyfegen’s solutions help to accelerate access and increase affordability of healthcare treatments.
“Because of rising healthcare costs and the increase of medical innovations, the thirst for knowledge and need for value-based healthcare capabilities has surged among healthcare payers, and pharma companies across the world”, said Girisha Fernando, CEO of Lyfegen. “That is why we are so excited about launching the world’s largest database of real-world value-based agreements. It gives payers, and pharma a unique insight into how to structure value-based agreements.”
The Lyfegen Model & Agreement Library was developed as an accelerated negotiation resource for both manufacturers and payers – allowing them to save on time, money; and for the first time – an opportunity to learn at their own pace without incurring large research projects or hiring expensive external experts. Users of the library are now enabled to make informed decisions in determining the most suitable drug pricing models and agreements for their products.
The database holds over 2'500+ public value-based agreements and 18+ drug pricing models – spanning across 550 drugs,35 disease areas and 150 pharma companies. Its search capabilities are spread across product, country, drug manufacturer and payer – with all the knowledge, insights, current pricing and reimbursement activities shown in near real-timeacross the industry.
“Just an academic taxonomy of models is intellectually exciting but it's not really helping your typical customer”, said Jens Grüger, Director and Partner at Boston Consulting Group (BCG). “The Lyfegen Platform goes several steps further. Payers and pharma have a problem and they want a solution. The Lyfegen Model & Agreement Library is practical. It offers case examples.”
Looking for a Pharmaceutical Healthcare Solution?
Get personalized advice and take the next step in optimizing your healthcare strategy with innovative solutions designed for the pharmaceutical industry.
The Model & Agreement Library lets the user see the specifics of agreements reached between manufacturers and payers, including which disease areas and drug/device innovations were targeted. This market-leading database allows for one-to-one comparisons of agreements while heightening increased leverage during the negotiations process.
“I like having a palette of contracts that fall under different domains, like disease state, the way the drug is administered, or available evidence. There are different ways to make a contract attractive to us, to pharma, and to our physicians”, said Chester Good, Senior Medical Director Center for Value Based Pharmacy Initiatives at UPMC Health Plan.
This resource represents a breakthrough in the healthcare industry that facilitates the sharing of knowledge – a strong point of discussion that is becoming increasingly more important. Lyfegen is currently providing a limited time opportunity for industry professionals who are interested to try out the Model & Agreement Library with a complimentary 7-day trial.
READ MORE
Lyfegen is proud to announce that former New York State Medicaid Director, Jason Helgerson, has joined the Lyfegen Advisory Board.
Lyfegen, the provider of the leading value-based agreements platform for pharmacy, is proud to announce that Jason Helgerson has joined its advisory board. He brings his rich experience in value-based healthcare and more than 20 years of public service to this role. Jason’s forte is in creating effective value-based payment systems, facilitating successful cross-sector collaboration, and delivering transformative stakeholder engagement - all elements that underpin a successful value-based health and social care strategy.
“Seeing how Lyfegen uses advanced technology to solve the immense problem of drug pricing & affordability by enabling value-based agreements made my decision to join Lyfegen’s advisory board an easy one. I am excited about the value Lyfegen can deliver to healthcare payers, providers, and patients in the US and across the world,” says Jason.
In addition to serving as Lyfegen advisor, Jason is the managing director of Helgerson Solutions. He is a nationally recognized leader in value-based healthcare, healthcare & delivery system reform.
Most recently, he was New York State’s Medicaid Director, a role he held for over seven years, managing an annual budget in excess of $68 billion. During his time leading the Medicaid program in New York, Jason drove New York State’s Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment program (DSRIP). Over five years, the DSRIP program in New York created local, multi-sectoral partnerships with the aim of fundamentally restructuring the delivery of healthcare in New York & transitioning 80% of Medicaid payments into value-based arrangements. Jason became an internationally-recognized leader in public sector health care as part of his leadership of New York’s Medicaid Redesign Team, which helped reshape the program to lower costs – tackling a budget deficit – and improve health care quality.
Jason Helgerson earned a BA from American University in 1993, and his Master’s in Public Policy from University of Chicago in 1995. He also attended the London School of Economics’ Summer Graduate School Program in International Economics in 1994. He has worked in a variety of local and state governments, including the City of Milwakee, City of San Jose, CA, State of Wisconsin, and New York. He has served as the Medicaid Director for both the State of Wisconsin and the State of New York.
With vast experience in value-based healthcare, Jason will advance Lyfegen’s mission of accelerating value-based healthcare to improve patients’ lives in the USA.
About Lyfegen
Lyfegen is an independent, global software analytics company providing a value and outcome-based agreement platform for Health Insurances, Pharma, MedTech & Hospitals around the globe. The secure Lyfegen Platform identifies and operationalizes value-based payment models cost-effectively and at scale using a variety of real-world data and machine learning. With Lyfegen’s patent-pending platform, Health Insurances & Hospitals can implement and scale value-based healthcare, improving access to treatments, patient health outcomes and affordability.
Lyfegen is based in the USA & Switzerland and has been founded by individuals with decades of experience in healthcare, pharma & technology to enable the shift away from volume-based and fee-for-service healthcare to value-based healthcare.
More about Lyfegen: https://www.lyfegen.com
Related Links:
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/lyfegenhealth
Contact Press: press@lyfegen.com
READ MORE
Lyfegen is proud to announce that João Marques-Gomes has joined the company’s Advisory Board. João is a university professor, a scientific researcher, and a management consultant in health management.
He is the Chair of Nova University Lisbon’s institute for Value-Based Health Care (VBHC), and the professor of the semester course “VBHC” at the Nova School of Business & Economics and at the Nova Medical School.
His research has been repeatedly funded by FCT – Foundation for Science and Technology, the Portuguese public agency for scientific research. As a management consultant, João Marques-Gomes has worked for public and private hospitals in Europe and Latin America, the European Commission, the Portuguese Ministry of Health, the Portuguese Pharmaceutical Society, and for pharmaceutical companies that are among the world’s top 10 pharmaceutical companies in sales.
In the past, João worked with ICHOM – International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement, as part of the implementation team. He is currently the Vice-President of IBRAVS – Brazilian Institute for Value in Health. João’s actions have had an important impact on the Portuguese society.
João has co-led the Cascais Agreement movement, which gathers the 80+ major stakeholders that have publicly signed the agreement that establishes that by 2021 1/3+ of the Portuguese health care providers must have had an experience with VBHC.
Lyfegen makes it possible for innovation to always have an open door in any market in the world. Thanks to Lyfegen, millions of people will have access to innovative treatments and will enjoy much healthier lives because of this.
João Marques-Gomes
João Marques-Gomes has a PhD in economics from the University of Evora (Portugal), and an MBA from the FIA Business School (Brazil). Part of his PhD studies was done at the University College London (UK), and at the Toulouse School of Economics (France). João did his training in VBHC at ICHOM (UK), at the Harvard Business School, and at the Dell Medical School, UT Austin (USA).
With his vast experience in health economics and value-based healthcare, João will support Lyfegen to achieve its mission of accelerating value-based healthcare to improve the life of patients.
READ MORE
Join in from anywhere in the world for three days of incredibly interesting presentations and round-tables by industry experts all around the topic of pricing and market access in healthcare.
Only a week left to go! The incredibly exciting annual World Pricing, Evidence & Market Access Congress is taking place from the 23rd to the 25th of September virtually... giving attendees the opportunity to join from anywhere in the world! This is set to be the largest and most comprehensive yet, with over 1000 attendees and more than 230 speakers!
Lyfegen's Girisha Fernando and Nico Mros will be moderating a round-table “How do you include the patient perspective in an outcomes-based contract?” on the 23rd of September at 15:05 CET. Join us! Lyfegen has a digital booth so feel free to get in touch via the swapcard app, if you are already signed up.
READ MORE
What is ISO 27001?
ISO 27001 is one of the most widely recognized and internationally accepted information security standards. ISO 27001 defines how an organization should manage and treat information more securely, including applicable security controls.
It requires a company to have an information security management system, which means having a documented process for managing sensitive company information, processes, and IT systems.
What this mean for Lyfegen?
To achieve the certification, security compliance was validated by an independent audit firm after a rigorous process of demonstrating an ongoing and systematic approach to managing and protecting company and customer data.
Being a company that manages sensitive health-data points, it is of utmost importance to us to ensure the best tech processes and security mechanisms are in place.
At Lyfegen, we are committed to complying to the highest tech security standard, continuously improving our solutions & processes, as we move forward with the operationalisation of value-& data driven contracts for a fast & sustainable access to innovative therapies. In turn, this will benefit patients worldwide!
We are audited on yearly basis by an accredited third-party auditor to keep our ISO status valid.
Want to discover our solutions?
READ MORE
Lyfegen is building the leading contracting software solution to support value-based drug pricing arrangements. This mission requires a hands-on team to optimize all our processes. With Anca Marin joining our team as the new business analyst, we are set up for success.
We sat down with Anca to learn about her experience, her goals, and her aspirations.
Hello Anca, and welcome to Lyfegen! Please tell us a little about yourself: Where are you from, and what’s your educational and professional background?
Hello, my name is Anca. I am based in Bucharest, Romania. I graduated with a bachelor’s degree in accounting and later earned a master’s degree in business management. Before joining Lyfegen, I worked in finance for three and a half years in various industries, such banking, insurance, and ICT.
What excites you about being a business analyst?
The novelty – I believe it is a role where you never get bored as there is always a new situation, idea, or feature to build up, and it is exactly the challenge I want.
Why did you decide to join Lyfegen?
I find meaning and desire in making a change for the better. I also enjoy the work culture and the idea of being part of an innovative company while making a real impact.
What is something you want to learn or improve this year?
This is my first role as a business analyst. Therefore, this year, I want to focus on growing my knowledge and skills as a business analyst, as well as in software development and the healthcare industry.
How will your know-how help to improve our customers’ experience of the Lyfegen platform?
Given my previous roles, I would say that I was usually the one handling challenging and complex situations when dealing with customers. Through these experiences, I learned to find ways to deliver the best results for customers, and I will continue to do so. I also describe myself as being super detail-oriented – and details always make the difference.
Let’s get personal: What are your favorite things to do in your free time?
Besides my full-time job at Lyfegen, I am also a handball goalkeeper. I have been playing since I was 11 years old, and I usually go to two to three training sessions a week. However, I like sports in general, so if I am not on the handball court, I am probably playing other sports, like basketball or tennis.
I also like traveling and nature and activities away from the big cities, such as hiking, backpacking, and camping.
Is there anything else you are looking forward to outside of work this year?
Outside of work, my plans for this year are to get a motorcycle, take trips to the mountains, and make great memories!
We are proud to have you with us, Anca!
READ MORE
In June, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted unanimously (5-0) to examine rising list prices of insulin, but also to probe possible anti-competitive practices by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with respect to the use of rebate arrangements. Rebates are payments from drug manufacturers to PBMs in exchange for moving market share towards so-called preferred products on the formulary.
The FTC has specifically cited instances in which cheaper generics and biosimilars are excluded from PBM formularies, as this may violate competition and consumer protection laws.
The FTC inquiry into pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) practices could lead to legal action prohibiting certain rebate practices. In turn, this could induce major changes in the U.S. rebate system. Formulary management could become increasingly value- or outcomes-based, rather than simply a function of a financial power play between drug makers and PBMs. Or, rebates could fall by the wayside altogether, to be replaced by a combination of upfront discounts in lieu of rebates and value-based pricing arrangements. Partnering with Lyfegen may be the solution for manufacturers and payers alike, as its platform can put users on the right track towards successful implementation of value-based pricing arrangements.
The FTC has warned of legal action against PBMs if its inquiries find proof of anti-competitive practices. Here, the agency raised the stakes when it included terms like “commercial bribery” in its statements to describe what it perceives as anti-competitive rebates in the insulin market.
The latest FTC inquiries follow a recent investigation by Senators Grassley (R-Iowa) and Wyden (D-Oregon), which blamed rebate schemes for much of what ails the prescription drug market. Furthermore, nearly two years ago, Senator Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) and colleagues commissioned the General Accounting Office (GAO) to examine rebates. The GAO report is due out this fall.
PBMs receive rebates from drug manufacturers in exchange for preferred positioning on the formulary, which in turn drives market share. Experts have criticized rebates for the fact that payers often don’t base their decisions to include a drug on comparative clinical- and cost-effectiveness. Rather, decisions are strictly based on financial terms, namely which manufacturer offers a higher rebate payment to the PBM; a financial power play in which PBMs may threaten not to cover certain drugs if they don’t get the rebate they want. This applies to insulin as well as numerous other therapeutic categories.
What’s worse is when rebate traps or walls are involved. Branded manufacturers leverage their position as market leaders by offering financial incentives to PBMs and health insurers in the form of “all or nothing” conditional volume-based rebates, in exchange for (virtually) exclusive positioning on the formulary. This can mean keeping competitors off the formulary entirely, or severely limiting formulary access to a competing drug with drug utilization management tools like step edits. Here, a patient must use a preferred drug and fail on it (a so-called “fail-first” policy) before “stepping up” to a non-preferred drug.
Because the portion of the rebate retained by PBMs is often calculated as a percentage of a drug’s list price, PBMs can have incentives to establish formularies that favor branded drugs with higher list prices and larger rebates over lower priced biosimilars, specialty generics, or even branded competitors. Rival drugs entering the market lack sufficient sales volume to be able to offer the same level of rebates to PBMs that originator firms can provide.
Proof of the establishment of anti-competitive practices could lead to legal action being taken against PBMs. The question then becomes what would replace rebates? Payers may establish an entirely different formulary management system that is more value-based. Surely, it would be a system that’s less contingent on the role of the financial power play between drug makers and PBMs.
In areas such as immunotherapy targeting certain cancers, cell and gene therapy, and rheumatology, there are already a growing number of value-based agreements.
Girisha Fernando, CEO and Founder of Lyfegen, which offers a platform to track value-based agreements with real-world data, said that many outcomes-based deals are kept secret and therefore under the radar, so to speak. Commercial payers generally don’t share publicly what types of value-based deals they have with drug companies to maintain their competitive advantage. Yet, in an interview with Endpoints News Fernando stated that he’s observed at least a 300% increase in value-based agreements over the last five years. The Lyfegen Platform enables more efficient and transparent management of value-based drug pricing contracts by using intelligent algorithms to capture and analyze patient-level drug cost data.
Fallout from the FTC inquiry – should rebates be identified as anti-competitive - may entail further increases in value-based dealmaking.
About the author
Cohen is a health economist with more than 25 years of experience analyzing, publishing, and presenting on drug and diagnostic pricing and reimbursement, as well as healthcare policy reform initiatives. For 21 years, Cohen was an academic at Tufts University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Amsterdam. Currently, and for the past five years, Cohen is an independent healthcare analyst n a variety of research, teaching, speaking, editing, and writing projects.
READ MORE
CMS may want to consider value-based purchasing arrangements for Alzheimer’s Disease drugs
The Alzheimer’s Disease biologic Aduhelm (aducanumab) – a beta amyloid-directed monoclonal antibody - has experienced a tremendous amount of controversy regarding its safety and efficacy, both before and after its approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2021.
A decision in April of this year by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to place severe limitations on coverage of Aduhelm has all but killed the drug’s chances of success. And, even after Aduhelm’s original wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) of $56,000 was cut in half, there were very few takers in both the public and commercial payer spaces. Aduhelm’s “failure” to this point is partly to blame for the departure of Biogen’s CEO, Michel Vounatsos.
Could Biogen’s Aduhelm have been saved by a value-based purchasing agreement with CMS, in which Medicare Administrative Contractors and Medicare Advantage Plans only pay for Aduhelm if it provides clinical benefits to patients? Possibly. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, such an arrangement could still be used for other beta amyloid-directed monoclonal antibodies that are currently in late stages of development and are less controversial than Aduhelm.
Under the final national coverage determination (NCD) issued in April by CMS, Medicare will severely restrict coverage of Aduhelm. Concretely, the decision implies that only Medicare beneficiaries who have enrolled in CMS-authorized randomized controlled clinical trials will get coverage of Aduhelm.
In addition, under the NCD, CMS states that, if approved by FDA, the entire class of beta amyloid-directed monoclonal antibodies will be subject to restricted reimbursement. For example, all accelerated approvals must undergo post-marketing clinical trials, analogous to the stringent requirements imposed on Aduhelm. And even beta amyloid-directed Alzheimer’s Disease drugs that go through the regular approval process must enter a coverage with evidence development protocol, which implies that post-approval collection of data in patient registries will be mandatory.
In its NCD decision, CMS did not mention a value-based purchasing agreement. Nor did it reference Aduhelm’s WAC. Given that CMS is not permitted to take cost or cost-effectiveness into account, it perhaps makes sense that Aduhelm’s WAC wasn’t mentioned.
Nevertheless, at a regional level, a value-based purchasing agreement is something Medicare Administrative Contractors and Medicare Advantage Plans could have pursued. In addition, nationally, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation has the authority to test models which modify Medicare payments for certain high-priced drugs. These models are designed to introduce a value-based approach for drugs that have been approved with limited evidence. Certainly, the class of beta amyloid-directed monoclonal antibodies fit this description.
Here, a linkage between pay and performance would need to be established, along with the proper timing of the measurement of cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s Disease patients. Performance measures could include the kinds of validated cognitive assessments outlined in the NCD.
Last year, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review conducted a preliminary analysis of Aduhelm, extrapolating from Phase 3 data. ICER concluded that Aduhelm was not cost-effective, given the drug’s WAC, and that a cost-effective price benchmark range for would be between $3,000 and $8,400 per year for early-stage Alzheimer’s Disease patients, which is much lower than the current WAC of $28,000.
ICER’s assessment was not based on real world evidence, however. In any CMS-initiated value-based purchasing arrangement, there would be real world evidence, and accordingly adjustments could be made to the acceptable price range of the product. This could have applied to Aduhelm, but may still be relevant in future with respect to other beta amyloid-directed monoclonal antibodies, which are presently in Phase 3. These include Biogen/Eisai’s lecanemab, Roche’s donanemab, and Roche’s gantenerumab.
Aduhelm’s ship has perhaps sailed, with the baggage of the FDA approval controversy and the requirement of a randomized controlled clinical trial for any coverage at all. Nevertheless, value-based arrangements could very much be in play for other beta amyloid-directed monoclonal antibodies.
Undoubtedly this would be a major undertaking, particularly logistically. And, getting CMS to buy in won’t be easy. But, there’s precedent for CMS wanting to pursue value-based agreements. To illustrate, at the time of FDA’s approval of the CAR-T therapy Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel) in 2017 – indicated for acute lymphoblastic leukemia - it was accompanied by the announcement of a novel outcomes-based agreement with CMS, in which CMS would pay for Kymriah only if patients had responded to it by the end of the first month. Without disclosing why, CMS quietly backed away from that agreement.
Maybe the substantial unmet need in Alzheimer’s Disease will trigger CMS to consider alternative approaches to reimbursement. And, if any of the beta-amyloid directed monoclonal antibodies are approved in Europe or the U.K., similar value-based arrangements may be an option for payers.
Partnering with Lyfegen may be the solution for manufacturers and payers alike, as its platform can put users on the right track towards successful implementation of value-based purchasing agreements. The Lyfegen platform identifies and operationalizes value-based payment models in a cost-effective manner.
About the author
Cohen is a health economist with more than 25 years of experience analyzing, publishing, and presenting on drug and diagnostic pricing and reimbursement, as well as healthcare policy reform initiatives. For 21 years, Cohen was an academic at Tufts University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Amsterdam. Currently, and for the past five years, Cohen is an independent healthcare analyst and consultant on a variety of research, teaching, speaking, editing, and writing projects.
READ MORE
Pharma says they want greater competition within the industry and more incentives for pharmaceutical innovation; value-based purchasing agreements can provide both.
Value-based purchasing arrangements first appeared in the European markets in the 1990s, while U.S. healthcare markets did little with value-based contracts for pharmaceuticals until the 2000s. The high cost of new drugs coming to market, large annual increases in existing drug prices, and political pressure from lawmakers on payers to address the high cost of healthcare have encouraged stakeholders to make greater use of value-based purchasing arrangements.
It's easy to understand the appeal of value-based purchasing agreements for private and public payers. Value-based purchasing is one way both U.S. and European payers are using to reduce overall healthcare spending.
For drug companies, value-based purchasing puts an end to their unencumbered pricing strategy. But pharmaceutical manufacturers realize value-based purchasing agreements are the best way, and maybe the only way, to get their new, higher-priced products covered by payers and into the treatment plans of patients.
How do pharmaceutical companies determine their drug prices?
Pharmaceutical companies are in business to generate as much revenue as possible without jeopardizing patients’ access to their treatments. In the U.S., where drug pricing is unregulated, pharmaceutical manufacturers can charge any price they want for their products. In the EU, member states use regulations such as direct control over pricing, referencing the average price of a drug among all EU members to set a national price, or regulating the drug manufacturers’ profit.
When deciding on a new drug’s retail price, the manufacturer considers several areas of concern such as the drug’s competition, government-granted exclusivity, patents in force, and a drug’s clinical effectiveness and benefit to patient outcomes.
Pricing a drug incorrectly can have severe consequences for the manufacturer’s bottom line. Private and public payers in the U.S. have ways of restricting patients’ access to drugs that they consider overpriced. In European countries, drug manufacturers risk being fined by authorities for unfair prices and excessive price hikes.
Value-based purchasing promotes competition in the pharmaceutical market
In the U.S., there are economic policies and legal loopholes that manipulate competition in the drug industry. The Biden administration considers this one of the key problems to address to support drug pricing reform. The president’s Executive Order 14036, the Competition Executive Order, calls for increased transparency, innovation, and competition.
Even though manufacturers take advantage of U.S. government protections that create temporary monopolies for some drugs, the large industry trade group PhRMA has joined the call for reforms that fix the current distortions in the market that stifle competition.
Manufacturers producing new drugs with in-class competition from other manufacturers—such as generics, biosimilars, or new uses or combinations of older drugs—use the real-world evidence gathered from value-based purchasing agreements to demonstrate the greater clinical value of their treatments compared to their competitors’ products. Data that show a drug’s uniqueness and effectiveness may be used to justify a manufacturer’s higher-than-average price.
In addition, manufacturers hope aligning a drug’s price to its clinical value will shift payers’ focus away from approving treatments based solely on the lowest price to covering similar treatments that might be more expensive but produce better health outcomes for patients.
Value-based purchasing incentivizes research and development (R&D) of new drugs
The post-market clinical data gathered under value-based purchasing can facilitate data-driven drug development. For example, the drug company Novartis published a position paper in which they stated they use real-world evidence to support the development of customized interventions and to invest in research in areas of the highest value for patients.
In the U.S.market in recent years, the number of clinical trials and an overall increase in spending on brand-name prescription drugs suggest that pharmaceutical manufacturers have been concentrating their research and development dollars on new high-cost specialty drugs for complex, chronic, or rare conditions they expect will be the most profitable.
New treatments like these, where the drug’s value is yet to be established for payers, are good candidates for value-based purchasing arrangements. The successful implementation of value-based purchasing contracts—with better health outcomes for patients, cost controls for payers, and fair prices for manufacturers—encourages even more data-driven drug development.
The Lyfegen Platform
Value-based purchasing agreements are a complex but necessary part of doing business for pharmaceutical manufacturers. They provide a framework for assessing a drug’s value using shared outcome measures and provide real-world evidence of the benefits of their products for patient health outcomes. Manufacturers who are unwilling to enter into value-based purchasing contracts with payers may find themselves at a disadvantage in negotiations with other stakeholders.
Lyfegen’s software platform helps healthcare insurances, pharma, and medtech companies implement and scale value-based purchasing contracts with greater efficiency and transparency. The Lyfegen Platform collects real-world data and uses intelligent algorithms to provide valuable insights on drug performance and cost in value-based contracts. By enabling the shift away from volume-based and fee-for-service healthcare to value-based healthcare, Lyfegen increases access to healthcare treatments and their affordability.
READ MORE
Beginning July 1, 2022, according to a final rule released by the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), drug manufacturers will be able to report varying “best price” points (that is, multiple best prices) for a covered drug to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, provided they’re pursuing a value-based purchasing (VBP) arrangement that aligns pricing with outcomes-based clinical and economic measures, such as positive clinical benefits, improved quality of life, fewer physician visits, and reduced hospitalizations. Partnering with Lyfegen may be the solution for manufacturers and payers alike, as its platform can put users on the right track towards successful implementation of VBPs.
Since 1990, the statutory Medicaid rebate has ensured that states obtain lower net prices for pharmaceuticals. For brand name drugs, the rebate is 23.1% of Average Manufacturer Price (AMP) or the difference between AMP and “best price,” whichever is greater. Here, best price is defined as the lowest available price to any wholesaler, retailer, or provider, excluding certain government programs, such as the Department of Veteran Affairs program. The AMP is the average price paid to drug manufacturers by wholesalers and retail pharmacies. It is proprietary and therefore not publicly available.
The best price stipulation can, however, hamper manufacturers and payers who wish to experiment with value-based arrangements. Suppose a drug manufacturer offers a payer a 100% money-back guarantee for a treatment it is launching. Then, in case the treatment being sold is ineffective, this would imply the possibility of a Medicaid best price of zero dollars. In turn, this would require that the drug be given away free of charge to every state Medicaid program.
The new rule allows manufacturers to report multiple “best prices” for a single dosage form and strength of a therapeutic, provided the prices are tied to one or more VBPs. Further bolstering the rule is proposed bipartisan legislation – Medicaid VBPs for Patients Act – which, if passed, would codify the best price rule. Importantly, the reporting of multiple best prices under different VBPs does not impact the best price for sales outside of the VBPs.
Drug manufacturers and health insurers have long considered linking reimbursement of certain treatments, particularly cell and gene therapies, to health outcomes. Here, VBPs tie reimbursement to the actual benefits that patients receive. Accordingly, VBPs alleviate the significant risk payers take on when they reimburse the high upfront costs of cell and gene therapies; treatments which still need to demonstrate durability over time. However, drug makers and insurers have been stymied by the Medicaid best price rules. The CMS rule change aims to encourage insurers to negotiate value-based outcome deals with drug makers.
For the sake of illustration, suppose a manufacturer has a $2,000,000 gene therapy to treat a rare disease, and is willing to sign a contract which stipulates that the treatment will have its intended therapeutic effect in 80% of the patients who take it. In the VBP, the manufacturer agrees to provide a payer with an 80% rebate if a patient or subgroup of patients does not respond positively to the therapy.
In the event of treatment failure, as a signatory to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program subject to the best price requirement, the manufacturer would be forced to extend the 80% discount – the best price of the therapy in this case is $400,000 - to the entire Medicaid program, nationwide, because it represents the best price offered to all relevant U.S. purchasers.
Under the new approach in which multiple best prices can be used, as the manufacturer of a $2,000,000 gene therapy, it can structure a VBP with a payer that promises an 80% rebate in the event a patient or subgroup of patients fails to meet pre-specified clinical outcomes. But, for the drug maker the good news is that the 80% discount will not trigger an 80% best price across all Medicaid programs.
It’s hoped that beginning in July 2022 manufacturers in the U.S. will be more willing to negotiate VBPs with payers, including Medicaid. When the rule goes into effect this summer, Lyfegen will be ready to assist companies establish successful VBPs.
About the Author
Cohen is a health economist with more than 25 years of experience analyzing, publishing, and presenting on drug and diagnostic pricing and reimbursement, as well as healthcare policy reform initiatives. For 21 years, Cohen was an academic at Tufts University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Amsterdam. Currently, and for the past five years, Cohen is an independent healthcare analyst and consultant on a variety of research, teaching, speaking, editing, and writing projects.
READ MORE
Each year, the NAMD (National Association of Medicaid Directors) Conference in Washington D.C. brings together the nation's Medicaid directors, leaders in the industry, and key decision-makers for a one-of-a-kind conference. With the global public health emergency, the Medicaid system and the work of Medicaid directors and their staff has never been more important. While COVID-19 has disrupted health care at all levels, it has shown the importance of more innovative payment models and the need for broader access to treatments. The shift towards value-based healthcare has become one of Medicaid’s hottest topics, with CMA and Lyfegen joining forces to present the latest value-based contracting technology at this year’s NAMD Conference.
We sat down for a brief interview with CMA’s President, Ken Romanski, and Lyfegen’s CEO, Girisha Fernando, to gain more insights into the importance of this partnership:
Thanks for joining us, Ken and Girisha. Can you tell us why this partnership is an important milestone, both for CMA and Lyfegen?
Ken: Our partnership with Lyfegen is a key milestone for CMA as we expand and complement our portfolio of technology-based solutions with extremely high-value business analytics products. Our utmost priority is to support Medicaid programs by lowering costs, while at the same time improving health outcomes for vulnerable citizens.
Girisha: This partnership sets the basis to create enormous value for our state healthcare payers and pharma. By partnering together, we enable our customers to implement value-based pharmacy agreements, actively managing the budget impact of new treatments and aligning existing formulary spending with value for beneficiaries.
For Lyfegen, this is a market entry into the U.S. – why CMA?
Girisha: CMA’s experience and technical expertise are unique. CMA is a highly recognized technology partner for State Healthcare Payers across the nation, with over 20 years of experience. Lyfegen has made a conscious decision to combine its capabilities with CMA to enable our customers to leverage the potential of value-based agreements for their pharmacy programs.
What is the value of this partnership for healthcare payers?
Ken: CMA is very excited to work with Lyfegen and our clients to deliver tens of millions of dollars in savings per year by leveraging our experience in Medicaid data management to implement this robust value-based analytics platform.
Girisha: Our customers benefit from the combined years of experience and unique expertise in data and value-based healthcare solutions. We focus on providing the first proven, scalable, highly secure value-based agreement platform for State Medicaid that allows our customers on average to avoid 54 million dollars in treatment costs that do not work and gain 7 million dollars in efficiency due to the fully automated end-to-end process. We are extremely excited to present all aspects of our partnership and present the value and opportunities our platform can bring to State Medicaid programs at NAMD.
Join CMA and Lyfegen at NAMD and understand first-hand how they can support you to realize savings for your pharmacy programs, improving patient health outcomes with their unique value-based agreement platform.
Sign up & be the first to know about INNOVATIONS
* By sending this message, you agree to our privacy policy.
