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
Die Vertragssoftware von Lyfegen wird von Kostenträgern im Gesundheitswesen und führenden Pharmaunternehmen eingesetzt, darunter Novartis, Roche, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) und Johnson & Johnson.
NEW YORK/BASEL, 20. September 2022 /PRNewswire/ – Lyfegen, ein globales Healthtech-SaaS-Unternehmen, das den Übergang von volume-zu value-based Healthcare für hochpreisige Medikamente vorantreibt, gab heute eine überzeichnete Serie-A-Finanzierungsrunde über 8 Millionen Dollar bekannt, die vom Investmentfonds aMoon mit zusätzlicher Beteiligung von APEX Ventures und weiteren Investoren angeführt wurde.
Derzeit sind weniger als 2 % der Krankenversicherten, die Spezialarzneimittel benötigen, für 51 % der Arzneimittelausgaben verantwortlich. Die Kosten für Spezialarzneimittel in den USA laufen aus dem Ruder: Sie stiegen allein von 2020 bis 2021 um 12 % – und es gibt keine Anzeichen für eine Verlangsamung, denn es kommen immer mehr Zell- und Gentherapien auf den Markt. Infolgedessen wird Value-Based Contracting, die Nutzung wertorientierter Verträge, für die Kostenträger des Gesundheitswesens zu der entscheidenden Alternative, um nur für Medikamente zu zahlen, die tatsächlich wirken.
Bis 2025 werden die Nettoausgaben für Medikamente in den USA voraussichtlich bis zu 400 Milliarden US-Dollar betragen. Darüber hinaus kommen regelmässig neue Medikamente auf den Markt. Es fällt Pharmaunternehmen immer schwerer, sich mit den Kostenträgern auf kommerzielle Bedingungen zu einigen. Damit steigt die Gefahr, dass Patienten keinen Zugang zu lebensrettenden Therapien erhalten. Lyfegen hilft Regulierungsbehörden, Pharmaunternehmen und Kostenträgern bei der Einführung wertorientierter Zahlungsmodelle, indem sie den gesamten Prozess der Datenerfassung, Anonymisierung und Vertragsverhandlungen für alle Parteien digitalisiert. So kann die Preisgestaltung und Kostenerstattung für Medikamente vereinfacht werden.
„Wir freuen uns, diese Finanzierungsrunde bekannt zu geben und dieses Vertrauensvotum von aMoon, APEX und weiteren Investoren zu haben, die den Wandel im Gesundheitswesen verstehen und unser Bestreben um den Ausbau der Lyfegen-Plattform unterstützen", sagte Girisha Fernando, CEO und Gründer von Lyfegen. „Wir arbeiten derzeit mit führenden staatlichen Kostenträgern, Krankenversicherungen in Europa, den USA und dem Nahen Osten sowie mit einigen der weltweit grössten Pharmaunternehmen zusammen. Wir beabsichtigen nun, unsere Präsenz in den USA weiter auszubauen und Partnerschaften mit privaten und öffentlichen Krankenversicherungen einzugehen. Die Abkehr von der volumenbasierten Gesundheitsversorgung war noch nie so notwendig wie heute, und wir freuen uns, dass wir eine wichtige Rolle bei der Umstellung auf Value-Based Contracting spielen können."
„Lyfegen adressiert einen bedeutenden Marktbedarf in einer Branche, die sich dramatisch und schnell verändert, und wir sind begeistert, dass wir mit unserer Investition dazu beitragen können, ihre Anstrengungen zu unterstützen", erläuterte Moshic Mor, General Partner bei aMoon und ehemaliger Partner bei Greylock and Greylock Israel. „In Zeiten von Budgetdruck und Rezession im Gesundheitswesen braucht die Welt Lösungen wie die von Lyfegen mehr denn je. Wir sind stolz mit diesem erfahrenen Führungsteam zusammenzuarbeiten, das weiterhin den Zugang zu neuen Medikamenten verbessert, während es die wertorientierte Gesundheitsversorgung immer mehr zum Mainstream macht."
Informationen zu Lyfegen
Lyfegen ist ein unabhängiges, globales Softwareanalyseunternehmen, das eine wert- und ergebnisbasierte Vertragsplattform für Krankenversicherungen, Pharma- und Medizintechnikunternehmen sowie Krankenhäuser auf der ganzen Welt bietet. Die sichere Plattform identifiziert und operationalisiert wertbasierte Zahlungsmodelle kostengünstig und macht diese mit einer Vielzahl von realen Daten und maschinellem Lernen skalierbar. Mit der zum Patent angemeldeten Plattform von Lyfegen können Krankenversicherungen und Krankenhäuser eine wertorientierte Gesundheitsversorgung einführen und skalieren und so den Zugang zu Behandlungen, die Gesundheitsergebnisse der Patienten und die Kostenersparnis verbessern.
Lyfegen hat seinen Sitz in den USA und der Schweiz und wurde von Persönlichkeiten mit jahrzehntelanger Erfahrung im Gesundheitswesen, in der Pharmaindustrie und im Technologiebereich gegründet, um den Übergang von der volumenbasierten und kostenpflichtigen Gesundheitsversorgung zur wertorientierten Gesundheitsversorgung zu ermöglichen. Weitere Informationen finden Sie auf www.lyfegen.com.
Verwandte Links:
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/lyfegenhealth
Pressekontakt: yael@gkpr.com
Ansprechpartner für Investoren: investors@lyfegen.com
Read the Exclusive article with AXIOS
Read the Press Release on PR Newswire
READ MORE
We are thrilled to welcome Ina Hasani to our team at Lyfegen as Director of Sales & Business Development for Canada. Ina brings nearly a decade of experience in the life sciences sector, specializing in healthcare strategy, market access, and health economics. We sat down with Ina to learn more about her background, her vision for transforming healthcare in Canada, and what excites her most about joining Lyfegen.
Can you tell us a bit about your background and what led you to your role as Director, Sales &Business Development for Canada at Lyfegen?
I have spent close to a decade in the life sciences sector, working with companies like Novartis and Pfizer, where I gained deep expertise in healthcare strategy, market access, and health economics. My passion has always been focused on improving patient outcomes and the healthcare system. This led me to Lyfegen, a company at the forefront of transforming healthcare through innovative solutions. The opportunity to work with payers and drug manufacturers to ensure better and sustainable access to innovative treatments for patients was a natural fit for me, both professionally and personally.
What are the biggest challenges facing the healthcare market in Canada, particularly in terms of drug pricing and access?
The Canadian healthcare system is highly complex! The biggest challenge that we are facing is how to accelerate access to innovative therapies without compromising the sustainability of the healthcare system. Payors, including both public and private insurers, are struggling to balance their budgets with the rising costs of therapies, particularly for specialty drugs. Outcome based agreements are a potential solution to enable timely access to breakthrough therapies. However, payors and pharmaceuticals don’t have the infrastructure in place to efficiently implement and operationalize such agreements.
What opportunities do you see for growth in Lyfegen’s sales efforts in Canada? How can we better support health insurers and government bodies?
There is tremendous potential for growth. Currently, payors and pharmaceuticals adjudicate their product listing agreements (PLAs) manually through Excel spreadsheets. It is resource intensive, leaves room for errors and is a barrier to potential innovative contracting. In addition, as Canada increasingly looks towards value-based healthcare models, Lyfegen is an enabler by providing the digital infrastructure for payor and manufacturers.
From your perspective, what key actions need to be taken in the next 12 months to drive success for Lyfegen in the Canadian market?
In the next 12 months, we need to focus on deepening our relationships with key stakeholders and demonstrate the value of our digital solutions for payors, manufacturers, healthcare system and, ultimately, the patients.
How do you see your role influencing the implementation of value-based solutions in Canada, and what impact do you hope to have?
Lyfegen has extensive experience in OBA implementation and operationalization in many countries. In my role, I hope to bridge the gap from theory to practice in the implementation of value-based healthcare in Canada.
In your opinion, what’s the most important aspect of building strong client relationships in the healthcare industry? How do you approach this in your role?
Trust and communication are at the core of any strong client relationship in healthcare. Given the complexity and sensitivity of the industry, clients need to know that you understand their unique challenges and are committed to solving them. In my role, I prioritize open and ongoing communication, ensuring that clients feel heard and that their feedback is integrated into our solutions. I also work hard to build trust by delivering results and being transparent about what we can achieve together.
Looking ahead, what excites you most about the future of sales and business development at Lyfegen in Canada?
I’m excited about the potential to be a catalyst for significant change in the Canadian healthcare landscape. Lyfegen is in a unique position to lead this transformation. The combination of increasing demand for cost-effective healthcare solutions and our innovative approach makes this an incredibly exciting time to be in sales and business development.
Outside of work, what are some of your favorite things to do in your free time?
Outside of work, I enjoy spending quality time with my family and friends. I also prioritize my health by being active on a daily basis. I also enjoy learning. Now that I have completed my MBA, I’m on a mission to learn Spanish.
We are excited to see Ina grow and thrive in her role at Lyfegen. Welcome to the team, Ina!
READ MORE
Once upon a time, In a whimsical forest, there lived a smart and creative blue bird. This bird, known for its brilliance in the world of tiny forest biotech, had concocted a magical potion.
This potion was a wonder, a gene therapy to cure the forest creatures of a troublesome disease called sickle cell. Perched thoughtfully on a branch, the blue bird faced a whimsical yet vital challenge. The potion, potent in its healing, needed to be more than just a marvel of science – it had to be reachable and affordable for all in the forest. Additionally, this magical creation was still unnamed, a name that should echo its life-affirming qualities and the journey from a mere idea to a beacon of hope in the forest.
Amidst this puzzlement, the blue bird heard tales of the wise owls of Lyfegen, far beyond the forest. These owls were not just wise; they were masters of a different kind of magic – the magic of numbers and agreements that made health solutions reachable to all. Intrigued, the blue bird fluttered over to learn more.
As it learned about Lyfegen's remarkable ability to navigate the complex world of potion pricing and access, inspiration struck. "Ah-ha!" chirped blue bird, "If Lyfegen can make health solutions accessible, why not name my potion in honor of their work? Lyfgenia – a name that sings of life, hope, and the ingenuity of Lyfegen!"
And so, the potion was christened Lyfgenia, a nod to the owls of Lyfegen whose wisdom ensured that such medical marvels reached every nook and cranny of the forest without burdening its inhabitants.
With its new name, Lyfgenia became more than just a potion; it symbolized a harmonious blend of medical genius and financial savvy. The blue bird turned Lyfgenia into a symbol of hope and healing in the whimsical world of the forest.
Disclaimer: "A Fable of the Blue Bird and Lyfegen's Wise Owls" is a work of fiction, created solely for entertainment and illustrative purposes. This fable does not represent any real-life strategies, decisions, or actions of these entities, nor should it be interpreted as an endorsement or representation of their values, capabilities, or business practices.
Using Lyfegen's solutions can streamline the financial management of advanced therapies like Lyfgenia, leading to more effective pricing strategies and improved access for patients. Learn more about how our solutions enable value-based contracting for gene therapies: lyfegen.com
READ MORE
Amid the buzz of innovation at Lyfegen, we sat down with Simon, our newest team member, whose journey has brought a fresh perspective to our mission.
Quick introduction – tell us a bit about yourself!
I'm based out of the UK. I studied Law at University but soon realized that a career as a Solicitor wasn’t my calling. Post-university, I ventured into Software Sales, initially focusing on Cloud Solutions and then transitioning into the Life Sciences realm. Most of my career has been dedicated to building startups and introducing new ideas and products to the market.
What excites you about your job?
What really thrills me about joining Lyfegen is the potential impact I can have on those needing life-saving treatments. The core goal of the pharma industry is to enhance the health and wellbeing of society, and at Lyfegen, we're crafting solutions that make medications more accessible, allowing us to treat more people. It's also incredibly rewarding to collaborate with some of the world's leading pharma companies, supporting them as they launch new assets.
Why did you decide to join Lyfegen?
It was the founders' vision that drew me to Lyfegen. Their passion was evident right from our initial conversations. Joining Lyfegen is an incredible opportunity for me to contribute my experience to another startup, and together, we can continue to thrive on this exciting journey.
What is something you want to learn or improve in the next 12 months?
Over the next year, I aim to deepen my understanding of the market access space within the pharma industry. Launching assets is intricate, with many layers involved, and there's a wealth of knowledge I'm eager to absorb. It's fascinating to learn about the different approaches of various companies and how they navigate the market.
How will your know-how help improve our customers’ experience of Lyfegen solutions?
With my background in launching new solutions for startups, I'm well-acquainted with the challenges that can arise. We can be proactive in addressing these before they occur. As Lyfegen is growing rapidly, it’s crucial that we adapt while maintaining our high standards and always remembering that our customers are our biggest priority. My experience with Global enterprises has also given me insight into the ongoing support they need and the importance of fostering great relationships based on trust and understanding.
Let’s get personal: What are your favorite things to do in your free time?
In my free time, I love to travel as much as I can, exploring different cultures and places, with my next plans to delve into more of Asia. When I'm in the UK, I spend time with my German Shepherd, Max, or playing water polo.
Is there anything else you are looking forward to outside of work in the next few months?
As we near the end of Q4, it's a busy period, but I'm looking forward to a well-deserved break over Christmas with friends and family, indulging in good food. It's the perfect time to recharge and gear up for a significant 2024 for Lyfegen, where we'll continue to serve our customers, engage with new ones, and grow as a company.
Our conversation with Simon ends on a high note, filled with anticipation for the contributions he will bring to Lyfegen. In the words of Girisha Fernando, our CEO, "we are very excited about Simon joining us. His experience is a valuable addition to our team, and we are confident he'll make a significant contribution to our mission. It's a pleasure to welcome him to Lyfegen."
Here’s to new beginnings and transformative journeys!
Welcome to our crew, Simon.
Amid the buzz of innovation at Lyfegen, we sat down with Simon, our newest team member, whose journey has brought a fresh...
Read More
READ MORE
At this years World Evidence, Pricing and Access event, Girisha Fernando, the CEO of Lyfegen, expressed excitement as he spoke about the company’s latest launched offering - the Lyfegen Model & Agreement Library. This unique learning resource is a true game-changer that builds upon the company’s existing product. It expands our horizons by allowing payers and market access & pricing professionals to explore over 2’500 real-life public agreements, and 18 drug pricing models from around the world. The library provides an unparalleled understanding of drug reimbursement models that help users make better informed choices like never before.
Selecting a drug reimbursement model is very complex, as manufacturers want quick market access, while payers may have many concerns, such as a drug’s efficacy and affordability. Fernando emphasized that the library bridges the gap by assisting payers and market access professionals in finding specific models that address each stakeholder’s concerns, and key real-life agreement examples, resulting in better-informed decision-making, and ultimately more efficient reimbursement processes.
“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 Fernando, “That is why we are 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.”
But that’s not all – Fernando explained that the database is constantly evolving, being updated weekly with new public agreements, allowing stakeholders to be up to date on public agreements.
Overall, it is clear that the Lyfegen Model & Agreement Library is an invaluable groundbreaking tool, that is becoming indispensable in increasing the knowledge on drug and Cell & Gene Therapy reimbursement.
READ MORE
He’s analytical, a techie and has a fantastic gift for music! Yes, we are talking about the latest addition to our team, our very own “Technical Business Analyst” and Ukrainian superstar: Pavlo Lupandin!
Just last month we announced the arrival of our Lead Developer, Daniel, and now more great news follows as Lyfegen continues to lay focus on the technical team: we have our very own Technical Business Analyst, Pavlo!
“Pavlo’s sharpness and problem-solving skills just made it clear that we needed him in our team! His drive and commitment will bring great value to our patients, our customers and Lyfegen as we continue to sharpen our platform” says Lyfegen’s CEO, Girisha Fernando.
We are proud to have him as part of the team and sat down with him to give you a little more insight behind the musical talent and witty “Technical Business Analyst”:
Hi Pavlo! Tell us a little about yourself: where are you from and what is your work experience background?
Hello! I was born in the east of Ukraine, got the Master’s Degree in Economics in Kyiv, worked at one of the Big 4 companies for 3 years as an Auditor, following one year in the role of Business Analyst. After this experience, I found myself being a fresh ACCA Member, who wanted to dive into something not that accounting related. Business analysis has proven to be an interesting area where I can develop further capitalizing on my previous experience.
It’s interesting, that back in my audit days I’ve had some big healthcare-related projects. Who knew that it was only the beginning of working in this promising domain…
This is your first experience in the Health Tech industry – what triggered this move?
Pace of development. The Healthcare & IT industries are developing in overwhelming waves, and to ride the peak of those waves is a challenge – formidable, but a tempting one. As soon as this opportunity presented itself, I decided to chase it. We’ll see, where this decision will bring me in a couple of years.
You are joining Lyfegen as Technical Business Analyst. In simple terms: what will you be working on?
I would be occupied mainly with gathering, documenting and communicating the requirements of our customers. Ever heard of different communication barriers? Those I would try to eliminate, trying to grasp the very core of what has to be done for the maximum customer satisfaction and making sure the development team implements requirements as close as possible to the ideal.
What are your next personal goals with Lyfegen?
There are several of them. First, I strive for development as a professional, and I think Lyfegen will provide me with opportunities to do that. Second, I want to embrace that spirit of a high-growth startup – after working for a massive and complex company, the flexibility and freedom of Lyfegen is a breath of fresh air. And finally, I want to know new talented people. I already know, that the Lyfegen team has a great diversity, and I can’t wait to learn some interesting things from people of other countries and cultures.
What motivated you to join?
Purpose and value. As simple as that. I can see the purpose and value of what I’m doing. Obviously, we are at the beginning of this journey, and it’s a bit early to speak about “value-based pricing for everybody” or “pay only for what is really working” but…the concept is huge, and it will become the question of life and death for some patients. And I’ll do my best to make it as close to life as possible.
Enough about work! What passions do you have outside of Lyfegen?
Oh, you don’t want to hear a full list, I assure you. Let me try to sum it up quickly…Music, videogames and tabletop games – I play them all. A small collection of musical instruments – some of them are quite exotic, especially for my home country (banjo and djembe, for example). A bigger collection of tabletop games in different genres – the Lyfegen team can definitely expect a session or two in the nearest future. And a vast collection of videogames on different platforms…without much details let’s just agree there are a lot.
There are some other hobbies of mine, but I’d prefer to keep a couple of surprises up my sleeve!
We are proud to have the Lyfegen team continue to grow with such fantastic team-members!
READ MORE
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.
Related Post: A Promising Sickle Cell Cure Is Almost Here. What About the Money to Pay for It?
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.
Related Post: Sickle cell disease gene therapies are here, but how is society going to pay for them?
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
READ MORE
Outcome-Based Contracts (OBAs) are set to revolutionize access to high-demand medications by linking drug prices to patient outcomes. Specifically, this model ensures that the cost of medication reflects its real-world effectiveness, thereby encouraging better healthcare and sustainable pharmaceutical spending. As outcome-based healthcare gains momentum, OBAs will further push pharmaceutical companies to focus on developing innovative, effective treatments rather than just boosting sales. GLP-1 drugs, such as Wegovy and Ozempic, which are popular for weight loss, could exemplify this shift.
Challenges in Patient Coverage
Right now, accessing GLP-1 drugs is tough due to their high costs and insurers' hesitance to cover expensive, newer treatments. Additionally, coverage decisions vary, and many employers do not include these medications in their health plans. According to Mercer’s 2025 Survey of Health and Benefits Strategies, only 42% of employers cover obesity medications, and only 3% plan to offer coverage for weight loss drugs. Therefore, employers face a tough balancing act between cost and access, especially with GLP-1 drugs like Zepbound, which costs $1,059.87—20% less than Wegovy but still pricey.
Outcome-based Healthcare: Aligning Costs with Effectiveness
As we move towards outcome-based healthcare the OBA’s that are its foundation address these challenges by tying drug costs to real-world effectiveness. Pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers start by agreeing on specific patient health outcomes. If the medication meets these benchmarks, pricing reflects its success. If not, the price could be adjusted. Ultimately, this model promotes impactful treatments and makes life-changing medications more accessible. It is especially useful for chronic conditions like obesity, where patient outcomes are crucial measures of success.
Benefits for Healthcare Providers
OBAs also benefit healthcare providers by creating a reliable framework for prescribing new or expensive medications like GLP-1s. Providers can prescribe treatments with confidence, knowing they have a proven track record of success. In addition, this model fosters collaboration between providers and pharmaceutical companies, shifting the focus from sales to patient outcomes. As a result, this could lead to better resource allocation, improved patient satisfaction, and a more effective healthcare system overall (Mercer, 2024).
Impact on Pharmaceutical Companies
For pharmaceutical companies, OBAs drive innovation and accountability. By linking drug pricing to patient outcomes, these agreements push companies to focus on treatments that deliver real, measurable results. This shift compels them to invest in research and development, knowing that successful outcomes can boost both credibility and profits. Furthermore, OBAs not only streamline drug approvals but also offer a competitive advantage in the value-based healthcare market.
The Role of Technology
Technology platforms like Lyfegen can also play a crucial role in making OBAs more efficient. Lyfegen’s technology simplifies the complex process of planning, testing and creating OBA’s, as well as tracking rebates. Lyfegen’s all-in-one platform makes it easier to manage contracts with transparency. As demand for GLP-1 drugs continues to rise, such platforms ensure that access to these treatments is tied to proven success while keeping costs manageable.
In conclusion, OBAs could transform access to high-demand medications by aligning drug pricing with patient outcomes. Not only does this model make expensive treatments like GLP-1 drugs more accessible, but it also promotes responsible pharmaceutical spending. By leveraging platforms like Lyfegen, which simplify the process, OBAs offer a path to more equitable and value-driven healthcare.
Unlock smarter pricing and market access strategies with Lyfegen's powerful tools! The Lyfegen Drug Contracting Simulator lets you easily model various pricing scenarios, see their impact on revenue and costs, and refine your market access planning. Combined with the Lyfegen Library’s vast collection of pricing models and agreements, you'll have everything you need to make informed, strategic decisions. These tools empower payers and pharmaceutical companies to tackle pricing challenges head-on, streamline negotiations, and address payer concerns with confidence.
Act Now – Reserve Your Spot for a Live Lyfegen Demo here: https://www.lyfegen.com/demo
References
“Welcome to brighter.” Mercer, https://www.mercer.com/en-us/.
READ MORE
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.
READ MORE
Payers are seeing increased costs due to the demand of GLP-1 drugs. It’s estimated that 57.4 million adults under the age of 65 could be eligible for this class of drugs, based on currently approved FDA indications. There are 36.2 million people with an obesity diagnosis alone in the US.
If 10% of eligible adults take GLP-1 medications for weight loss, a $15 increase could be seen in the per-member-per month costs. This number rises to $50 if one-third of eligible adults start taking these drugs. Zepbound, manufactured by Eli Lilly, has a list price of $1059 per month, whereas Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy costs $1349 for a one month supply. However, last month, Eli Lilly announced a major price cut for their weight loss drug. Now, a 4-week supply of their drug at 2.5 mg will cost $399, whereas 5 mg vials will cost $549.
The measure is aimed at improving patient access, while reducing the risk of counterfeit medications. This price reduction was made without changes to insurance policies, and the drugs are available through LillyDirect, the company’s online pharmacy.
Not all insurers want to cover weight loss drugs like Zepbound, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Ozempic, and innovative strategies are being explored to manage costs while keeping them available. One strategy is a utilization cap, which sets stricter standards for who is eligible. Another strategy is mentioned in Evernorth’s EncircleRX plan, which provides a 15% cost cap or a 3:1 savings guarantee when the medication is covered for weight loss.
The value of these drugs is still being investigated. If these medications can provide additional health benefits, there could be additional savings for payers down the road. Of note, studies have found reductions in cardiovascular death and sleep apnea when the drugs were used for weight loss.
READ MORE
A new study published in September, reported by the American Journal of Managed Care, compared how quickly drugs are reimbursed in select countries, including Switzerland, the United States, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom. The US does not have an HTA process, and some believe that drugs could get to patients faster if it did have one.
The analysis compared approval-to-reimbursement time, reimbursement rate one month post-approval, and reimbursement rate 12 months post-approval, for 290 approved drugs between 2011–2022. The analysis did not include advanced therapies, pediatric medications, or diagnostics. Data was sourced from the Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, Swissmedic, and Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.
Results: Switzerland had the fastest approval-to-reimbursement times, averaging 6 months, followed by Germany (7.4 months), the US (9.2 months), France (12.9 months), and the UK (17.7 months).
The country with the highest reimbursement rate after one month was France, standing at 25.9%, followed by Switzerland (9.7%), and the UK (0.7%). Neither Germany nor the US had reimbursed a drug within this timeframe.
After 12 months, however, the trend changed. In first place was Germany, with a 74.3% reimbursement rate, followed by the US (70.7%), Switzerland (62.8%), France (49.0%), and the UK (37.1%).
This analysis did not find that that the US was slower than Europe in fact. After one year, only Germany reimbursed more drugs than the US, and by a slight margin. The UK and France on the other hand took longer than the rest of the pack to bring drugs to market.
The full study can be found here.
Sign up & be the first to know about INNOVATIONS
* By sending this message, you agree to our privacy policy.
