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, August 3rd, 2021
Lyfegen announces that its value-based healthcare contracting platform has been implemented together with Johnson & Johnson Medical Devices Companies Switzerland (Johnson & Johnson) and a leading Swiss Hospital.
Through this new value-based healthcare approach, Lyfegen and its partners drive the shift towards what matters most to patients: improved patient health outcomes and more efficient use of financial and human resources, enabling a sustainable post-COVID-19 healthcare environment.
The shift towards a value-based healthcare in Switzerland and globally can only be achieved through the support of innovative technologies. Lyfegen’s platform is a key enabler for this transition. The platform digitalises and automates the execution of value-based healthcare agreements, paving the way for the resource-efficient scaling of such novel agreements.
“COVID-19 has shown us the urgent need for a more sustainable healthcare system. With the implementation of value-based healthcare agreements on the Lyfegen platform, we are extremely proud to help Johnson & Johnson and hospitals to accelerate the transition to value-based healthcare and improve patient health outcomes at reduced cost.” says Lyfegen’s CEO, Girisha Fernando.
Lyfegen's compliant, secure and patent-protected value-based healthcare contracting platform automates the collection and analysis of patient-level data. Users receive transparency on actionable health outcomes and agreement performance. Lyfegen’s contribution to this partnership is a blueprint for the scaling of value-based healthcare models across hospitals, health insurances, medical device & pharma companies globally. The partnership marks another important milestone for Lyfegen, as the company continues to grow and has recently opened its next investment round.
READ MORE
The news are out: we are immensely proud to be partnering with Johnson & Johnson to advance value-based healthcare and help patients around the world. We dived into a conversation with our CEO Girisha Fernando on why this partnership holds so much value for Lyfegen.
Girisha, why was the partnership with Johnson & Johnson such an important milestone for Lyfegen?
Girisha Fernando: Johnson & Johnson and Lyfegen share the same vision of sustainable & a value-based healthcare environment. Our goal is to help patients to receive the healthcare treatments they need and with this partnership, Lyfegen is proud to have been a key enabler for Johnson & Johnson and hospitals to deliver better health outcomes for patients.
How can this partnership be a blueprint for future collaborations?
Girisha Fernando: The increasing demand for healthcare measured against the limited financial resources is forcing the healthcare system to deliver innovative technologies to patients at sustainable costs. This can be done with value-based healthcare approaches and value-based agreements. The partnership between hospitals, Johnson & Johnson and Lyfegen shows how healthcare providers, manufacturers and an innovative tech company can deliver more value to patients whilst making efficient use of limited resources.
What would you suggest healthcare payers and hospitals to do if they are considering to implement value-based healthcare agreements with manufacturers?
Girisha Fernando: I believe it is important to focus on how to deliver better patient outcomes at lower cost. Value-based healthcare agreements can be used as a value-maximising method. It allows payers and hospitals to measure health outcomes and the adjacent cost to achieve these outcomes. Thus, hospitals can pivot on focusing their resources on value-adding healthcare treatments whilst addressing financial risk and uncertainty. It will take initial & minimal investment, but the return on investing in value-based healthcare and technology will be in the form of more value for money and better quality and patient health outcomes.
Why is Lyfegen the right platform for this?
Girisha Fernando: With over 120 value-based healthcare agreements running on the Lyfegen platform, we provide the necessary expertise, knowledge and technical competence to our customers. With these capabilities, we break down the complexity of implementing and managing value-based healthcare agreements. And lastly, we ensure that our customers can improve patient health outcomes by using value-based agreements at scale, efficiently.
Learn more about our platform by booking a demo today:
The news are out: we are immensely proud to be partnering with Johnson & Johnson to advance value-based healthcare and help...
Read More
READ MORE
Basel, Switzerland | April 17th, 2019 – Lyfegen HealthTech AG successfully closes its seed financing round, raising a total of CHF 750‘000. The funding was led by Swiss private investors. The funds will be used to further build Lyfegen’s value-based payments platform Lyfevalue and conduct further pilots with partners in the US, Africa, and the EU, including the UK.
Lyfegen is a healthcare technology company that has developed a ground-breaking solution to accelerate value-based healthcare, entering a market set to grow to USD 390.7 billion by 2024 according to latest market research. Its platform, Lyfevalue, collects, analyses & reconciles disparate healthcare data for the purpose of automating value-based healthcare contracting. The platform enables life sciences companies, national and private healthcare payers and healthcare providers to operationalise value-based healthcare strategies whilst benefiting from a single holistic solution for their value-based healthcare operations, visit checklistmaids.com. In addition, the platform allows for personalised healthcare by enabling patient level pricing, fostering accelerated and facilitated access to innovative treatments for patients.
“Enabling the shift to sustainable healthcare is a huge challenge, giving us at Lyfegen great purpose and we are honoured to work with individuals that truly care about making a difference for patients around the world,” said Girisha Fernando, Lyfegen’s CEO & Founder.
READ MORE
The whitepaper is a joint initiative to share with healthcare stakeholders some of Lyfegen and KPMG’s expertise and experience in the development and implementation of value and data-driven agreements in an evolving healthcare environment.
Official Communication by KPMG on 26.10.2020
KPMG addresses the most pressing challenges the healthcare sector is facing today and in the future. Society’s desire to obtain value from the wider healthcare system is not new, however recent experience shows that there is a need to rethink and move healthcare into a new age.
Two current megatrends are: 1) the redesign of pricing for health solutions, and 2) the value of data and the importance of patient access. It is important to address both elements within the Life Sciences ecosystem, including how to innovate, how to develop successful digitalization strategies, and how to get the most out of data.
How outcome-based contracts benefit healthcare
The pricing of services and products based on outcomes or value created is another intrinsic element of the future of healthcare. Rising healthcare costs impact patient budgets and hinder access to treatments. Incentivizing positive outcomes can only benefit patients, while payers gain confidence that they are only reimbursing effective treatments. Manufacturers and providers that buy into the outcome-based model are taking an important step towards making their business more sustainable while contributing to the wider interest of the healthcare ecosystem.
One of the key issues has always been defining the factors that represent value and deciding how to measure them. To give an example, how do you measure if a patient is symptom-free and how long should the observation period last? How is the impact on those caring for an individual considered and how is the societal or economic impact assessed, e.g., can the individual go back to pursuing a career? These questions are key in any reimbursement of pricing arrangements.
Helping the healthcare community
Teaming up with Lyfegen, a healthtech company facilitating access to innovative therapies, KPMG recently published a joint whitepaper (see link below) on the application of outcome-based contracting. Girisha Fernando (CEO and Founder of Lyfegen HealthTech AG) and Martin Rohrbach (Head of Life Sciences for KPMG Switzerland) discuss how this approach can deliver value for healthcare payers, providers and patients.
The whitepaper is a joint initiative to share with healthcare stakeholders some of Lyfegen and KPMG’s expertise and experience in the development and implementation of value and data-driven agreements in an evolving healthcare environment. The combination of knowledge, reach, and technology specific to value-based healthcare, together with proven practical experience, brings unique insights into value and data-driven pricing agreements for healthcare stakeholders. The whitepaper focuses on why outcome-based contracting can address drug access and reimbursement challenges, and how such contracts can be enabled by innovative technology. There are some clear takeaways, serving as building blocks and opportunities to engage in outcome-based contracting for the benefit of healthcare systems.
READ MORE
Lyfegen’s value-based contracting software is used by healthcare payers and leading pharma companies, including Novartis, Roche, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) and Johnson & Johnson
New York, NY - September 20, 2022 - Lyfegen, a global healthtech SaaS company driving the world’s transition from volume to value-based healthcare for high-cost drugs, today announced an oversubscribed $8 million Series A financing round led by aMoon, with additional participation from APEX Ventures and others.
Currently, less than 2% of the health insurance population requiring specialty drugs is responsible for 51% of drug spending. The cost of specialty drugs in the US is spiraling out of control, increasing 12% from 2020 to 2021 alone, with no sign of slowing down due to the increase of cell and gene therapies expected to come to market. As a result, value-based contracting is becoming a more viable alternative for healthcare payers to only pay for drugs that actually work.
By 2025, total net spending on medicine in the US is expected to reach up to $400B. Additionally, new drugs regularly enter the market, but when pharmaceutical companies fail to agree on commercial terms with payers, patients are at risk of being denied access to life saving therapies. Lyfegen’s platform helps regulators, pharma companies and payers more easily adopt value-based payment models by digitizing the end-to-end process of data collection, anonymization and contract negotiations for all parties to agree upon drug pricing and reimbursement.
“We are excited to be announcing this funding round and to have this vote of confidence from aMoon, APEX and our other investors who understand the shift in healthcare that we are experiencing, and are supporting our efforts to expand the Lyfegen platform,” said Girisha Fernando, CEO and founder of Lyfegen. “We currently work with leading government payers, health insurance companies in Europe, the US and the Middle East, and some of the world’s largest pharma companies. Our plan now is to further expand our presence in the US, partnering with both private and public healthcare insurance companies. The move away from volume-based healthcare has never been more needed, and we are happy to play an important role in the shift to value-based contracting.”
“Lyfegen is addressing a significant market need in an industry that is changing dramatically and rapidly, and we are thrilled to help validate their efforts through our investment,” said Moshic Mor, General Partner at aMoon, and former Partner at Greylock and Greylock Israel. “During a time of healthcare budget pressures and recessions, the world needs Lyfegen’s solution now more than ever. We look forward to seeing the company, led by an incredible executive team, continue to enhance access to new drugs as they drive value-based healthcare to become increasingly mainstream.”
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 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 was founded by individuals with decades of experience in healthcare, pharma and technology to enable the shift away from volume-based and fee-for-service healthcare to value-based healthcare. For more information, visit www.lyfegen.com.
Media Contact
Yael Hart
GK for Lyfegen
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
Insulin is going through monumental shifts in pricing and reimbursement in the U.S. It started with the announcement of reductions in list prices by drug companies last year. First, Novo Nordisk announced plans to reduce the list prices of several of its insulin products beginning January 1, 2024. This included lowering the price of NovoLog and Levemir by at least 65%. This move was followed by a similar commitment by competitor Eli Lilly to reduce Humalog’s price, among others, and came just days before Sanofi’s announcement to decrease Lantus’s price.
Moreover, biosimilar competition is ramping up, particularly in the long-acting insulin glargine space. Rezvoglar and Basaglar are leading the way, as they gain traction on payer formularies, especially in the public Medicaid market.
And this year, owing to implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services began negotiating the net prices of both NovoLog and Fiasp, with public disclosure of said prices due to be revealed by September. Payers will soon be able to use these net prices as benchmarks to leverage better deals in markets besides Medicare. Also, CMS capped monthly out-of-pocket costs of insulin products for Medicare beneficiaries at $35.
For their large populations of insulin-dependent diabetics, payers will need to implement value-based coverage decisions that provide for the most optimal solutions for health plans and employers but also the lowest out-of-pocket costs for patients.
Because both list and net prices have come down, payers will likely lose out on some portion of the rebates—which reflect the difference between gross and net price—that they had grown accustomed to getting in the past. At the same time, the increasing number of payers that are adopting a rebate-free, net cost approach to formulary design will benefit from lower net prices.
And cheaper treatment options for patients may translate into better adherence to drug regimens which in turn could lead to improved health outcomes. For payers with a long-term perspective and comparatively little churn or enrollee turnover the potential downstream cost savings could be beneficial.
Lyfegen can assist in the calculations of value for all insulin products, both short- and long-acting, in addition to the design of appropriate formularies.
If you wish to improve your negotiating leverage for insulin products you can do so with real-world simulations for effective prescription drug contracts. Discover the Lyfegen Drug Contracting Simulator, our intuitive solution for streamlining iterative, collaborative drug contracting design.
READ MORE
The next wave of biosimilars, including Humira-, Eylea-, and Stelara-referenced products, is upon us.
In the U.S., 10 Humira-referenced biosimilars are on the market, nine of which launched in 2023. Until now the biosimilars have gained minimal traction. But that is changing, as the number of new prescriptions written for biosimilar versions of Humira soared to 36% from just 5% during the first week of April, after CVS Caremark altered its formulary.
CVS Caremark—the largest pharmacy benefit manager in the U.S.— removed Humira from its national commercial “template” lists of reimbursable drugs starting April 1. In its place, the PBM included the Humira-referenced biosimilars Hyrimoz, Hadlima and adalimumab-fkjp (a Biocon-produced unbranded product). Hyrimoz appears to be the most favored biosimilar. Similar moves have been signaled by the PBM Express Scripts and its parent company Cigna to be enacted this month, but this time Simlandi will be the most preferred biosimilar.
The FDA also recently approved two interchangeable biosimilars to Eylea, which will produce additional competition for the pharma’s blockbuster as key patent protections are set to expire.
And the biologic Stelara, which was selected as one of the first 10 drugs for Medicare price negotiations, will have its net price disclosed in September of this year in addition to facing biosimilar competition in 2025. The downward pressure on Stelara's price, but also Stelara-referenced biosimilars, will likely be significant.
For their large populations of covered lives who take products in the Humira, Eylea and Stelara-related therapeutic classes, payers will need to implement value-based coverage decisions that provide for the most optimal solutions for health plans and employers but also the lowest out-of-pocket costs for patients.
Improved access to biosimilars will offer patients expanded, less costly treatment options. For uptake to happen, payers must educate healthcare providers and patients on the value of biosimilars so that they are on board, whether they are designated by the Food and Drug Administration as therapeutically interchangeable or not.
Hyrimoz and Simlandi are therapeutically interchangeable and favored due to the formulary moves by CVS Caremark and Express Scripts, respectively.
The therapeutic interchangeability designation still plays a role in the U.S., because for biosimilars to be automatically substitutable at the pharmacy they must have proven interchangeability in addition to biosimilarity. As a result, physicians have expressed a preference for biosimilars that have the designation.
But for the many biosimilars that don’t have the therapeutic interchangeability designation, to boost their adoption manufacturers and payers must overcome this de facto regulatory barrier by informing healthcare providers and patients that proof of biosimilarity is sufficient.
Lyfegen can assist in the design of formularies tailored to clients' objectives. It can also accommodate information requests concerning which value-based arrangements are the most appropriate, given the scope of its library database as well as other client services.
If you wish to improve your negotiating leverage you can do so with real-world simulations for effective prescription drug contracts.
READ MORE
Vertex Pharmaceuticals may soon obtain Food and Drug Administration approval for a non-opioid analgesic, dubbed VX-548, for moderate to severe pain. But will insurers pay, given that there are so many cheap generic prescription opioids and other pain medicines on the market?
Presumably, the new non-opioid pain medication will be substantially more expensive per unit than generic opioids. Given the large numbers of patients needing pain drugs, for post-surgery, for instance, payers will need to manage the cost.
Prescription opioid medications remain a common treatment for pain despite decreases in the total number of opioid prescriptions after 2012. They’re cheap but also effective.
Should VX-548 obtain FDA approval, payers might be reluctant to cover the drug without clear and consistent evidence that the drug works as well or better than prescription opioids. Recent examples of non-opioid analgesics, including Exparel (bupivacaine) and Zynrelef (bupivacaine/meloxicam), demonstrate the kinds of reimbursement challenges drug makers may face, particularly early following their approval by the FDA.
Nevertheless, prescription opioids can be misused, abused, and diverted. In this regard, the non-opioid medicines Exparel, Zynrelef and, if approved, VX-548, do meet an important unmet need. However, not every patient will require access to more expensive medications. And so, it will be imperative to differentiate patient sub-populations by risk factors, in addition to comparing the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of non-opioid treatments to prescription opioids.
Lyfegen can assist in the calculations of value for both prescription opioid and non-opioid analgesics, in addition to the design of appropriate formularies.
Managing pain, whether acute or chronic, invariably involves a balancing act in which doctors, patients and insurers must consider appropriate forms of treatment. Proper patient stratification includes an assessment of the benefits and risks of both opioid and non-opioid medications to individual patients.
Lyfegen can navigate the different ways in which payers and drug makers negotiate contracts for pain medications. In the Lyfegen Library you can find the right model to use as a benchmark during pricing and reimbursement negotiations, which in turn will increase the chances of success. To explore strategies that enhance your ability to negotiate and implement successful pricing and reimbursement agreements for pain medications, visit the Lyfegen Library at lyfegen.com/library.
READ MORE
While the recent wave of new obesity drugs appeals to many patients due to their effectiveness in reducing weight and even diminishing the risk of major cardiovascular events for some, data suggests that at current prices they’re not cost-effective. Amid increased concern about the costs of using therapeutics such as glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists, some U.S. insurers are imposing further restrictions or eliminating coverage of the drugs altogether.
To boost access, a recent Financial Times article discussed the possibility of introducing value-based pricing arrangements for weight loss drugs. Under such “risk-based contracts,” healthcare providers could spread the cost over a period of time during which savings are possible, for example, from not having to treat as many heart attacks. Alternatively, drug makers and payers may negotiate value-based contracts which include patient persistency as a prerequisite. Persistency is known to be an issue with obesity drugs, as many patients stop taking the medications owing to side effects and other issues. If patients discontinue treatment weight rebound occurs, which implies that payers and patients must be properly incentivized to be persistent.
To effectively implement value-based agreements requires reliable cost of care analytics, modeling capabilities and outcomes-based agreement templates, which Lyfegen can provide stakeholders to calculate and forecast return on investment for use in the contracting process.
Value-based arrangements could ease the projected financial burden for commercial insurers, but also public payers such as Medicaid and Medicare. At present, most Medicaid state agencies don’t reimburse obesity therapeutics, while Medicare still prohibits their coverage if prescribed as weight loss medications alone. The drug Wegovy (semaglutide) did secure a supplemental cardiovascular indication from the Food and Drug Administration in March. This allows limited access for certain Medicare beneficiaries who fulfill weight and major cardiovascular risk criteria. But it doesn’t follow that plans will necessarily jump to pay for the product, given the high cost and limited cost-effectiveness. Introducing pay-for-performance agreements could facilitate access.
Lyfegen can accommodate information requests concerning relevant measures. The Lyfegen Library specifically offers access to one central resource with more than 4,500 public agreements and 20 innovative pricing models. For a deeper understanding of how value-based pricing models can transform the accessibility of obesity treatments and optimize your healthcare investments, book a demo with us.
READ MORE
As more biosimilars get approved and launched in the U.S., payers are making key decisions about their coverage and formulary positioning. Recently, this includes Humira-, Stelara- and Remicade-referenced products.
Historically, in the U.S., biosimilars have often failed to gain much traction owing to a Byzantine system of pricing and reimbursement which involves opaque rebate schemes. Here, higher list-priced drugs often carry with them higher rebates, which can mean that pharmacy benefit managers may favor originator products such as Humira.
As an illustration of this, according to a federal government Medicare Payment Advisory Commission report, more than 40% of Medicare beneficiaries still have no access through their insurance to Humira-referenced biosimilars, despite several products having discounts of over 80% compared to the original Humira.
But novel approaches to pricing and reimbursement could change formulary decision-making significantly, establishing the basis for more use of outcomes-based decisions. CostVantage, for example, is a new cost-based pharmacy reimbursement approach that all PBMs will eventually be required to use if they contract with CVS retail pharmacies, the largest pharmacy in the nation.
The CostVantage model stipulates that prescription drug reimbursement will be based on net acquisition cost, a set mark-up and a fee that reflects the value of pharmacy services. CVS Pharmacy plans to launch CVS CostVantage with PBMs for their commercial payers in 2025.
Such net-cost reimbursement systems tend to stimulate the uptake of lower cost (and more cost-effective) biosimilars. We find evidence of this in Europe where cost-effective biosimilars generally have fairly rapid entry which then quickly displaces the market share of originator products. By the last quarter of 2019, within one year of Humira-referenced biosimilar entry into the European market, an average of 35% of patients across Europe had already switched to a biosimilar; in the U.K, the figure was 63% which was achieved just six months after biosimilars were allowed to compete; in Denmark, with its winner-takes-all tender, the number was 80% and was attained within three months of being on the market. Meanwhile, in the U.S., after 15 months of being on the market, Humira-referenced biosimilars have only achieved 2% market share.
The new net-cost model of reimbursement in the U.S. will likely lead to greater adoption of biosimilars, at least in the large CVS segment of the market. Lyfegen can navigate the different ways in which payers and drug makers are negotiating contracts for biosimilars. In addition, Lyfegen can help address the concerns payers may have about high-priced specialty drugs, such as originator biologics and biosimilars. In the Lyfegen Agreements Library you can find the right model to use as a reference during pricing and reimbursement negotiations, which in turn will increase the chances of success.
Sign up & be the first to know about INNOVATIONS
* By sending this message, you agree to our privacy policy.
