Through the eyes of Simon Amstutz, briefly dive into the history of Michael Porter’s value-based healthcare theory.

For those who follow Lyfegen and our blog, chances are that you already fully grasp the concept of value-based healthcare (VBHC). That said, I came to Lyfegen from a completely different field, banking, and was intrigued by the history of how this theory came to be. While my intention is not to bore you with a history class, for all future posts it is important to have a common knowledge of the framework that lies behind VBHC.

In 2006, Harvard Professor Michael Porter and his fellow academic Elizabeth Teisberg published the book Redefining Health Care: Creating Value-Based Competition on Results . This book set the fundament of VBHC.

In this book they argue that competition in healthcare should be occurring in diagnosis, treatment (outcomes), and prevention of certain health conditions rather than between insurance plans and hospitals. They propose that the healthcare system should be restructured by having competition focus clearly on improved patient outcomes. The proposed model focuses on the value (yes, hence the name) that the medication or care brings to the patient. In other words, value is measured by the best outcome for the patient per dollar spent.

This being a monumental change from the current healthcare model, which operates on a fee-for-service/product basis. Under the conventional model, drugs and therapies have to be paid for regardless of whether they actually helped the patient. .

In order to achieve such a change, Porter argues that the healthcare system needs to be able to quantify health-care processes, outcomes, patient’s experiences, and organizational systems to evaluate the effectiveness of delivered care/medication as it benefits for the patient – this seeming like the greatest challenge back in 2006. But since then, technology and processes have evolved. This is where Lyfegen comes in: the challenges that our system was faced with 14 years ago now have a clear solution: Lyfeapp and Lyfevalue.

While Porter is most definitely not the only thought leader in the VBHC sector, his book shook and rattled the healthcare industry, identifying a clear need for solutions like those proposed by Lyfegen.

To find out more about our solutions:

Book a demo

With passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, the Medicare Part D (outpatient drug benefit) will be undergoing a comprehensive redesign, which will be implemented in 2025. There will be a dramatic shift towards payer responsibility of costs, particularly in the catastrophic phase of the Medicare Part D benefit.

Currently, during the calendar year there are four phases a Medicare beneficiary goes through when obtaining coverage of outpatient drugs: Deductible, initial coverage, coverage gap, and catastrophic. Here, catastrophic refers to the point when a beneficiary’s total prescription drug costs for a calendar year have reached a set maximum level. At present, the catastrophic threshold is set at $7,100. In a given year, once beneficiaries hit the threshold they will have spent $3,250 out of pocket, at which point they begin paying 5% co-insurance in the catastrophic phase.

Over a five-year period from 2016 to 2021, nearly three million enrollees in Medicare Part D spent above the catastrophic threshold at least once. And, currently more than 1.5 million beneficiaries are in the catastrophic phase. That number is expected to grow steadily in the coming years. Moreover, at present, spending in the catastrophic phase now accounts for about 45% of total Medicare Part D expenditures.

The redesigned Medicare Part D benefit features a $2,000 hard cap on beneficiary out-of-pocket spending. At the same time, there will be a massive shift in cost management liability in the catastrophic phase. Currently, Medicare picks up the tab for 80% of costs in the catastrophic phase (the government is essentially the reinsurer in the catastrophic phase); plans, 15%; and beneficiaries, 5%. In the restructured Part D benefit, starting in 2025, the drug manufacturer will be responsible for 20% of catastrophic costs; plans, 60%; Medicare, 20%; and Medicare beneficiaries, 0%.

This $2,000 cap will obviously reduce Medicare beneficiaries’ financial burden considerably, especially those who are prescribed high-priced specialty cancer drugs, many of which put them in the catastrophic phase by the end of January in a given year, with no limit on out-of-pocket expenditures. In all probability, the $2,000 cap will lead to more utilization of specialty drugs and better patient adherence.

The Part D overhaul will also force payers and drug makers to rethink their strategies vis-à-vis cancer drug pricing and reimbursement. Payers will have to strike a harder bargain with drug makers when purchasing specialty pharmaceuticals. As payers won’t be able to fully offset their higher burden of cost management by raising premiums – there will be a 6% annual cap on premium increases. There will very likely be increased use of utilization management tools. And, perhaps most importantly, a more competitive market with more use of utilization management tools, such as prior authorization, step edits, and quantity limits. Also more use of outcomes-based pricing models. Partnering with Lyfegen may be the solution for manufacturers and payers alike, as its platform can put users on the right track towards successful implementation of value-based pricing arrangements.

Historically, as new checkpoint inhibitors, anti-PD-1 and PD-L1 agents, have gained approval – such as Jemperli (dostarlimab) in April of 2021 - price competition has not been a factor. This is extraordinarily unusual, given how relatively crowded the various oncology indications targeted by checkpoint inhibitors have become; from breast, renal, and colorectal cancer, to melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer. Several companies, including traditional ones like Lilly but also new entrants such as EQRx, are seeking to disrupt this space by offering lower-priced alternatives.

Outside the U.S., oncology drug pricing is generally heavily regulated. And, we observe that certain drugs may not be reimbursed by government (monopsonist) purchasers if there isn’t sufficient clinical benefit to justify the price. Moreover, in international markets, outcome- or value-based pricing strategies for cancer drugs are commonplace, which they aren’t yet in the U.S.

However, Medicare Part D restructuring alters the competitive landscape considerably. For high-priced specialty pharmaceuticals, in particular, it will become increasingly important for payers to contain costs by way of utilization management, promote the use of generics and biosimilars, and negotiate value-based prices. The Lyfegen Platform enables more efficient and transparent management of value-based drug pricing contracts by using intelligent algorithms to capture and analyze patient-level drug cost data.

About the author

Cohen is a health economist with more than 25 years of experience analyzing, publishing, and presenting on drug and diagnostic pricing and reimbursement, as well as healthcare policy reform initiatives. For 21 years, Cohen was an academic at Tufts University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Amsterdam. Currently, and for the past five years, Cohen is an independent healthcare analyst on a variety of research, teaching, speaking, editing, and writing projects.

BOOK A DEMO

Despite majority public support for authorizing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, legislators struggle to reverse the non-interference clause that makes it illegal.

The non-interference clause

Medicare is legally prohibited from negotiating drug prices directly with manufacturers thanks to the non-interference clause in the 2003 law that created Part D, the prescription drug program for Medicare beneficiaries. The non-interference clause disallows Medicare from negotiating drug prices directly with pharmaceutical manufacturers, interfering in negotiations by Medicare contractors, or publishing any information about negotiated drug rebates.

Instead, the private health insurance plans and prescription drug programs Medicare contracts to implement benefits conduct negotiations for discounts with drug manufacturers. Meanwhile, other government programs — Medicaid and the Veterans Administration—have successfully lowered drug costs by negotiating directly for discounted drug prices and rebates.

Strong public support stands for allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices

According to a KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation) poll published in October 2021, there is broad-based public support for ending the non-interference clause. The poll showed that 83% of the survey participants favored allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices directly with manufacturers. Those in favor included a mix of 71% Republican, 82% of independents, and 95% Democrats.

Proponents of allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices in Parts B and D see Medicare’s ability to negotiate value-based drug pricing as an important part of the overall strategy for driving the U.S. health system towards value-based healthcare and lower drug prices, especially if the outcomes of the negotiations are made known to commercial insurance plans, the Marketplace, and self-insured employers.

Opponents believe that the Medicare system of price negotiations through contracted health plans and prescription drug plans promotes competition among drug manufacturers and protects patient access to drugs. They also cite a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) letter that states giving broad Medicare negotiating authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) would, by itself, “likely have a negligible effect on federal spending”.

Recent legislative actions attempting to eliminate the non-interference clause

In 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives passed bill H.R.3, The Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act. Among other proposed fixes, the bill would authorize the Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary to negotiate prices for single-source, brand-name drugs that met certain criteria. When H.R.3 went to the Senate for approval, its progress stalled. In 2021, H.R.3 was reintroduced in Congress.

In November 2021, the the Build Back Better Act (BBBA) passed the U.S. House of Representatives but was also stopped dead in the Senate. Within that bill was an exemption to the non-interference clause to allow Medicare to negotiate prices for expensive drugs covered under Medicare Parts B and D. Despite the defeat of the BBBA, President Biden used his State of the Union address on March 1, 2022 to keep up the pressure and repeated his call to lawmakers to address the problem of drug pricing.

Value-based administrative levers

In 2016 a pilot project for Medicare Part B drugs was created to test the results of allowing Medicare to conduct drug pricing negotiations. It was designed to institute value-based drug pricing using an international pricing index for the few drugs covered under Part B. The prices of some Part B biologics and single-source drugs were tied to their lower average overseas price.

Although the pilot project could have been implemented without congressional approval, several lawsuits and injunctions prevented the implementation of the model. Finally, the Biden administration rescinded the proposed model in August 2021.

Besides the recent unsuccessful legislative efforts for Medicare drug price negotiations, HHS outlined some other possible administrative actions for drug pricing reforms based on President Biden’s September 2021 Executive Order 14036, Promoting Competition in the American Economy. Among the proposals suggested is the use of value-based pricing models:

• To improve transparency about pricing, rebates, and out-of-pocket spending through data collection from health insurers and pharmacy benefit managers

• Implementing Medicare total cost of care models to find ways to reduce spending, affect drug utilization, and improve patient outcomes

The need for drug pricing reforms in Medicare holds bipartisan support, especially as it relates to lowering out-of-pocket expenses for seniors. However, passing the legislation needed to realize those reforms remains a controversial and complicated matter. While work continues to pass drug price reform legislation, value-based payment models can provide data analytics to support drug price reductions in both the public and private sectors.

Lyfegen’s value-based contracting platform

The Lyfegen platform helps organizations join in the healthcare industry’s movement towards value-based care. Our contracting platform organizes the actionable, real-time data needed to implement value-based contracting while relieving the complexity and administrative burden of transitioning out of fee-for-service models.

Contact us for more information about our software solutions and to book a demo.

BOOK A DEMO

How the U.S. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review is reshaping market access

In the U.S., comparative clinical effectiveness analyses are gaining traction as ways to inform coverage, pricing, and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals by both public and commercial payers. And, while use of cost-effectiveness data to inform coverage decisions is prohibited in the public sector (Medicare and Medicaid) it can be used in the commercial sector.

A recently released Xcenda analysis shows that 70% of U.S. commercial payers identified comparative clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence in the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) published reviews as the most important items in the reports with respect to informing coverage and reimbursement decisions.

Additionally, 50% of payers said that long-term cost-effectiveness – for example, cost-per-Quality-Adjusted-Life-Year – is “very impactful” in informing the decision-making process. And, as the figure below shows, 52% used results from an ICER assessment in pricing negotiations while 38% implemented a prior authorization protocol based on an ICER evaluation.

Source: Xcenda, International Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) annual meeting presentation, May 2022

Further bolstering the Xcenda analysis, an Evidera study from late 2019 suggested that ICER can influence value-based benchmark prices. The use of value-based pricing is increasing in the U.S. And, where appropriate, ICER favors the use of value-based contracting to align price and value. In fact, in certain instances such as gene therapies, ICER believes that such treatments can only be viewed as being cost-effective if value-based contracting is applied. Partnering with Lyfegen may be the solution for manufacturers and payers alike, as its platform can put users on the right track towards successful implementation of value-based pricing arrangements.

To illustrate the impact ICER assessments can have with respect to pricing and reimbursement decisions, let’s consider ICER’s evaluation of PCSK9 inhibitors – indicated for individuals with inadequately treated levels of LDL-cholesterol. In 2016, two PCSK9 inhibitors were approved by the Food and Drug Administration: Alirocumab (Praluent) and evolocumab (Repatha). ICER reviewed the drugs’ clinical- and cost-effectiveness and suggested the list prices needed to be substantially reduced to make the treatments cost-effective.

What ensued was the establishment of several ICER-payer partnerships that led to formulary exclusions of these therapies and subsequent “price wars” as manufacturers of Praluent and Repatha drastically lowered their list prices to remain competitive.

Broadly, cardiovascular disease represents a competitive market with an established standard of care that includes numerous therapeutic options for most patients. Here, payers were able to leverage ICER’s assessment of the PCSK9 inhibitors in negotiations with drug manufacturers. In turn, this led, for example, to one manufacturer lowering the wholesale acquisition cost of Praluent to $5,850, down from $14,600.

In other therapeutic categories with much less competition, ICER’s impact is less clear-cut. For example, in a therapeutic area such as spinal muscular atrophy, characterized by low prevalence, high mortality rates, and lack of effective treatments, ICER’s cost-effectiveness analysis either did not influence payer coverage - as with the drug Spinraza (nusinersen) - or may have been leveraged by the manufacturer to push for wider acceptance among payers -as with Zolgensma (onasemnogene abeparvovec).

In 2019, ICER published its final recommendations on spinal muscular atrophy therapies. To meet an ICER-imposed cost-effectiveness threshold of up to $150,000 per life year gained, Spinraza would need to be priced at a maximum of $145,000 for the first year of treatment and $72,000 annually for subsequent years. This was considerably lower than Spinraza’s list price of $750,000 for the first year and $375,000 annually for subsequent years. ICER also recommended that Zolgensma could be priced at up to $2.1 million per treatment to be considered cost-effective, which turned out to be in line with its list price of $2.125 million at launch.

Interestingly, although ICER’s analysis found that Zolgensma was cost-effective while Spinraza was not, payer coverage for both drugs followed a similar trend over time, with payers restricting access in the initial periods immediately after launch and later relaxing these criteria.

The shift in coverage criteria could be due to an initial reflex response that payers have to restrict access to extremely expensive medications, followed by a loosening of criteria. Historically, this has been the case. Subsequently, after acknowledging the dramatic clinical benefits that Spinraza and Zolgensma have demonstrated in clinical trials for treating a disease with no other therapeutic options, payers relent, if you will. Also, in the case of Zolgensma, ICER’s evaluation may have led to a further easing of payer restrictions.

Of course, cost-effectiveness analyses, such as the ones published by ICER, must invariably be adapted for local use. Context matters, nationally, but also intra-nationally, in different jurisdictions and sub-markets. Further challenges include local or federal (national) regulations which may prevent the use of cost-effectiveness analyses under certain circumstances; stakeholders’ resistance to adopting such analyses or be bound by their findings; and the general lack of available (and appropriate) cost-effectiveness data.

Nevertheless, there is a consistent trend which points to the growing influence of ICER evaluations on payer decision making, specifically with respect to drug pricing and reimbursement. Clinical- and cost-effectiveness data can be used to determine whether to cover a technology, inform the use of prior authorization or other conditions of reimbursement, and serve as a benchmark for price negotiations with manufacturers.

About the author

Cohen is a health economist with more than 25 years of experience analyzing, publishing, and presenting on drug and diagnostic pricing and reimbursement, as well as healthcare policy reform initiatives. For 21 years, Cohen was an academic at Tufts University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Amsterdam. Currently, and for the past five years, Cohen is an independent healthcare analyst n a variety of research, teaching, speaking, editing, and writing projects.

BOOK A DEMO

Healthcare payers and insurance companies are under pressure to fight rising drug prices in the U.S. Payers have the difficult task of figuring out if a manufacturer’s proposed wholesale price for a new drug is justified. Value-based purchasing agreements facilitate the data sharing needed to determine a drug’s fair price.

U.S. drug expenditures are among the highest in the world

It’s well-documented that the U.S. spends more on prescription drugs than other high-income countries. After adjusting for rebates and discounts, U.S. drug prices are almost 200% of prices in other comparable countries, according to a 2021 Rand Corporation report.

High drug prices in the U.S. translate to a per capita expenditure almost double what consumers and payers in other developed countries are paying. Peterson-KFF’s Health System Tracker shows that in 2019, U.S. payers and consumers spent a yearly average of $1,126 per capita for prescription medications, with $963 covered by payers and $164 in patient out-of-pocket costs. In other high-income countries, average annual drug expenditures were $552 per capita, with $88 in yearly out-of-pocket costs for patients.

U.S. drug expenditures keep rising

The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists reports that in 2021 overall pharmaceutical expenditures in the U.S. grew by 7.7% over the previous year’s costs; and for 2022, they predict another 4-6% increase in drug spending.

According to the healthcare consulting firm IQVIA, a total of 6.3 billion prescriptions were filled in the U.S. in 2020. Around 90% of those prescriptions were filled using lower-priced generic drugs. Lower-priced generic and biosimilar drugs have helped slow the rise of the annual national drug expenditures, however these account for only around 20% of total drug costs.

Increased use of pharmaceuticals (especially generics), drug price hikes, and high-cost new drugs coming to the market are contributing to the rise in overall drug expenditures. In particular, new, brand-name specialty drugs for conditions such as diabetes, cancer, autoimmune, and other rare diseases are bringing up the average of drug prices.

The use of specialty drugs increased from 27% of total U.S. drug spending in 2010 to 53% in 2020, according to IQVIA. They forecast up to 55 new pharmaceutical products per year will be brought to market between 2020 and 2025. Pharmaceutical forecasting software can help you stay on top of these changes and plan effectively.

Payers will have to decide whether to cover the cost of these new products and at what price. New-to-market specialty drugs are excellent candidates for value-based purchasing agreements.

Value-based purchasing contracts provide the data that reveal if a drug is worth its price

Payers have the difficult task of figuring out if a manufacturer’s proposed wholesale price for a new drug is justified. They need to protect their bottom line by minimizing the risk of paying for ineffective, over-priced drugs. Private insurance plans, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration often negotiate prices for new treatments with pharmaceutical companies without real-world data to demonstrate the drug’s clinical and cost-effectiveness compared to other treatments for the same health condition.

If their product is eligible, some pharmaceutical manufacturers conduct fast-track clinical trials for FDA approval using surrogate endpoint measures to show that a new drug is safe and more effective than a placebo. But these trials provide limited data and they aren’t the comprehensive comparative effectiveness review (CER) needed for determining the value and fair price for the drug. Independent research firms, such as the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), conduct CERs that provide insight into pricing for drug categories, but they don’t research every new drug coming onto the market.

Value-based purchasing agreements fill this knowledge gap by collecting the real-world evidence of a new drug’s clinical value. The data sharing among stakeholders that comes with these outcome-based contracts gives a fuller picture of the drug’s impact on patient health outcomes.

Value-based purchasing contracts strengthen stakeholder partnerships

While acknowledging that the future of healthcare is moving from fee-for-service to value-based healthcare, providers and payers have been slow to adopt value-based contracting. Operationalizing these agreements is complex. They consume large amounts of time and financial resources at start-up, not to mention the trust, cooperation, and commitment required from stakeholders.

It can be quite difficult to agree on a drug price that satisfies all stakeholders in terms of evidence-based clinical value and comparative competitor pricing. What and who determines a drug’s value? Value-based purchasing arrangements align the stakeholders’ metrics for measuring value to determine a fair price for a drug. Over time, this new level of transparency and cooperation can foster greater trust between contract partners and help break down the barriers blocking the transition out of fee-for-service to value-based healthcare.

The Lyfegen Platform

Manufacturers, payers, and providers all possess part of the data about a drug’s value in their databases. In the past, automated tools to safely collect, centralize, and analyze stakeholder data were non-existent. Thanks to innovations in artificial intelligence, new software platforms for value-based contracts can facilitate efficient coordination among the stakeholders to achieve a high level of secure data sharing.

Lyfegen’s software platform helps healthcare insurances, pharma and medtech companies implement and scale value-based purchasing contracts with greater efficiency and transparency. The Lyfegen Platform collects real-world data and uses intelligent algorithms to provide valuable insights on drug performance and cost in value-based contracts. By enabling the shift away from volume-based and fee-for-service healthcare to value-based healthcare, Lyfegen increases access to healthcare treatments and their affordability.

BOOK A DEMO

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:

https://lyfegen.com/

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

Each year, the NAMD (National Association of Medicaid Directors) Conference in Washington D.C. brings together the nation's Medicaid directors, leaders in the industry, and key decision-makers for a one-of-a-kind conference. With the global public health emergency, the Medicaid system and the work of Medicaid directors and their staff has never been more important. While COVID-19 has disrupted health care at all levels, it has shown the importance of more innovative payment models and the need for broader access to treatments. The shift towards value-based healthcare has become one of Medicaid’s hottest topics, with CMA and Lyfegen joining forces to present the latest value-based contracting technology at this year’s NAMD Conference.

We sat down for a brief interview with CMA’s President, Ken Romanski, and Lyfegen’s CEO, Girisha Fernando, to gain more insights into the importance of this partnership:

Thanks for joining us, Ken and Girisha. Can you tell us why this partnership is an important milestone, both for CMA and Lyfegen?

Ken: Our partnership with Lyfegen is a key milestone for CMA as we expand and complement our portfolio of technology-based solutions with extremely high-value business analytics products. Our utmost priority is to support Medicaid programs by lowering costs, while at the same time improving health outcomes for vulnerable citizens.

Girisha: This partnership sets the basis to create enormous value for our state healthcare payers and pharma. By partnering together, we enable our customers to implement value-based pharmacy agreements, actively managing the budget impact of new treatments and aligning existing formulary spending with value for beneficiaries.

For Lyfegen, this is a market entry into the U.S. – why CMA?

Girisha: CMA’s experience and technical expertise are unique. CMA is a highly recognized technology partner for State Healthcare Payers across the nation, with over 20 years of experience. Lyfegen has made a conscious decision to combine its capabilities with CMA to enable our customers to leverage the potential of value-based agreements for their pharmacy programs.

What is the value of this partnership for healthcare payers?

Ken: CMA is very excited to work with Lyfegen and our clients to deliver tens of millions of dollars in savings per year by leveraging our experience in Medicaid data management to implement this robust value-based analytics platform.

Girisha: Our customers benefit from the combined years of experience and unique expertise in data and value-based healthcare solutions. We focus on providing the first proven, scalable, highly secure value-based agreement platform for State Medicaid that allows our customers on average to avoid 54 million dollars in treatment costs that do not work and gain 7 million dollars in efficiency due to the fully automated end-to-end process. We are extremely excited to present all aspects of our partnership and present the value and opportunities our platform can bring to State Medicaid programs at NAMD.

Join CMA and Lyfegen at NAMD and understand first-hand how they can support you to realize savings for your pharmacy programs, improving patient health outcomes with their unique value-based agreement platform.

Book an appointment at NAMD

                    Fünf Männer aus der Region wollen die Gesundheitsbranche aufmischen. Im 2018 wurden sie von der Plattform «Innovation Basel» für ihre visionäre Idee nominiert: Eine digitale Plattform, die eine Kombination aus Blockchain und Cloud verwendet, um faire Medikamentenpreise zwischen Herstellern und Versicherungen auszuhandeln. Was heisst das aber und was ist dabei so visionär?            

                    (Bild: zVg) Das Lyfegen Team: Diese fünf Männer haben eine Vision und eine Mission. Die Idee liess Girisha Fernando nicht mehr los: Der 29-jährige Basler wollte nach neun Jahren bei der Roche im Market Access, Pricing und IT unbedingt «etwas noch Spannenderes, Revolutionäres machen», wodurch Patienten im Dschungel des Gesundheitswesens geholfen wird. Aber es sollte dabei auch für Pharmaunternehmen und Versicherer eine Win-Win-Situation entstehen.          

         Zusammen mit seinen Mitstreitern Leon Rebolledo, Michel Mohler und Nico Mros gründete er 2018 «Lyfegen» und entwickelte eine bahnbrechende Idee: Eine auf Blockchain und Cloud basierte Software Lösung, die es Versicherern und Herstellern von Medikamenten erlaubt faire Preise anhand deren Wirksamkeit für den einzelnen Patienten auszuhandeln.                      

            Faire Preise bedeuten unter anderem auch, dass die Vergütung dieser Medikamente auf der Wirkung des Medikaments basiert. Wenn ein Medikament bei einem Patienten besser wirkt, dann wird ein Preis A bezahlt. Wenn ein Medikament bei einem anderen nicht so gut anschlägt, dann wird Preis B vom Versicherer an den Hersteller fällig oder sogar nichts bezahlt. Unser Tool ermöglicht genau diese faire, wirkungsorientierte Preisgestaltung, was sich auch Value-based Healthcare nennt. So ein Tool gibt es auf der ganzen Welt bisher nicht.             Name Surname
Position, Copmany          

                 Fachleute sprechen hierbei von «Wertbasierter Gesundheitsversorgung». Dieses Thema ist aktueller denn je, auch in der Schweiz, in der steigende Behandlungs- und Medikamentenpreise zu höheren Kosten für die Bevölkerung führen. Es müssen neue, nachhaltige Modelle eingeführt werden, um die Kostenexplosion im Gesundheitswesen aufzuhalten.          

         Transparenz bei Preisgestaltung und Wirkungsgrad          

Warum aber ist so ein Tool wertvoll? «Weil unser Tool Daten sicher sammelt, analysiert und dann den jeweiligen Partnern, sei es ein Versicherer oder ein Hersteller wie Pharmaunternehmen, die Daten anonym, automatisiert und gleichzeitig zuspielt.» Dies geschieht mit Hilfe der Blockchain (eine dezentralisierte Form der Datenverarbeitung und -sicherung, die beispielsweise Geldeinheiten, Wertpapiere, Besitz- oder Grundrechte verwaltet, siehe Erklärung in der Infobox), ganz ohne Kryptowährung, betonen die fünf innovativen Köpfe.

                     (Bilder: PEXELS) Im Gesundheitswesen explodieren die Kosten. Eine revolutionäre Idee könnte dieser Entwicklung entgegen wirken.            

            Die Idee hat schon für viel Wirbel in der «Szene» gesorgt. Und sie gehen mit ihrer Idee aufs Ganze: «Wir haben schon 750’000 CHF von einer Gruppe von Basler Business Angels erhalten», sagen die Lyfegen-Gründer. Diese Business Angels seien selbst erfolgreiche Unternehmer. Namen dürfe man leider keine bekannt geben. Zudem müsse man zu 100 Prozent hinter einer Innovation, einer Vision oder einer Idee stehen, die der Gesellschaft helfen könne, betonen sie. Fernando: «Ich bin fest davon überzeugt, dass nicht nur unsere Lösung, sondern auch die Denkprozesse, die wir bei unseren Kunden anregen, die Implementierung einer wertbasierten Gesundheitsversorgung vorantreibt. Konzept und Lösung sind innovativ.»                        

               Vertrauen und Transparenz zwischen Ärzten und Patienten ist immens wichtig. Darauf basiert auch das Konzept des Value-based Healthcare.      

      Zwar sei man bei Lyfegen sehr technisch veranlagt, jedoch steht der Kundennutzen und der so genannten «Impact» für alle Parteien im Vordergrund. Also auch für die Versicherten und für das gesamte Gesundheitswesen. «Unsere Lösung trägt dazu bei, Patienten Zugang zu innovativen Behandlungen und der bestmöglichen Gesundheitsversorgung zu ermöglichen. Wir wollen Leben retten. Punkt», betont CTO Leon Reborello. Girisha Fernando kann aus eigener Erfahrung berichten: «Mein Grossvater hatte Prostatakrebs und die Ärzte sagten, dass es Medikamente gibt um seine Lebensdauer zu verlängern. Aber die Versicherung wollte aus Kostengründen nicht für das Medikament bezahlen. Dies muss aufhören – durch wertbasierte Vergütung würden die besten und innovativsten Medikamente für Patienten und Ärzte zugänglich. Mit unserer Lösung tragen wir dazu bei, dies zu verwirklichen.»