The transition to value-based care is happening at a slower pace than policymakers and healthcare industry leaders had hoped. Stakeholders are struggling to negotiate and then operationalize these complex agreements.

The adoption of value-based drug pricing agreements is not widespread in the U.S., despite the stated strong interest from policymakers and the healthcare industry in tying the price of drugs to their benefit to patient outcomes and value to the health system. Outside of the government Medicare and Medicaid programs, the fee-for-service, volume-based payment model still accounted for almost 56% of commercial health payer contracts as of 2018.

Many value-based pharmaceutical arrangements are not disclosed publicly, making it difficult to know how many are implemented in the U.S. each year. According to the trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), there were 73 publicly disclosed value-based drug contracts at the end of 2019. A study published the same year in the American Journal of Managed Care (AJMC) suggested that, because of the confidentiality surrounding most agreements, analysts are underestimating the number of value-based pricing arrangements in effect and their impact on the U.S. pharmaceutical market.

In this article, we will highlight some concerns a payer and manufacturer considering a value-based drug pricing arrangement may each face, and give some insight into why these agreements aren't more widely accepted.

Payers modeling risk

A 2019 survey by the National Pharmaceutical Council (NPC) and the Duke-Margolis Center for Health policy showed that for payers, top deal-breakers in negotiations for value-based pricing arrangements were disagreements over incentive mechanisms for participation and financial terms. From the payer’s standpoint, a new, high-cost drug–especially one that addresses unmet needs or rare and orphan diseases–is worth the risk if it brings innovative, effective treatment for patients who may have no other options. But payers want to share that risk with the manufacturer when there’s the potential for a substantial impact on the payer’s budget.

Based on publicly available information, oncology, hematology, cardiology, and endocrinology drug treatments are common subjects of value-based pricing arrangements. These treatments have well-defined patient populations, easy-to-see impact measures, endpoints, and cures that make them more appealing to payers. It’s much more difficult to objectively measure the patient health outcomes for treatments covering pain management or mental health.

Payers also prefer treatments that show clinical results in a few months, not years. Tracking a patient’s health to confirm a drug’s value becomes more difficult when a drug takes years to show evidence of long-term benefits. For example, a longer-term benefit of treatment may be the avoidance of hospitalization. In the U.S., patients may leave a payer’s plan at any time, so this future cost may not be captured in the data collection under a current agreement.

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

Manufacturers sharing risk

When considering coverage of a new drug, payers might question the results of clinical trials, especially if there is limited real-world data because of an expedited FDA approval. So manufacturers must continue to create opportunities to generate real-world evidence that convinces payers of their drug’s value. And they must be ready and willing to share in the risk that a drug may not meet expectations in phase 4 confirmatory trials.

When a new drug has strong competition in the market, manufacturers need real-world evidence to differentiate their product and show their treatment brings better clinical outcomes and value than other options available. Value-based drug pricing agreements are an opportunity to fill that knowledge gap. Pharmaceutical companies not willing to do them to get that real-world evidence may lose out to those who are ready to take on innovative pharmaceutical agreements.

Contract partners building data-gathering and analytics capacity

In the 2019 NPC survey, manufacturers cited data collection challenges and disagreements on outcome measures among their top deal breakers.

Choosing the right contract model to fit the product and the capabilities of the contract partners is the first step. This means researching publicly available value-based drug pricing arrangements to learn the rewards and pitfalls of various contract models. All the contract partners must agree on the key metrics to be measured and how the data will be used to determine a drug’s value to patient health outcomes.

For the data-sharing component of value-based pricing arrangements, contract partners must develop a relationship that includes trust, cooperation, and an unusual level of transparency. Sometimes this relationship is best fostered and protected by the support services of a neutral third party, especially when one or both of the contract partners doesn’t have the technical capacity or administrative staff to operationalize a value-based drug pricing agreement.

The Lyfegen Solution

Value-based drug pricing arrangements are hard, but Lyfegen can make them easier. If your organization is considering a value-based pricing agreement, start by researching real-world examples of drug pricing arrangements in Lyfegen’s Models and Agreements Library. With a collection of more than 20 drug pricing models and over 1000 value-based agreements in use worldwide, the Lyfegen Library can help you discern what pricing arrangement is appropriate for your goals, your current operational capabilities, and your contract partners.

Lyfegen’s value-based contracting software can then operationalize the contract model you choose. We help healthcare insurances, pharma, and medtech companies implement and scale value-based drug pricing 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.

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.

BOOK A DEMO

With the right tools, healthcare providers can collect real-world evidence about a drug’s value and benefit. How do we convince them to share the data through value-based purchasing arrangements?

In the U.S., lawmakers, payers, and the public are putting pressure on healthcare providers to help transform the healthcare system in the U.S. Despite resistance from healthcare providers to abandon traditional fee-for-service models, the U.S. healthcare industry continues trending towards the adoption of value-based payment models. This transformation includes the ambitious but necessary goals of producing better public health outcomes, decreasing health disparities, increasing affordability for patients, and decreasing the cost of healthcare overall.

At the heart of value-based pharmaceutical pricing is collecting the right data to measure and assess the benefit of a treatment. Real-world evidence is needed to determine a drug’s contribution to health outcomes. As workers on the front lines, healthcare providers are in an excellent position to collect data on a drug’s performance. With this information, decision-makers can arrive at a drug price that reflects its true value to patient health outcomes.

Patients are having trouble paying for their prescriptions

A 2019 Kaiser Family Foundation Health Tracking Poll revealed three out of ten patients surveyed—ages 50 to 64 years old—stated they had difficulty paying for their medications. Drug prices, price increases, and copays and deductibles are preventing some patients from starting, or continuing, the treatments they need.

In the U.S., hospital system clinicians and independent physician practices are expected to choose the best treatments for their patients without consideration of the patient’s insurance coverage status. Providers often have little to no idea of the costs their patients will bear without insurance, after insurance deductibles and copays are met, or after a drug maker’s patient assistance program intervenes.

A patient’s cost-related nonadherence may include not filling prescriptions, skipping doses, taking a lower dose than prescribed, and experimenting with non-prescription, over-the-counter treatments; these strategies affect patient health outcomes.

When patients are already struggling to cover prescription costs, they can’t afford to waste money on low-quality treatments that are ineffective or of little benefit to their health outcomes. Providers also don’t want to waste time with treatments that don’t produce better health outcomes. Therefore, most healthcare providers are open to exploring value-based pharmaceutical purchasing agreements that can allow access to newer, more effective treatments that patients can afford.

The benefits of value-based purchasing arrangements for healthcare providers and patients

Healthcare providers willing to enter value-based pharmaceutical purchasing arrangements are rewarded with many benefits, including:

• Improved quality of care and better health outcomes for patients

Providers in value-based purchasing arrangements gather real-world evidence of the effectiveness of a drug. They collect data that reveal which treatments are the most clinically effective and which add little or no value to patient health outcomes. This could lead to new insights into best practices and new clinical guidelines and protocols.

• Increased access to innovative, more effective treatments

Under value-based purchasing arrangements, providers and patients can gain access to brand new, high-cost prescription drugs. Real-world data gathered during contract implementation reveal the new drug’s benefit to health outcomes. Value-based purchasing can also encourage providers to try other lower-cost treatment options like biosimilars and new generics.

• Greater operational efficiency and reduced overall cost of healthcare

Identifying and eliminating low-value treatments through value-based arrangements reduces the waste of resources and time for both providers and patients. The provider’s clinical operations can become more efficient and cost-effective, with positive effects on revenue and patient satisfaction.

Healthcare providers have concerns about value-based purchasing arrangements

Despite the upside, providers are wary; value-based purchasing arrangements are complex. They require careful consideration of what metrics are to be measured. Stakeholder partners must navigate a new level of transparency and data sharing. And naturally, each partner in the agreement wants to include as many protective contingencies clauses as they can think of.

Providers want to be sure implementation of the agreement doesn’t become an untenable administrative burden for their staff. There are concerns about the technology upgrades needed to collect, protect, and analyze the data generated by value-based purchasing agreements. Will there be interoperability issues with the existing electronic medical records system? How will the data be interpreted and presented to provide actionable insights?

The safest and easiest way to overcome these barriers and get help to operationalize value-based purchasing agreements is to use a vendor partner with a customizable software solution.

The Lyfegen software solution

Lyfegen created a software solution that addresses these concerns about shifting from fee-for-service payment models to value-based purchasing arrangements. We help healthcare providers, insurances, pharma, and medtech companies implement and scale value-based contracts for specialty drugs 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. In supporting the transition from volume-based to value-based purchasing arrangements, Lyfegen increases affordability and access to health treatments for patients.

To learn more about Lyfegen’s value-based contracting platform, book a demo.

BOOK A DEMO

In June, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted unanimously (5-0) to examine rising list prices of insulin, but also to probe possible anti-competitive practices by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with respect to the use of rebate arrangements. Rebates are payments from drug manufacturers to PBMs in exchange for moving market share towards so-called preferred products on the formulary.

The FTC has specifically cited instances in which cheaper generics and biosimilars are excluded from PBM formularies, as this may violate competition and consumer protection laws.

The FTC inquiry into pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) practices could lead to legal action prohibiting certain rebate practices. In turn, this could induce major changes in the U.S. rebate system. Formulary management could become increasingly value- or outcomes-based, rather than simply a function of a financial power play between drug makers and PBMs. Or, rebates could fall by the wayside altogether, to be replaced by a combination of upfront discounts in lieu of rebates and value-based pricing arrangements. Partnering with Lyfegen may be the solution for manufacturers and payers alike, as its platform can put users on the right track towards successful implementation of value-based pricing arrangements.

The FTC has warned of legal action against PBMs if its inquiries find proof of anti-competitive practices. Here, the agency raised the stakes when it included terms like “commercial bribery” in its statements to describe what it perceives as anti-competitive rebates in the insulin market.

The latest FTC inquiries follow a recent investigation by Senators Grassley (R-Iowa) and Wyden (D-Oregon), which blamed rebate schemes for much of what ails the prescription drug market. Furthermore, nearly two years ago, Senator Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) and colleagues commissioned the General Accounting Office (GAO) to examine rebates. The GAO report is due out this fall.

PBMs receive rebates from drug manufacturers in exchange for preferred positioning on the formulary, which in turn drives market share. Experts have criticized rebates for the fact that payers often don’t base their decisions to include a drug on comparative clinical- and cost-effectiveness. Rather, decisions are strictly based on financial terms, namely which manufacturer offers a higher rebate payment to the PBM; a financial power play in which PBMs may threaten not to cover certain drugs if they don’t get the rebate they want. This applies to insulin as well as numerous other therapeutic categories.

What’s worse is when rebate traps or walls are involved. Branded manufacturers leverage their position as market leaders by offering financial incentives to PBMs and health insurers in the form of “all or nothing” conditional volume-based rebates, in exchange for (virtually) exclusive positioning on the formulary. This can mean keeping competitors off the formulary entirely, or severely limiting formulary access to a competing drug with drug utilization management tools like step edits. Here, a patient must use a preferred drug and fail on it (a so-called “fail-first” policy) before “stepping up” to a non-preferred drug.

Because the portion of the rebate retained by PBMs is often calculated as a percentage of a drug’s list price, PBMs can have incentives to establish formularies that favor branded drugs with higher list prices and larger rebates over lower priced biosimilars, specialty generics, or even branded competitors. Rival drugs entering the market lack sufficient sales volume to be able to offer the same level of rebates to PBMs that originator firms can provide.

Proof of the establishment of anti-competitive practices could lead to legal action being taken against PBMs. The question then becomes what would replace rebates? Payers may establish an entirely different formulary management system that is more value-based. Surely, it would be a system that’s less contingent on the role of the financial power play between drug makers and PBMs.

In areas such as immunotherapy targeting certain cancers, cell and gene therapy, and rheumatology, there are already a growing number of value-based agreements.

Girisha Fernando, CEO and Founder of Lyfegen, which offers a platform to track value-based agreements with real-world data, said that many outcomes-based deals are kept secret and therefore under the radar, so to speak. Commercial payers generally don’t share publicly what types of value-based deals they have with drug companies to maintain their competitive advantage. Yet, in an interview with Endpoints News Fernando stated that he’s observed at least a 300% increase in value-based agreements over the last five years. The Lyfegen Platform enables more efficient and transparent management of value-based drug pricing contracts by using intelligent algorithms to capture and analyze patient-level drug cost data.

Fallout from the FTC inquiry – should rebates be identified as anti-competitive - may entail further increases in value-based dealmaking.

About the author

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

BOOK A DEMO

CMS may want to consider value-based purchasing arrangements for Alzheimer’s Disease drugs

The Alzheimer’s Disease biologic Aduhelm (aducanumab) – a beta amyloid-directed monoclonal antibody - has experienced a tremendous amount of controversy regarding its safety and efficacy, both before and after its approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2021.

A decision in April of this year by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to place severe limitations on coverage of Aduhelm has all but killed the drug’s chances of success. And, even after Aduhelm’s original wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) of $56,000 was cut in half, there were very few takers in both the public and commercial payer spaces. Aduhelm’s “failure” to this point is partly to blame for the departure of Biogen’s CEO, Michel Vounatsos.

Could Biogen’s Aduhelm have been saved by a value-based purchasing agreement with CMS, in which Medicare Administrative Contractors and Medicare Advantage Plans only pay for Aduhelm if it provides clinical benefits to patients? Possibly. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, such an arrangement could still be used for other beta amyloid-directed monoclonal antibodies that are currently in late stages of development and are less controversial than Aduhelm.

Under the final national coverage determination (NCD) issued in April by CMS, Medicare will severely restrict coverage of Aduhelm. Concretely, the decision implies that only Medicare beneficiaries who have enrolled in CMS-authorized randomized controlled clinical trials will get coverage of Aduhelm.

In addition, under the NCD, CMS states that, if approved by FDA, the entire class of beta amyloid-directed monoclonal antibodies will be subject to restricted reimbursement. For example, all accelerated approvals must undergo post-marketing clinical trials, analogous to the stringent requirements imposed on Aduhelm. And even beta amyloid-directed Alzheimer’s Disease drugs that go through the regular approval process must enter a coverage with evidence development protocol, which implies that post-approval collection of data in patient registries will be mandatory.

In its NCD decision, CMS did not mention a value-based purchasing agreement. Nor did it reference Aduhelm’s WAC. Given that CMS is not permitted to take cost or cost-effectiveness into account, it perhaps makes sense that Aduhelm’s WAC wasn’t mentioned.

Nevertheless, at a regional level, a value-based purchasing agreement is something Medicare Administrative Contractors and Medicare Advantage Plans could have pursued. In addition, nationally, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation has the authority to test models which modify Medicare payments for certain high-priced drugs. These models are designed to introduce a value-based approach for drugs that have been approved with limited evidence. Certainly, the class of beta amyloid-directed monoclonal antibodies fit this description.

Here, a linkage between pay and performance would need to be established, along with the proper timing of the measurement of cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s Disease patients. Performance measures could include the kinds of validated cognitive assessments outlined in the NCD.

Last year, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review conducted a preliminary analysis of Aduhelm, extrapolating from Phase 3 data. ICER concluded that Aduhelm was not cost-effective, given the drug’s WAC, and that a cost-effective price benchmark range for would be between $3,000 and $8,400 per year for early-stage Alzheimer’s Disease patients, which is much lower than the current WAC of $28,000.

ICER’s assessment was not based on real world evidence, however. In any CMS-initiated value-based purchasing arrangement, there would be real world evidence, and accordingly adjustments could be made to the acceptable price range of the product. This could have applied to Aduhelm, but may still be relevant in future with respect to other beta amyloid-directed monoclonal antibodies, which are presently in Phase 3. These include Biogen/Eisai’s lecanemab, Roche’s donanemab, and Roche’s gantenerumab.

Aduhelm’s ship has perhaps sailed, with the baggage of the FDA approval controversy and the requirement of a randomized controlled clinical trial for any coverage at all. Nevertheless, value-based arrangements could very much be in play for other beta amyloid-directed monoclonal antibodies.

Undoubtedly this would be a major undertaking, particularly logistically. And, getting CMS to buy in won’t be easy. But, there’s precedent for CMS wanting to pursue value-based agreements. To illustrate, at the time of FDA’s approval of the CAR-T therapy Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel) in 2017 – indicated for acute lymphoblastic leukemia - it was accompanied by the announcement of a novel outcomes-based agreement with CMS, in which CMS would pay for Kymriah only if patients had responded to it by the end of the first month. Without disclosing why, CMS quietly backed away from that agreement.

Maybe the substantial unmet need in Alzheimer’s Disease will trigger CMS to consider alternative approaches to reimbursement. And, if any of the beta-amyloid directed monoclonal antibodies are approved in Europe or the U.K., similar value-based arrangements may be an option for payers.

Partnering with Lyfegen may be the solution for manufacturers and payers alike, as its platform can put users on the right track towards successful implementation of value-based purchasing agreements. The Lyfegen platform identifies and operationalizes value-based payment models in a cost-effective manner.

About the author

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

BOOK A DEMO

Pharma says they want greater competition within the industry and more incentives for pharmaceutical innovation; value-based purchasing agreements can provide both.

Value-based purchasing arrangements first appeared in the European markets in the 1990s, while U.S. healthcare markets did little with value-based contracts for pharmaceuticals until the 2000s. The high cost of new drugs coming to market, large annual increases in existing drug prices, and political pressure from lawmakers on payers to address the high cost of healthcare have encouraged stakeholders to make greater use of value-based purchasing arrangements.

It's easy to understand the appeal of value-based purchasing agreements for private and public payers. Value-based purchasing is one way both U.S. and European payers are using to reduce overall healthcare spending.

For drug companies, value-based purchasing puts an end to their unencumbered pricing strategy. But pharmaceutical manufacturers realize value-based purchasing agreements are the best way, and maybe the only way, to get their new, higher-priced products covered by payers and into the treatment plans of patients.

How do pharmaceutical companies determine their drug prices?

Pharmaceutical companies are in business to generate as much revenue as possible without jeopardizing patients’ access to their treatments. In the U.S., where drug pricing is unregulated, pharmaceutical manufacturers can charge any price they want for their products. In the EU, member states use regulations such as direct control over pricing, referencing the average price of a drug among all EU members to set a national price, or regulating the drug manufacturers’ profit.

When deciding on a new drug’s retail price, the manufacturer considers several areas of concern such as the drug’s competition, government-granted exclusivity, patents in force, and a drug’s clinical effectiveness and benefit to patient outcomes.

Pricing a drug incorrectly can have severe consequences for the manufacturer’s bottom line. Private and public payers in the U.S. have ways of restricting patients’ access to drugs that they consider overpriced. In European countries, drug manufacturers risk being fined by authorities for unfair prices and excessive price hikes.

Value-based purchasing promotes competition in the pharmaceutical market

In the U.S., there are economic policies and legal loopholes that manipulate competition in the drug industry. The Biden administration considers this one of the key problems to address to support drug pricing reform. The president’s Executive Order 14036, the Competition Executive Order, calls for increased transparency, innovation, and competition.

Even though manufacturers take advantage of U.S. government protections that create temporary monopolies for some drugs, the large industry trade group PhRMA has joined the call for reforms that fix the current distortions in the market that stifle competition.

Manufacturers producing new drugs with in-class competition from other manufacturers—such as generics, biosimilars, or new uses or combinations of older drugs—use the real-world evidence gathered from value-based purchasing agreements to demonstrate the greater clinical value of their treatments compared to their competitors’ products. Data that show a drug’s uniqueness and effectiveness may be used to justify a manufacturer’s higher-than-average price.

In addition, manufacturers hope aligning a drug’s price to its clinical value will shift payers’ focus away from approving treatments based solely on the lowest price to covering similar treatments that might be more expensive but produce better health outcomes for patients.

Value-based purchasing incentivizes research and development (R&D) of new drugs

The post-market clinical data gathered under value-based purchasing can facilitate data-driven drug development. For example, the drug company Novartis published a position paper in which they stated they use real-world evidence to support the development of customized interventions and to invest in research in areas of the highest value for patients.

In the U.S.market in recent years, the number of clinical trials and an overall increase in spending on brand-name prescription drugs suggest that pharmaceutical manufacturers have been concentrating their research and development dollars on new high-cost specialty drugs for complex, chronic, or rare conditions they expect will be the most profitable.

New treatments like these, where the drug’s value is yet to be established for payers, are good candidates for value-based purchasing arrangements. The successful implementation of value-based purchasing contracts—with better health outcomes for patients, cost controls for payers, and fair prices for manufacturers—encourages even more data-driven drug development.

The Lyfegen Platform

Value-based purchasing agreements are a complex but necessary part of doing business for pharmaceutical manufacturers. They provide a framework for assessing a drug’s value using shared outcome measures and provide real-world evidence of the benefits of their products for patient health outcomes. Manufacturers who are unwilling to enter into value-based purchasing contracts with payers may find themselves at a disadvantage in negotiations with other stakeholders.

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

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

Lyfegen is proud to announce that former New York State Medicaid Director, Jason Helgerson, has joined the Lyfegen Advisory Board.

Lyfegen, the provider of the leading value-based agreements platform for pharmacy, is proud to announce that Jason Helgerson has joined its advisory board. He brings his rich experience in value-based healthcare and more than 20 years of public service to this role. Jason’s forte is in creating effective value-based payment systems, facilitating successful cross-sector collaboration, and delivering transformative stakeholder engagement - all elements that underpin a successful value-based health and social care strategy.

“Seeing how Lyfegen uses advanced technology to solve the immense problem of drug pricing & affordability by enabling value-based agreements made my decision to join Lyfegen’s advisory board an easy one. I am excited about the value Lyfegen can deliver to healthcare payers, providers, and patients in the US and across the world,” says Jason.

In addition to serving as Lyfegen advisor, Jason is the managing director of Helgerson Solutions. He is a nationally recognized leader in value-based healthcare, healthcare & delivery system reform.

Most recently, he was New York State’s Medicaid Director, a role he held for over seven years, managing an annual budget in excess of $68 billion. During his time leading the Medicaid program in New York, Jason drove New York State’s Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment program (DSRIP). Over five years, the DSRIP program in New York created local, multi-sectoral partnerships with the aim of fundamentally restructuring the delivery of healthcare in New York & transitioning 80% of Medicaid payments into value-based arrangements. Jason became an internationally-recognized leader in public sector health care as part of his leadership of New York’s Medicaid Redesign Team, which helped reshape the program to lower costs – tackling a budget deficit – and improve health care quality.

Jason Helgerson earned a BA from American University in 1993, and his Master’s in Public Policy from University of Chicago in 1995. He also attended the London School of Economics’ Summer Graduate School Program in International Economics in 1994. He has worked in a variety of local and state governments, including the City of Milwakee, City of San Jose, CA, State of Wisconsin, and New York. He has served as the Medicaid Director for both the State of Wisconsin and the State of New York.

With vast experience in value-based healthcare, Jason will advance Lyfegen’s mission of accelerating value-based healthcare to improve patients’ lives in the USA.

About Lyfegen

Lyfegen is an independent, global software analytics company providing a value and outcome-based agreement platform for Health Insurances, Pharma, MedTech & Hospitals around the globe. The secure Lyfegen Platform identifies and operationalizes value-based payment models cost-effectively and at scale using a variety of real-world data and machine learning. With Lyfegen’s patent-pending platform, Health Insurances & Hospitals can implement and scale value-based healthcare, improving access to treatments, patient health outcomes and affordability.

Lyfegen is based in the USA & Switzerland and has been founded by individuals with decades of experience in healthcare, pharma & technology to enable the shift away from volume-based and fee-for-service healthcare to value-based healthcare.

More about Lyfegen: https://www.lyfegen.com

Related Links:

Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/lyfegenhealth

Contact Press:  press@lyfegen.com

READ THE OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE

BOOK A DEMO

Lyfegen is proud to announce that João Marques-Gomes has joined the company’s Advisory Board. João is a university professor, a scientific researcher, and a management consultant in health management.

He is the Chair of Nova University Lisbon’s institute for Value-Based Health Care (VBHC), and the professor of the semester course “VBHC” at the Nova School of Business & Economics and at the Nova Medical School.

His research has been repeatedly funded by FCT – Foundation for Science and Technology, the Portuguese public agency for scientific research. As a management consultant, João Marques-Gomes has worked for public and private hospitals in Europe and Latin America, the European Commission, the Portuguese Ministry of Health, the Portuguese Pharmaceutical Society, and for pharmaceutical companies that are among the world’s top 10 pharmaceutical companies in sales.

In the past, João worked with ICHOM – International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement, as part of the implementation team. He is currently the Vice-President of IBRAVS – Brazilian Institute for Value in Health. João’s actions have had an important impact on the Portuguese society.

João has co-led the Cascais Agreement movement, which gathers the 80+ major stakeholders that have publicly signed the agreement that establishes that by 2021 1/3+ of the Portuguese health care providers must have had an experience with VBHC.

Lyfegen makes it possible for innovation to always have an open door in any market in the world. Thanks to Lyfegen, millions of people will have access to innovative treatments and will enjoy much healthier lives because of this.

João Marques-Gomes

João Marques-Gomes has a PhD in economics from the University of Evora (Portugal), and an MBA from the FIA Business School (Brazil). Part of his PhD studies was done at the University College London (UK), and at the Toulouse School of Economics (France). João did his training in VBHC at ICHOM (UK), at the Harvard Business School, and at the Dell Medical School, UT Austin (USA).

With his vast experience in health economics and value-based healthcare, João will support Lyfegen to achieve its mission of accelerating value-based healthcare to improve the life of patients.

Join in from anywhere in the world for three days of incredibly interesting presentations and round-tables by industry experts all around the topic of pricing and market access in healthcare.

Only a week left to go! The incredibly exciting annual World Pricing, Evidence & Market Access Congress is taking place from the 23rd to the 25th of September virtually... giving attendees the opportunity to join from anywhere in the world! This is set to be the largest and most comprehensive yet, with over 1000 attendees and more than 230 speakers!

Lyfegen's Girisha Fernando and Nico Mros will be moderating a round-table “How do you include the patient perspective in an outcomes-based contract?” on the 23rd of September at 15:05 CET. Join us! Lyfegen has a digital booth so feel free to get in touch via the swapcard app, if you are already signed up.

See the full program

What is ISO 27001?

ISO 27001 is one of the most widely recognized and internationally accepted information security standards. ISO 27001 defines how an organization should manage and treat information more securely, including applicable security controls.

It requires a company to have an information security management system, which means having a documented process for managing sensitive company information, processes, and IT systems.



What this mean for Lyfegen?

To achieve the certification,  security compliance was validated by an independent audit firm after a rigorous process of demonstrating an ongoing and systematic approach to managing and protecting company and customer data.

Being a company that manages sensitive health-data points, it is of utmost importance to us to ensure the best tech processes and security mechanisms are in place.

At Lyfegen, we are committed to complying to the highest tech security standard, continuously improving our solutions & processes, as we move forward with the operationalisation of value-& data driven contracts for a fast & sustainable access to innovative therapies. In turn, this will benefit patients worldwide!

We are audited on yearly basis by an accredited third-party auditor to keep our ISO status valid.

Want to discover our solutions?

 

Discover Lyfevalue

Discover Lyfeapp

Lyfegen is building the leading contracting software solution to support value-based drug pricing arrangements. This mission requires a hands-on team to optimize all our processes. With Anca Marin joining our team as the new business analyst, we are set up for success.

We sat down with Anca to learn about her experience, her goals, and her aspirations.

Hello Anca, and welcome to Lyfegen! Please tell us a little about yourself: Where are you from, and what’s your educational and professional background?

Hello, my name is Anca. I am based in Bucharest, Romania. I graduated with a bachelor’s degree in accounting and later earned a master’s degree in business management. Before joining Lyfegen, I worked in finance for three and a half years in various industries, such banking, insurance, and ICT.

What excites you about being a business analyst?

The novelty – I believe it is a role where you never get bored as there is always a new situation, idea, or feature to build up, and it is exactly the challenge I want.

Why did you decide to join Lyfegen?

I find meaning and desire in making a change for the better. I also enjoy the work culture and the idea of being part of an innovative company while making a real impact.

What is something you want to learn or improve this year?

This is my first role as a business analyst. Therefore, this year, I want to focus on growing my knowledge and skills as a business analyst, as well as in software development and the healthcare industry.

How will your know-how help to improve our customers’ experience of the Lyfegen platform?

Given my previous roles, I would say that I was usually the one handling challenging and complex situations when dealing with customers. Through these experiences, I learned to find ways to deliver the best results for customers, and I will continue to do so. I also describe myself as being super detail-oriented – and details always make the difference.

Let’s get personal: What are your favorite things to do in your free time?

Besides my full-time job at Lyfegen, I am also a handball goalkeeper. I have been playing since I was 11 years old, and I usually go to two to three training sessions a week. However, I like sports in general, so if I am not on the handball court, I am probably playing other sports, like basketball or tennis.

I also like traveling and nature and activities away from the big cities, such as hiking, backpacking, and camping.

Is there anything else you are looking forward to outside of work this year?

Outside of work, my plans for this year are to get a motorcycle, take trips to the mountains, and make great memories!

We are proud to have you with us, Anca!