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.

Signs point to a greater role for indication-specific pricing in Medicare and Medicaid

Indication-specific pricing is a differential pricing method used by payers. Conceptually, it’s based on the idea that certain drugs with multiple indications have differential relative clinical benefit for each indication, or for each distinct patient subpopulation. The rationale behind indication-specific pricing is that the comparative clinical value of a drug can vary widely across indications, accordingly, so should the price if price and value are to align.

The figure below shows the difference between a uniform price – in this case, the price for indication A; green line – applied to all indications versus indication-based pricing.

Figure: Indication-specific pricing

The standard pricing model for pharmaceuticals constitutes a single price across all indications; in this instance, the price for indication A. It’s straightforward, as there is only one price. Besides, it’s the model stakeholders in the healthcare system have been accustomed to for decades. Moving to indication-specific pricing implies different prices for the four indications A, B, C, and D.

The most straightforward approach to indication-specific pricing by payers for a drug approved for, say, two different indications is to simply treat it as two different drugs. This would require two types of packaging, unique sets of National Drug Codes, for instance, for each of the packages, and for injectable drugs, two different Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) J codes.

Indication-specific pricing is appealing because it supports value-based healthcare by aligning price and value. But it’s not an easy task for both drug manufacturers and payers to set indication-specific prices, as this requires patient stratification, and ultimately anchoring of prices to certain measures of cost-effectiveness, such as the cost per Quality-Adjusted-Life-Year (QALY).

Thus far, the use of indication-specific pricing has been limited in the U.S. to several pilot programs. Specifically, the pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) Express Scripts employs indication-specific pricing in number of different classes of cancer drugs, and the PBM CVS Caremark does this for several auto-immune diseases.

According to the PBMs, indication-specific pricing can provide a justification for higher prices for secondary indications that provide greater clinical benefits. In the context of value being assessed, this may help address payer resistance to expanding coverage to include supplemental indications.

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 indication-specific pricing arrangements. The Lyfegen platform identifies and operationalizes value-based indication-specific models in a cost-effective manner.

Indication specific pricing could alter prices for the biologic Avastin (bevacizumab), for example, when used for cervical cancer and colon cancer, respectively, depending on the willingness to pay threshold, which in turn may be based on different cost per QALY estimates.

Also, there are differences in the comparative value of the cancer drug Herceptin (trastuzumab) when used in different indications (metastatic versus adjuvant HER-2 positive breast cancer). A possible solution to this problem is for Herceptin to have two prices, one for its metastatic indication, and another for its adjuvant indication.

When Novartis won its groundbreaking CAR-T approval, Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel) in 2018, both the drugmaker and U.S. policymakers at Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) touted performance-based and indication-specific pricing as ways to help finance the $475,000 therapy. Unfortunately, the CMS backed away from a plan to implement a value-based contract for Kymriah. This decision may be revisited, as the pipeline is filled with cell and gene therapies that have large upfront costs for CMS, which must somehow be managed.

Moreover, given the many value-based experiments state Medicaid agencies are currently involved in – from value-based formularies to subscription models for the purchase of hepatitis C medications – this could spur more use of indication-specific pricing in Medicaid.

New “best price” rules in Medicaid went into effect July 1, 2022. The reason for changes in best price rules is to induce more use of value-based contract arrangements, including indication-specific pricing. Newly established protocols allow for the reporting of multiple best prices.

Specifically, to facilitate the broad adoption of these types of contracts, the novel best price rule allows drug manufacturers to report a range of best prices to the extent they may be determined by varying discounts under value-based pricing arrangements, along with the regular best price under any non-value-based pricing arrangements.

Here, value-based pricing arrangements are outcomes-based contracts which vary rebates based on patient outcomes. This can be stratified by indication. In this context, lower discounts may be offered for patients with better-than-expected outcomes in certain indications, and higher discounts for poorer outcomes and lower-than-expected clinical effectiveness of a drug in one or more indications.

‍

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.

‍

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%.

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.

y 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 the 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.

‍

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.

Biosimilars are launching soon in several categories, including auto-immune disorders and ophthalmology

2023 will likely be a pivotal year for biosimilars, as Humira-referenced adalimumab products launch in the U.S. Worldwide, Humira has been a massive blockbuster for AbbVie, but also a drain on payer budgets. Once Humira-referenced biosimilars were marketed in Europe, they took off in many countries, as payers sought to reduce financial exposure with heavily discounted products. Steep discounts and tender offers, in which the best bid gets the lion’s share of the market, have helped boost uptake of biosimilars. Additionally, European payers have bought into the value proposition that biosimilars are cost-effective.

Besides auto-immune disorders, biosimilars are entering new therapeutic areas such as ophthalmology. Together with Samsung Bioepis, Biogen is launching Byooviz (ranibizumab) this month. Byooviz is a biosimilar referencing Lucentis. Approved by the FDA in September of last year, the drug will soon become the first ophthalmology biosimilar in the U.S. Byooviz’s approved indications include wet age-related macular degeneration, macular edema following retinal vein occlusion, and myopic choroidal neovascularization. Byooviz is being offered at a list price of $1,130 per single-use vial, which is a 40% discount off the wholesale acquisition cost of Roche’s originator, Lucentis. It’s expected that the price of Lucentis will also drop.

But, selling biosimilars like Byooviz to payers and clinics isn’t as simple as discounting the price. As with any new biosimilar, detailing Byooviz’s launch – demonstrating its value - will be an elaborate endeavor, which involves engaging doctors, payers, and patient advocacy groups to facilitate access and appropriate physician and patient support. Biogen, for instance, has said it will be educating ophthalmologists about the science and value of biosimilars, as well as the regulatory framework for its approval.

In the U.S., policymakers firmly believe that safe, effective, and lower-cost biosimilars must be made available to all who need them. However, biosimilars have sometimes been excluded from formularies owing to rebate schemes. In this context, higher-priced originator medications are sometimes preferred by some U.S. payers as rebates are larger for those products. Indeed, perverse financial incentives in the U.S. have been a limiting factor with respect to increasing adoption of biosimilars.

Nevertheless, with employers and patients demanding more pass-through of rebates and the role of cost-effectiveness and value-based pricing gradually becoming more important to payers, it’s expected that biosimilars will ascend in market share across all therapeutic categories where they are available.

Indeed, after a painfully slow start from 2015 to 2019, the U.S. has finally been experiencing a sustained uptick in the uptake of biosimilars in the past few years. Robust biosimilar penetration is now apparent across several therapeutic classes. In addition to the filgrastims and pegfilgrastims, there’s been erosion of the originator biologic market share in the trastuzumab, rituximab, and bevacizumab classes.

Biosimilar usage can be bolstered by value-based contracts in which financial incentives of key stakeholders – payers, drug manufacturers, and healthcare providers - are aligned. For example, payers can institute capitated contracts with healthcare providers which hold those who prescribe originator biologics and biosimilars accountable in part for the total cost of care. 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.

Undoubtedly, payers who are less reliant on rebate arrangements and therefore more cost- and value-conscious will be able to achieve a decrease in overall costs, as lower-priced biosimilars introduce market competition within therapeutic classes. In turn, this sparks steeper discounts across all drugs, including originator products.

What may further ameliorate the adoption of biosimilars Is the granting of therapeutic interchangeability designation to certain products. To illustrate, on July 28th, 2021, the FDA approved the first interchangeable biosimilar product, Semglee (long-acting insulin glargine), which implies that it can be automatically substituted at the pharmacy counter. This has ushered in more competition, specifically in the insulin glargine class. Furthermore, one of the six biosimilars referencing Humira (adalimumab), Cyltezo, is now approved as therapeutically interchangeable and may be automatically substituted for its reference product Humira. All six approved biosimilars, including Cyltezo, are slated to enter the U.S. market at different points in 2023.

When determining the cost-effectiveness and budgetary impact of biosimilars, payers must consider dynamics, such as the distinguishing between the initiation of treatment-naïve patients on a biosimilar and therapeutic switching practices, as well as price competition with alternative therapies, and the effect of originator companies who can introduce biobetters, or improvements – often in terms of formulation and dosing – on their original product. Lyfegen can assist with evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of biosimilars and biobetters.

Armed with information about biosimilar and originator biologic clinical efficacy, patient preference, and treatment costs - which Lyfegen can provide - payers will be positioned to make appropriate coverage decisions.

‍

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.

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.

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.

Related Post: Indication-specific pricing to make inroads in the U.S.

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.

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:

BOOK A DEMO TODAY

Barcelona, April 9, 2024

The Consortium of Health and Social Services of Catalonia has begun to work on value-based drug purchasing models by incorporating new tools for information management and negotiation with the pharmaceutical industry. This is an innovative project in collaboration with the health technology brand Lyfegen, which has developed the largest platform for managing public agreements in the world and a drug contracting simulator that allows for better deals by maximizing value in the purchasing process.

The goal of this innovative initiative is to increase the processes of value-based drug procurement, allowing CSC-affiliated health centers to focus on the evaluation of the clinical, economic, and social benefits that the drug can provide in relation to its cost.

For the design of these new procurement models, the "Lyfegen Agreements Library" database and the “Lyfegen Drug Contracting Simulator” were used, and work was done on the automation of administrative tasks and on improving interoperability among hospitals and health administrations. These tools allow the CSC to model various agreements and improve the drug management process in the central contracting office. The Health and Social Consortium of Catalonia thus becomes the first organization in Spain to incorporate these tools.

"From the Consortium, we are convinced that access to innovation and the sustainability of the health system relies on reaching innovative management agreements with pharmaceutical laboratories," says Josep Maria Guiu, director of the Pharmacy and Medication Area of the CSC. "The alliance with Lyfegen gives us a tool to work in this direction and to advance in the establishment of satisfactory agreements that facilitate access to innovation and contribute to the sustainability of the health system."

Girisha Fernando, CEO of Lyfegen, comments that "We are proud to help the Consortium lead access to innovation to improve patient care in Catalonia." "By using our advanced solutions, more than 100 health organizations throughout the region can research, model, and efficiently manage agreements, as well as value-based drug procurement," he adds.

“This allows professionals to really focus on what matters most: patient care.”

The collaboration with Lyfegen reflects the commitment of the Health and Social Consortium of Catalonia to value-based drug procurement and to access to pharmacological innovation, as well as the will to continue working for the implementation of solutions that ensure equity and sustainability of the health system.

The total contracting volume of the CSC, which acts as the purchasing center for the subsidized health sector of Catalonia, was 1.497 billion euros in 2023. Of this amount, 90% corresponded to medicines and 10% to sanitary products.

In recent years, the Consortium of Health and Social Services of Catalonia has incorporated social value aspects into the purchasing processes. For example, it has committed to ensuring that 100% of its drug and sanitary product tenders incorporate environmental clauses by 2024.

‍

About Lyfegen

Lyfegen is an independent provider of rebate management software designed for the healthcare industry. Lyfegen solutions are used by health insurances, governments, hospital payers, and pharmaceutical companies around the globe to dramatically reduce the administrative burden of managing complex drug pricing agreements and to optimize rebates and get better value from those agreements. Lyfegen maintains the world’s largest digital repository of innovative drug pricing models and public agreements and offers access to a robust drug pricing simulator designed to dynamically simulate complex drug pricing scenarios to understand full financial impact. Headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, the company was founded in 2018 and has a market presence in Europe, North America, and the Middle East. Learn more at Lyfegen.com.

About CONSORCI

The Consortium of Health and Social of Catalonia (CSC) is a public entity with a local and associative basis, founded in 1983, which has its origin in the municipal movement. The CSC, a reference to the sector and with a clear vocation for service, has as a mission: to promote excellent and sustainable health and social models to improve the quality of life of the people, offering services of high added value to its partners. CSC wants to be the main reference for knowledge and capacity for cooperation, influence and anticipation in the face of the new challenges of the health and social system. All CSC associates are public or private non-profit bodies. For more information, please visit https://www.consorci.org/el-csc/en_index

‍

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

EGK nutzt die Lyfegen-Plattform, um komplexe Preismodelle für die On- und Off-Label-Verwendung von mehr als 80 Medikamenten zu verwalten.

Basel, Schweiz - 29. November 2022 - Lyfegen, ein globales Healthtech-SaaS-Unternehmen, das den weltweiten Übergang von einer volumen- zu einer wertbasierten (value-based) Gesundheitsversorgung für hochpreisige Arzneimittel vorantreibt, gab heute bekannt, dass die EGK-Gesundheitskasse sich seinem Portfolio von Versicherungspartnern anschliesst, um alle ihre Verträge zur wertbasierten Preisgestaltung für hochpreisige Arzneimittel effizient, sicher und transparent auszuführen.

Die Schweiz, mit den vierthöchsten Arzneimittelausgaben pro Kopf, gab in den ersten neun Monaten des Jahres 2022 8 Milliarden Franken (8,1 Milliarden Euro) für Medikamente aus, die für bestimmte Krankheiten verschrieben wurden. Um die hohen Arzneimittelausgaben zu bekämpfen, hat die Schweiz in den letzten fünf Jahren eine wachsende Zahl von Rabattmodellen für den On- und Off-Label-Einsatz von Medikamenten eingeführt. Die Komplexität der Preismodelle führt jedoch dazu, dass die Versicherer Millionenbeträge für die Überwachung und Beurteilung der Preismodelle ausgeben, was zu entgangenen Rabatten in zwei- bis dreistelliger Millionenhöhe führt.

Mit der Software von Lyfegen kann die EGK mit minimalem Aufwand und maximaler Transparenz Rabatte aus 141 Medikamentenpreismodellen von 32 Herstellern identifizieren und einfordern. Dazu gehören Fälle von seltenen oder chronischen Krankheiten, vielversprechende Therapien, die ausserhalb der zugelassenen Indikation eingesetzt werden können, oder neue Medikamente, die in der Schweiz noch nicht erhältlich oder zugelassen sind. Die Plattform von Lyfegen adressiert die Bedürfnisse der Schweizer Krankenversicherer nach Kosteneffizienz und Digitalisierung. Sie hilft, bestehende Komplexitäten im System zu lösen und wirkt hohen Versicherungsprämien entgegen.

„Wir freuen uns, die EGK zu unterstützen und eine aktive Rolle bei der Bewältigung der zunehmenden Komplexität von Medikamentenpreismodellen zu übernehmen, um den nachhaltigen Zugang zu innovativen Medikamenten und Therapien in der Schweiz zu unterstützen“ sagte Nico Mros, CXO und Mitgründer von Lyfegen. „Indem wir uns darauf konzentrierten, die Implementierung der Plattform so einfach wie möglich zu gestalten und auf die EGK einzugehen, konnten wir schnell Ergebnisse präsentieren und die Zusammenarbeit erfolgreich starten!“

"Mit der Lyfegen-Plattform baut die EGK ihren Fokus auf Nachhaltigkeit und Effizienz zum Wohle ihrer Versicherten weiter aus", sagt Carolina Pirelli, Leiterin Leistungen und stv. Geschäftsleiterin bei der EGK. "Die immer grösser werdende Zahl von Preismodellen für Medikamente stellt die Versicherer vor Herausforderungen in Bezug auf Ressourcen und Prozesse. Mit der automatisierten Verarbeitung von Preismodellen über die Lyfegen-Plattform können wir unsere aktuellen Anforderungen perfekt erfüllen und sehen uns mit der Flexibilität, dem Fokus und dem Verständnis von Lyfegen in guten Händen."

Über Lyfegen

Lyfegen ist ein globales SaaS-Analyseunternehmen im Gesundheitsbereich, das eine Plattform für wert- und ergebnisbasierte Verträge für Medikamente, Therapien und Medizingeräte anbietet.

Krankenversicherungen, Pharma- und Medizintechnikunternehmen sowie Spitäler nutzen die sichere Plattform für Tausende von Preismodellen in der Schweiz, Europa, dem Nahen Osten und Nordamerika. Die Lyfegen Plattform unterstützt die Verhandlungen und ermöglicht die automatisierte Ausführung von wertbasierten Preismodellen durch die Analyse von real-world Daten durch intelligente, lernfähige Algorithmen.

Weltweit renommierte Krankenversicherungen, Spitäler, Pharma- und Medizintechnikunternehmen haben die zum Patent angemeldete Plattform von Lyfegen bereits implementiert, um wertbasierte Preismodelle für Medikamente, Therapien und Medizingeräte zu skalieren und damit den Zugang zu Behandlungen sowie Therapieergebnisse für Patienten zu verbessern.

Lyfegen wurde von Personen mit jahrzehntelanger Erfahrung in den Bereichen Gesundheitswesen, Pharma und Technologie gegründet und leistet Pionierarbeit bei der Umstellung von der volumenbasierten und kostenpflichtigen Gesundheitsversorgung auf die wertbasierten Gesundheitsversorgung. Weitere Informationen finden Sie unter www.lyfegen.com.

Über die EGK-Gesundheitskasse

Die EGK-Gesundheitskasse ist ein KMU-Krankenversicherer mit Sitz in Laufen (BL). Die EGK-Gruppe umfasst die EGK Grundversicherungen AG (Grundversicherung nach KVG), die EGK Privatversicherungen AG (Zusatzversicherung nach VVG) sowie die EGK Services AG (Verwaltung). Sie versichert schweizweit rund 100'000 Personen in der Grundversicherung, 80% von diesen verfügen auch über eine EGK-Zusatzversicherung.

Natürlichkeit und Nachhaltigkeit gehören zur Werthaltung der EGK. Sie gilt als Pionierin beim uneingeschränkten Zugang zu exzellenter Komplementärmedizin. Sie lanciert und unterstützt in der ganzen Schweiz Aktivitäten zur natürlichen Stärkung der Gesundheit.

Read on PR newswire in German

Read on PR newswire in English

In light of today’s anticipated press release and exclusive article with AXIOS, we would like to extend a heartfelt thank you to our investors, customers, and team for sharing our vision to transform the healthcare system, helping patients to receive the healthcare treatments they need. The closing of our oversubscribed series A, led by aMoon Fund with additional participation from APEX Ventures and others, marks an important milestone.

Skyrocketing drug prices–especially for high-cost specialty drugs like cell and gene therapies–are accelerating the demand for value-based drug pricing. 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 a value-based future.

With the $8 million in funding, we will expand our presence in Europe and the U.S. to increase drug affordability for more customers and, more importantly, more patients.

Together, we save lives.

Read the official Press Release

Read the Exclusive article with AXIOS

[caption id="attachment_3253" align="aligncenter" width="200"]

Girisha Fernando
CEO & Founder[/caption]

Antes de unirse a nosotros en Lyfegen, David adquirió una gran experiencia y conocimientos en la industria de la salud y las finanzas, mientras perfeccionaba sus habilidades como Ejecutivo de Ventas Globales. Su curiosidad por la naturaleza humana y su amor por la humanidad es lo que alimenta su pasión por marcar la diferencia allí donde más importa.

‍

Afincado en España y licenciado en Ingeniería Informática Con su amplia experiencia en la introducción de productos disruptivos en el mercado, ha llegado a comprender que es primordial destacar cómo las tareas diarias del usuario conectan con nuestra plataforma y guiar a través del proceso. Cuando se le pide que describa cómo ve su papel, David dice: "Todo el mundo busca algo. Mi trabajo consiste en entender qué es lo que realmente buscan". Cuándo le preguntamos qué es lo que más le gusta de su trabajo, respondió: "Bucear por debajo de las palabras y entender las necesidades de la gente,para luego conectar esas necesidades con las soluciones que Lyfegen puede aportar."

‍

¿Qué es lo que quiere emprender este año? Siendo un aprendiz permanente, David quiere profundizar en el ciclo completo de nuestro servicio y explorar tanto la gestión de proyectos como la parte técnica. Apasionado de la buena música, pasa su tiempo libre con amigos que disfrutan de los mismos intereses. Es un creyente en la humanidad y en los actos de bondad al azar, está deseando conocer gente nueva este año de todo el mundo y tener la oportunidad de conectar experiencias y trabajar en un entorno internacional.

‍

Girisha Fernando, Directora General de Lyfegen, está encantada de dar la bienvenida a David a nuestro equipo. 'Estamos encantados de tener a David Duro a bordo. Su inestimable pericia y amplia experiencia aportarán sin duda un inmenso valor al éxito de Lyfegen. Esto marca un hito importante en nuestros esfuerzos de expansión internacional, y estoy ansioso por anticipar las nuevas oportunidades que se avecinan'.

‍

Desde Lyfegen, damos una calurosa bienvenida a David y esperamos crecer juntos.

Before joining us at Lyfegen, David gained a wealth of experience and knowledge in the healthcare and finance industry while honing his skills as a Global Sales Executive. His curiosity of human nature and love for humanity is what fuels his passion to make a difference where it matters most.

‍

Based in Spain with a qualification in Computer Engineering, David is no stranger to bringing disruptive products to the market. With his extensive experience bringing disruptive products to the market, he has come to understand that it is paramount to highlight how our platform connects to the daily tasks of the user and prefers to guide them through the process. When asked to describe how he views his role, David said, “Everyoneis looking for something. My job is to understand what it is that you are really looking for”. When we asked what he likes the most about his job, he replied “diving below the words and understanding the needs of the people, then connecting those needs with the solutions that Lyfegen can provide.”

‍

What is something he wants to take up this year? Being a curious lifelong learner, David eventually wants to deep dive into the full cycle of our service and explore both the project management and the tech side. Passionate about good music, he spends his free time with friends who enjoy the same interests. While being a tremendous believer in humanity and random acts of kindness, he looks forward to connecting with new people this year from all around the world and having the opportunity to connect experiences and work in an international environment.

‍

Girisha Fernando, CEO of Lyfegen, is extremely excited to welcome David into our team. 'We are thrilled to have David Duro on board! His invaluable expertise and extensive experience will undoubtedly bring immense value to Lyfegen’s success. This marks a significant milestone in our international expansion efforts, and I am eagerly anticipating the new opportunities ahead.'

‍

From all of us at Lyfegen, we warmly welcome David and look forward to growing together!

We are delighted to welcome our new executive assistant, Olga Dragos to the Lyfegen team! Olga joined us after making her final decision to work only with an enterprise that is directly impacting the lives of many for the better.

‍

When we asked what fuels her purpose, she said, “The most exciting part of my profession is that I get to be key in streamlining processes that save time for our teams, which in turn helps get our product in front of more patients and increases our capacity to brainstorm new projects.”

‍

With a solid background spanning over more than fifteen years in Executive and Administrative Support, Olga is a highly experienced professional that has worked in the US market for several corporates and small businesses in the medical insurance and transportation industries.

‍

Originally from Belarus, Olga immigrated to the US in 1996 and further moved to Romania in 2021 where she is happily settled now with her husband and son. Being an avid traveler at heart with a passion for diverse cultures and their delicacies, Olga takes solace in both nature and outdoor activities where she’s been known to take scenic canoe rides down the river in early spring. While she has an adventurous spirit, family and cooking is her first love and creating her own recipes for them to enjoy while spending quality time together is a high priority.

‍

When we asked what’s next for this year outside of work, we were not surprised to discover her warm philanthropic nature has steered her on the path of finding a new organization where she can volunteer her time to make a difference.

‍

We give a very warm welcome to Olga and look forward to having her vibrant personality, and sound expertise to propel our team forward.

After graduating in Computer Science from Babeș-Bolyai University in Romania, Andrei co-founded a digital health start-up that was laser focused on assisting patients and clinicians alike, to reach better health outcomes. His keen interest in UX design and problem solving has been the driving force behind his success in creating and building meaningful experiences and solutions in the digital healthcare arena.  

However, his story doesn’t start there.  

Andrei’s first interactions with design started in his high school years, where he took part in numerous competitions within the digital solutions and education space – this being where he realized his true passion for design and creating solutions that would positively impact the lives of many.  

When we asked Andrei what excited him the most about joining Lyfegen as the new Senior Product Designer, his answer was clear cut – “I am allowed to be an active part in envisioning, designing and building meaningful solutions that can help users, which in turn helps patients and saves lives – this is what I find exciting and refreshing.

Joining Lyfegen has been a perfect synergy between Andrei’s personal views on digital healthcare and Lyfegen’s impactful approach in the sector – solving deep complex issues, while still remaining mindful and deeply empathetic towards its users and end goals. This is what fuels his motivation in contributing his valuable expertise in the process, while working alongside his incredible team.  

While in his spare time, Andrei has been known to catch up with his video games when time allows, play board games, watch his favorite science channels, read a good book, and of course spend quality time with his friends and family, when he’s not outdoors enjoying some nature.

‍

We warmly welcome Andrei to our team and look forward to revolutionizing the industry side-by-side.

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