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.

Basel, Switzerland / Boston, USA – December 11, 2024

‍

Lyfegen, a global leader in drug rebate management technology, today announced the successful close of its additional CHF 5 million Series A funding round. The round was led by TX Ventures, a leading European fintech investor, with additional participation from aMoon, a global health-tech venture capital firm, and other institutional investors. This funding represents a significant milestone for Lyfegen, enabling the company to accelerate its global expansion and innovation efforts, with a focus on extending its reach beyond Europe into new markets worldwide.

‍

Addressing Rising Drug Costs with Intelligent Drug Pricing and Rebate Solutions

‍

The healthcare industry faces increasing challenges with rising drug costs and the complexity of managing growing volumes of rebate agreements. For payers and pharmaceutical companies, manual processes often lead to inefficiencies, compliance risks, and operational delays. Lyfegen is transforming this process with its fully automated platform that ensures secure, real-time tracking, compliance, and operational efficiency at scale.

Today, 50+ leading healthcare organizations across 8 geographical markets rely on Lyfegen’s solutions to streamline 4'000+ rebate agreements while tracking over $1 billion in pharmaceutical revenue and managing over $0.5 billion in rebates annually. These solutions enable healthcare organizations to improve pricing strategies, accelerate access to modern treatments, and better manage rebate complexities.

Learn more about Retrospective Payment System

‍

Scaling Globally with a Leading Rebate Management Platform

‍

Already used by healthcare payers and pharmaceutical companies in Europe, North America, and the Middle East, Lyfegen’s platform is poised for broader global deployment. By automating rebate management, the platform enables healthcare organizations to simplify complex agreements, save time, reduce errors, and enhance financial performance.

‍

“The market for innovative and personalized treatments is expanding rapidly, but with that comes increasingly complex and costly pricing models,” says Girisha Fernando, CEO of Lyfegen. “Lyfegen’s automated solution simplifies this complexity, helping payers and pharmaceutical companies unlock the full potential of rebates while improving patient access to modern treatments. With this funding and our new partners, we’re ideally positioned to accelerate our growth and make a meaningful impact globally.”

Jens Schleuniger, Partner at TX Ventures, adds: “Lyfegen is at the forefront of innovation, offering payers and pharmaceutical companies a powerful solution to address the rising complexities of pharma rebates. We’re proud to lead this funding round and support Lyfegen’s mission to bring greater efficiency and cost savings to healthcare systems worldwide.”

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 the 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 TX Ventures

TX Ventures is one of Europe’s emerging leaders in early-stage fintech investing. The venture capital fund invests predominantly in B2B Fintech across Europe - preferably in seed to series A stage. 

For more information about Lyfegen’s solutions or to schedule an interview, please contact:
marketing@lyfegen.com 

‍

In an industry often characterized by incremental changes, Girisha Fernando, the CEO and founder of Lyfegen, is making leaps. We sat down with Fernando to discuss the recent landmark partnership between Lyfegen and Newfoundland and Labrador Health Services—a collaboration that heralds a significant shift in the Canadian healthcare landscape.

Your partnership with Newfoundland and Labrador Health Services is quite a milestone. Can you share with us what this means for the current state of rebate management in Newfoundland?

‍

Girisha Fernando (GF): Absolutely. This partnership is a transformative step for rebate management in Newfoundland. The current system, largely manual and complex, is ripe for innovation. With our digital platform, we're bringing a level of automation and accuracy that was previously unattainable. This means more efficient processing, less room for error, and a better allocation of resources, which is critical in healthcare.

‍

That’s quite an advancement. And how does this impact the management of drug products, especially in areas like oncology?

‍

GF: It’s a game-changer, especially for critical areas like oncology. Newfoundland and Labrador, as the first in Canada to use our platform, sets a precedent. The region, through the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance, has been managing complex product listing agreements for drugs, including those for oncology. These agreements are vital for making treatments affordable. Our platform simplifies this, managing the various terms of these agreements efficiently, which is crucial for timely and affordable access to treatments.

‍

It seems like a significant step forward for healthcare management. How does this align with the broader goals of Lyfegen?

‍

GF: This partnership aligns perfectly with our goal to make healthcare more accessible and efficient. Automating the rebate process in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially for critical treatments in oncology, directly contributes to the sustainability and accessibility of healthcare treatments.

‍

Looking to the future, what does this partnership mean for Lyfegen and healthcare systems globally?

‍

GF: This is just the beginning. We're looking to extend our platform to healthcare systems around the world. Our aim is to make this technology a standard in healthcare management, fostering more efficient, sustainable, and equitable healthcare systems globally.

‍

Read more about the partnership in the official press release.

‍

Basel, Switzerland, October 27, 2021

Lyfegen announces that Swiss health insurance Sympany is using the Lyfegen Platform to implement & execute complex drug pricing models. Sympany applies the Lyfegen Platform to execute and efficiently manage all value and data-driven pricing models. Sympany gains efficiency and transparency in managing pricing models with the Lyfegen Platform. It offers many pricing models, including pay-for-performance, combination therapy and indication-based models.

The Lyfegen Software Platform digitalises all pricing models and automates the management and execution of these agreements between health insurances and pharmaceutical companies. This is done using real-world data and machine learning enabled algorithms. With the Lyfegen Platform, Sympany is also creating the basis for sustainably handling the increasing number of value-based healthcare agreements for drugs and personalized Cell and Gene therapies. These new pricing models allow health insurances to better manage their financial risk by only paying for drugs and therapies that benefit patients.

"The Lyfegen Platform helps Sympany execute complex pricing models efficiently, securely and transparently. We are pleased to extend our pioneering role in the health insurance industry by working with Lyfegen. This is another step for Sympany to provide our customers with the best possible access to therapies in a sustainable way," says Nico Camuto, Head of Benefits at Sympany, about the use of the Lyfegen Platform.

Girisha Fernando, CEO of Lyfegen, says: "We are very proud to support Sympany in strengthening its focus on value creation, efficiency and transparency amidst the growing complexity of pricing models. It is clear that the trend is increasingly towards complex pay-for-performance arrangements. Ultimately, our goal is to help patients receive their much-needed treatments while helping health insurances better manage risk and cost."

The Lyfegen Platform aims to help patients access innovative medicines and treatments by enabling innovative drug pricing agreements. The Platform collects and analyzes real-time pricing data, allowing health insurances and pharmaceutical companies to obtain relevant information on drug benefits and related financial planning.

About Sympany

Sympany is the refreshingly different insurance company that offers tailored protection and unbureaucratic assistance. Sympany is active in the health and accident insurance business for private individuals and companies, as well as in the property and liability insurance business, and is headquartered in Basel. The group of companies under the umbrella of Sympany Holding AG comprises the insurance companies Vivao Sympany AG, Moove Sympany AG, Kolping Krankenkasse AG, and Sympany Versicherungen AG, as well as the service company Sympany Services AG.

In 2020, profit amounted to CHF 68.8 million, of which Sympany allocated CHF 27.5 million to the surplus fund for the benefit of its policyholders. Total premium volume amounted to CHF 1,058 million. With 575 employees, the company serves around 257,100 private customers, of which around 204,500 are basic insurance policyholders under the KVG. In the corporate customer business, Sympany offers loss of earnings and accident insurance.

More about Sympany: https://www.sympany.ch

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.

Contact Press: press@lyfegen.com

Contact Investors: investors@lyfegen.com

READ THE OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE

BOOK A DEMO

New York, NY - March 29, 2023 - Lyfegen, a global healthtech SaaS company driving the world’s transition from volume to value-based healthcare for high-cost drugs, announced at the World EPA Congress the launch of its latest solution: the Model & Agreement Library. The purpose of the library is to help payers and pharma negotiate better drug prices while providing an in-depth view on current international drug pricing models and value-based agreements. The database library serves as the basis for successful drug pricing negotiations, resulting in accelerated access and drug prices better aligned to their value for the patient.

The shift towards value-based healthcare, rather than volume-based, has been steadily increasing over the years. This evolution has further reinforced Lyfegen's mission to remain at the forefront of analytics and digital automated solutions for the healthcare sector. Indoing so, Lyfegen’s solutions help to accelerate access and increase affordability of healthcare treatments.

“Because of rising healthcare costs and the increase of medical innovations, the thirst for knowledge and need for value-based healthcare capabilities has surged among healthcare payers, and pharma companies across the world”, said Girisha Fernando, CEO of Lyfegen. “That is why we are so excited about launching the world’s largest database of real-world value-based agreements. It gives payers, and pharma a unique insight into how to structure value-based agreements.”

‍

The Lyfegen Model & Agreement Library was developed as an accelerated negotiation resource for both manufacturers and payers – allowing them to save on time, money; and for the first time – an opportunity to learn at their own pace without incurring large research projects or hiring expensive external experts. Users of the library are now enabled to make informed decisions in determining the most suitable drug pricing models and agreements for their products.

‍

The database holds over 2'500+ public value-based agreements and 18+ drug pricing models – spanning across 550 drugs,35 disease areas and 150 pharma companies. Its search capabilities are spread across product, country, drug manufacturer and payer – with all the knowledge, insights, current pricing and reimbursement activities shown in near real-timeacross the industry.

‍

“Just an academic taxonomy of models is intellectually exciting but it's not really helping your typical customer”, said Jens Grüger, Director and Partner at Boston Consulting Group (BCG). “The Lyfegen Platform goes several steps further. Payers and pharma have a problem and they want a solution. The Lyfegen Model & Agreement Library is practical. It offers case examples.”

‍

Looking for a Pharmaceutical Healthcare Solution?
Get personalized advice and take the next step in optimizing your healthcare strategy with innovative solutions designed for the pharmaceutical industry.

‍

The Model & Agreement Library lets the user see the specifics of agreements reached between manufacturers and payers, including which disease areas and drug/device innovations were targeted. This market-leading database allows for one-to-one comparisons of agreements while heightening increased leverage during the negotiations process.

‍

“I like having a palette of contracts that fall under different domains, like disease state, the way the drug is administered, or available evidence. There are different ways to make a contract attractive to us, to pharma, and to our physicians”, said Chester Good, Senior Medical Director Center for Value Based Pharmacy Initiatives at UPMC Health Plan.

‍

This resource represents a breakthrough in the healthcare industry that facilitates the sharing of knowledge – a strong point of discussion that is becoming increasingly more important. Lyfegen is currently providing a limited time opportunity for industry professionals who are interested to try out the Model & Agreement Library with a complimentary 7-day trial.

‍

Learn more and start your free trial now

Basel, Switzerland, August 3rd, 2021

Lyfegen announces that its value-based healthcare contracting platform has been implemented together with Johnson & Johnson Medical Devices Companies Switzerland (Johnson & Johnson) and a leading Swiss Hospital.  

Through this new value-based healthcare approach, Lyfegen and its partners drive the shift towards what matters most to patients: improved patient health outcomes and more efficient use of financial and human resources, enabling a sustainable post-COVID-19 healthcare environment.  

The shift towards a value-based healthcare in Switzerland and globally can only be achieved through the support of innovative technologies. Lyfegen’s platform is a key enabler for this transition. The platform digitalises and automates the execution of value-based healthcare agreements, paving the way for the resource-efficient scaling of such novel agreements.   

“COVID-19 has shown us the urgent need for a more sustainable healthcare system. With the implementation of value-based healthcare agreements on the Lyfegen platform, we are extremely proud to help Johnson & Johnson and hospitals to accelerate the transition to value-based healthcare and improve patient health outcomes at reduced cost.” says Lyfegen’s CEO, Girisha Fernando.

Lyfegen's compliant, secure and patent-protected value-based healthcare contracting platform automates the collection and analysis of patient-level data. Users receive transparency on actionable health outcomes and agreement performance. Lyfegen’s contribution to this partnership is a blueprint for the scaling of value-based healthcare models across hospitals, health insurances, medical device & pharma companies globally. The partnership marks another important milestone for Lyfegen, as the company continues to grow and has recently opened its next investment round.  

READ THE OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE

BOOK A DEMO

Lyfegen is proud to announce that Professor Jens Grueger, PhD, has joined the company´s Advisory Board. Jens is the former Head of Global Access at F. Hoffmann-La Roche and has led country, regional, and global health economics and outcomes research, pricing, and market access organizations for SmithKline Beecham, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche.

He is a healthtech pioneer, founding his first digital disease management start-up in 1997, has been a long-time scientific reviewer for Value in Health and is the President Elect at ISPOR, the leading professional society for health economics and outcomes research. Throughout his various roles he has been promoting value-based pricing models across healthcare systems. Jens holds a PhD in Mathematical Statistics from the Technical University of Dortmund and is Affiliate Professor at the CHOICE Institute at University of Washington School of Pharmacy in Seattle, USA.

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

Lyfegen is excited to announce that co-founder Nico Mros is taking on a new role as Chief Customer Experience Officer (CXO). Until recently, Nico held the position of Chief Operating Officer (COO) of Lyfegen. Nico gives first-hand insights on what this shift means for him and Lyfegen.

The choice to transition into this new and exciting role is a logical one as Lyfegen continues to evolve and center all decisions and platform optimizations around the customers and patients needs.

With more than 8 years of experience in healthcare, Nico is a value-based healthcare leader with a strong skill set in project and change management. He is and stays responsible for customer experience and success at Lyfegen and leads the digitization projects for value-based agreements and real-world data insights of Lyfegen’s platform. This change helps to advance Lyfegen’s mission which is to create the most disruptive health tech company by driving the world’s transition to value-based and data-driven healthcare.

What does Nico have to say about his new title and the reasons for the change? We asked our new CXO to share his thoughts with us:

“At Lyfegen, we lived customer centricity since the beginning. This change in title comes natural and underlines for everyone what our existing customers tell us regularly – they feel understood, motivated and purpose-driven when working with us.” Nico says. “As a Co-Founder of Lyfegen I gladly accept this new title, letting go of my previous title as COO which, I honestly never liked. The choice to change this title feels obvious and necessary at the same time. I would say – just right. “

Furthermore Nico sees three main reasons for the renaming of the position which are:

1. The happiness of the customers at Lyfegen is of utmost importance, it is even a key factor for success at Lyfegen. Hence, Lyfegen wants to establish a point of view that focuses unconditionally on customer happiness, allowing to establish trusted and long-lasting relationships with clear point of contacts.

2. Besides acting directly with the customers, a customer-first environment within Lyfegen is crucial. Embedding the customer perspective in every decision, beginning with product design and ending with company strategy, allows Lyfegen to be the customer-centered company we want to be.

3. Keep it simple and understandable. While a COO can have many focuses, the Customer Experience Officer has just ONE: the customer's best possible experience and success.

Further Nico adds: “It is my firm belief that helping customers to gain success and delivering superior experience in every point of contact can be a major competitive advantage, even a unique selling point. As CXO I can guarantee this kind of philosophy from the product to personal interactions. In combination with innovative technology, this is the key to sustainable success.”

Are you ready to become a happy customer?

Book a demo

Our CEO, Girisha Fernando, gives first-hand insights to what it means to be a “Mindful Leader” and how the COVID19 pandemic has impacted his leadership style.

Admit it, you clicked on this blogpost because the question itself raises endless questions. What is mindful leadership? Is it really possible to be a mindful leader in a high-paced (stressful and sleepless) startup environment? Now add the physiological stress of a pandemic to the equation.

Recently I came across one of the live lectures of Simon Sinek (if you don’t know him: google him), focusing on the topic of “mindful meditation for focused leadership”. I was pleasantly surprised to see that mindfulness and mindful leadership is gaining well-deserved attention in the workplace. Before I dive into how I live by this leadership style at Lyfegen, let’s quickly dive into what it means:

What is Mindful Leadership (without writing a Wikipedia essay)?

Mindful leadership is leading while being aware in the present, focusing (in our case) on the road to success rather than success itself, all while interacting humbly within the team and with customers.

When confronted with challenges, a mindful leader will focus on action rather than control, remaining as agile and calm as possible. After all, you cannot always control the output but can influence how the team gets to it.

Example: It unexpectedly starts raining. A controlling leader will focus on the unforeseen rain and how the team failed to get sunshine (despite it not having necessarily been in their power), micromanaging every consequent step.

A mindful leader will stay calm, gearing up on raincoats & boots for his team, enabling and helping them to adapt their strategy in order to reach sunshine.

While this is a rather simplistic way of looking at mindful leadership, you get the overall idea and how this encourages a high confidence, creative, agile, and cooperative environment.

Mindful Leadership at Lyfegen

I am by no means an expert in mindful leadership and have made my share of mistakes. My Buddhist family background has taught me a lot about mindfulness, incorporating meditation into my daily routine.

However, one would think that practicing mindful leadership is harder in a high-paced start-up environment. I disagree: it is exactly in such an environment that, despite the 14+ hour workdays, one needs to stay present. Focus on the now and continuously fine-tune how to “reach the sunshine”, learning from mistakes on the way.

When the COVID-19 pandemic hit Switzerland hard in March, our team was faced with various challenges in terms of business and speed of implementation. However, team-work was not one of them and for that I greatly attribute this leadership style.

We took everyday as it came and continued, even digitally, to work together like an orchestra in perfect harmony. When comparing to the analogy above, COVID-19 was a true thunderstorm and at the same time, it gave light to a rainbow of opportunities.

My 5 key takeaways for becoming a more mindful leader:

- Focus on the now: optimize how your team works together. The goal will follow as a direct result.

- Focus on the essential: if everything is a priority then nothing is a priority. As a leader, make sure everyone is working towards the same milestones along the road rather than mainly focusing on the goal.

- Always remain humble: treat others the way you expect them to treat you (unfortunately a lot of people in other companies know this but don’t live by it).

- Never be afraid to fail. Let go of fear to unlock maximum potential.

- Always take a moment, as a leader, for self-reflection & calm. At Lyfegen, we have a little room in our office with some bean-bags where anyone can retreat and meditate during the day. If you don’t find me at my desk, this is where you’ll find me.

To build the best software ever, you also need the best team ever. We are meticulous in our selection and delighted to announce that we have found a gem for our junior quality engineer position: Alina Bratu has joined Lyfegen to improve the quality and user experience of our platform. We sat down with Alina to learn about her experience, her goals, and her aspirations.

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

Hi! I grew up in the city of Buzau in Romania and currently live in Bucharest. In college, I studied public administration and later decided to pursue a career in analytics. With the recommendation of friends, I decided to move towards software testing – which is the best decision I’ve made!

What excites you about being a junior quality engineer?

I like to view software testing as the work of a detective who follows clues that eventually help them to solve a case. It is a challenging and ever-changing line of work, and the best thing about it is that it truly impacts the delivery of quality products in a tech-driven world.

Why did you decide to join Lyfegen?

The company’s mission to make healthcare more accessible resonated with me, and I was really excited about the opportunity to work on a project that has the potential to impact the world. Working in a start-up environment with such a motivated and talented team is an amazing chance for me as a junior QA to develop my career while applying the knowledge I gained in the past year to something new and meaningful.

What do you want to learn or improve on this year?

My main goal this year is to learn more about the healthcare industry while also expanding my QA knowledge and expertise.

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

As a QA engineer, I am responsible for tracking down any defects that might affect the users’ interaction with the platform. As I enjoy doing this ‘detective work’ and challenging the software in different ways, together with the developers, I can ensure that the user experience will be pleasant and the platform will look and act accordingly.

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

In my free time, I enjoy reading fiction and self-development books and traveling as these activities help me to gain a new perspective and relax. When I’m not engaging in these hobbies, I enjoy cooking, watching movies, and playing board games with my friends.

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

I want to achieve balance and start enjoying and practicing my hobbies more. I am also planning to dust off my driving skills as I’ve postponed this for quite some time!

We are super happy to have you with us, Alina!

MEET THE LYFEGEN TEAM

Nico Mros, Lyfegen’s COO, explains why Lyfegen is a firm believer in the UN Sustainable Development Goals and how the company works towards Goal # 3: Good Health & Well Being.

Chances are that since the pandemic hit, you have at least heard of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. But what do these mean and how does a company like Lyfegen incorporate these in their business?

The Basics

The 17 goals were set in 2015 by the United Nations General Assembly with the intention of reaching these by 2030. The interlinked goals are a “blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all. They address the global challenges we face, including poverty, inequality, climate change, environmental degradation, peace and justice.” Each of the 17 goals outlines even more specific targets, which are constantly monitored and discussed between countries.

Lyfegen & Sustainable Development Goal #3: Good Health & Well being

Ensuring healthy lives for all and promoting well being is an essential goal, even more so since the pandemic affected millions worldwide. That said, this goal aims at improving the health of millions of people, increasing their life expectancy and reducing child and maternal mortality. In addition, it addresses persistent and emerging health issues, focusing on providing more efficient funding of health systems. This in turn, enabling millions of people worldwide to have more widespread access to the medication they need.

Specifically, Sustainable Development Goal #3 outlines the following target:

“3.8 Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all.”

Sounds familiar? Lyfegen’s mission is to help patients to access innovative therapies by driving value-based healthcare. In other words: Doing what’s right for patients!

The pay-for-performance model, which Lyfegen enables through their value-based contracting platform, allows for more people worldwide to have access to innovative and often expensive medication. This directly addressing the UN’s goal to “provide more efficient funding of health systems” and have more “widespread access to medication”.

With some of the leading manufacturers, payers, and care providers already using Lyfegen’s solutions, a clear step towards supporting the UN Sustainable Development Goals is taken. We are proud to be a part of this journey towards a better future!

DISCOVER LYFEVALUE