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.

Lyfegen HealthTech AG announced today that it has raised CHF 2 million of additional capital, bringing its total funding to CHF 3 million. Read the full press release.

BASEL, Switzerland, Sept. 1, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --

- Investors back Lyfegen's mission to make innovative healthcare therapies more accessible and affordable

- Funding secures market-leading position prior to Series A opening in 2021

Lyfegen HealthTech AG, a Swiss health technology company, announced today that it has raised CHF 2 million of additional capital, bringing its total funding to CHF 3 million. The additional funding was completed by private investors and the innovation program of one of Switzerland's largest banks.

Lyfegen has developed a ground-breaking software solution to accelerate value-based healthcare contracting, pioneering in a global market that could reach USD 400 billion by 2024, according to the latest estimates by research firm MarketsandMarkets™. Some of the world's 10-largest pharmaceutical and medical technologies companies are already employing Lyfegen's platform in strategic markets in Europe and South America.

Girisha Fernando, Chief Executive Office and co-founder, said: "Increasingly, healthcare systems around the world are transitioning from fee-for-service payment schemes to value-based contracting. Our solutions support the shift towards sustainable payment models that help ensure patients get the treatments they need at prices they can afford, while healthcare companies make an adequate return on their investment. We are proud to have strong partners and investors on board to support us in this challenging and rewarding mission."

The new funding, combined with the seed capital raised in April 2019 and the founders' contributions, secures the development of Lyfegen's proprietary technology as it continues to roll out its value-based contracting solution in the U.S. as well as additional European and Latin American markets in the areas of oncology, rare diseases and medical devices.

Michel Mohler, Chief Financial Officer and co-founder, added: "We continue delivering on our ambitious goals prior to opening our Series A funding in 2021. This latest additional funding confirms the growing interest of international investors in innovative healthcare technology built for a data-driven world. The funds will be used to further strengthen our leading market position as we prepare for a strong Series A funding round."

About Lyfegen

Lyfegen HealthTech AG is a Swiss healthcare technology company that is pioneering digital value-based healthcare contracting. Lyfegen's patent-pending, ground-breaking software analyses complex healthcare data sets in order to help patients access innovative therapies that focus on the healthcare outcomes that matter most to them. Lyfegen's solutions collect the patient's specific medical profile whilst ensuring the strictest data privacy protocols. Lyfegen's founders Girisha Fernando, Michel Mohler, Nico Mros, and Leon Rebolledo have combined their expertise in life sciences and financial services to create a holistic solution that enables life sciences companies, healthcare payers and healthcare providers to develop and roll out digital value-based healthcare, a market that is set to grow to USD 400 billion by 2024.

Read the official Press Release

EGK uses the Lyfegen Platform to handle complex pricing models of on and off-label usage of more than 80 drugs

Basel, Switzerland - November 29, 2022 - Lyfegen, a global healthtech SaaS company driving the world’s transition from volume to value-based healthcare for high-cost drugs, announced today that EGK-Gesundheitskasse is joining its portfolio of insurer partners to execute all of their value-based pricing contracts for high-cost drugs efficiently, securely, and transparently.

Switzerland, with the fourth-highest pharmaceutical spending per capita, spent CHF 8 Billion (8.1 billion euro) on drugs prescribed for specific diseases in the first nine months of 2022. In an effort to combat the high drug spending, Switzerland has implemented an increasing number of discount models for on and off-label drug usage over the last five years. While intending to ensure accessibility to patients at sustainable prices, the complexity of the price models leads to millions spent by insurers to monitor and adjudicate the price models, resulting in an estimated CHF two- to three-digit million range of missed rebates.

Lyfegen's software enables EGK to identify and claim rebates from 141 drug price models with 32 manufacturers, with minimal effort and maximum transparency. This includes cases of rare or chronic illnesses, promising therapies that may be used outside the approved indication, or new drugs not yet available or approved in Switzerland. Lyfegen's platform addresses the needs of Swiss health insurers for cost efficiency and digitalization, helps solve existing complexities in the system, and does its utmost to counteract high insurance premiums.

"We are delighted to support EGK and take an active role in addressing the growing complexity of drug pricing models to support sustainable access to innovative drugs and therapies in Switzerland,” said Nico Mros, CXO and Co-Founder of Lyfegen. “By focusing on making the implementation of the platform as easy as possible and being responsive to EGK, we were able to quickly present results and kickoff the collaboration to a successful start!"

“With the Lyfegen Platform, EGK is further expanding its focus on sustainability and efficiency for the benefit of our policyholders”, said Carolina Pirelli, Head of Benefits and Deputy CEO at EGK. “The ever-increasing number of pricing models for medications poses challenges for insurance companies in terms of resources and processes. With the automated processing of pricing models through the Lyfegen Platform, we are able to perfectly meet our current needs and with Lyfegen's flexibility, focus and understanding, we see ourselves in good hands.”

About Lyfegen

Lyfegen is a global healthtech SaaS analytics company providing a value-based agreement platform for drugs, therapies and devices. Health insurances, pharma, medtech companies & hospitals use the secure platform for thousands of payment models throughout Switzerland, Europe, the Middle East and North America. The Lyfegen Platform supports the negotiation and automated execution of value-based payment models cost-effectively and at scale using real-world data and machine learning. Globally renowned health insurances, hospitals, pharma & medtech companies have already implemented Lyfegen’s patent-pending platform to scale value-based payment models for drugs, therapies and devices, improving access to treatments and patient outcomes.

Lyfegen was founded by individuals with decades of experience in healthcare, pharma and technology, pioneering the shift away from volume-based and fee-for-service healthcare to value-based healthcare. For more information, visit www.lyfegen.com.

About EGK-Gesundheitskasse

EGK-Gesundheitskasse is an SME health insurer based in Laufen (BL), Switzerland. The EGK Group comprises EGK Grundversicherungen AG (basic insurance in accordance with KVG), EGK Privatversicherungen AG (supplementary insurance in accordance with VVG) and EGK Services AG (administration). It insures around 100,000 people in basic insurance throughout Switzerland, 80% of them also have EGK supplementary insurance.

Naturalness and sustainability are part of EGK's values. It is considered a pioneer in providing unrestricted access to excellent complementary medicine. It launches and supports activities throughout Switzerland to strengthen health in a natural way.

Read on PR newswire in English

Read on PR newswire in German

Lyfegen’s value-based contracting software is used by healthcare payers and leading pharma companies, including Novartis, Roche, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) and Johnson & Johnson

New York, NY - September 20, 2022 - Lyfegen, a global healthtech SaaS company driving the world’s transition from volume to value-based healthcare for high-cost drugs, today announced an oversubscribed $8 million Series A financing round led by aMoon, with additional participation from APEX Ventures and others.

Currently, less than 2% of the health insurance population requiring specialty drugs is responsible for 51% of drug spending. The cost of specialty drugs in the US is spiraling out of control, increasing 12% from 2020 to 2021 alone, with no sign of slowing down due to the increase of cell and gene therapies expected to come to market. As a result, value-based contracting is becoming a more viable alternative for healthcare payers to only pay for drugs that actually work.

By 2025, total net spending on medicine in the US is expected to reach up to $400B. Additionally, new drugs regularly enter the market, but when pharmaceutical companies fail to agree on commercial terms with payers, patients are at risk of being denied access to life saving therapies. Lyfegen’s platform helps regulators, pharma companies and payers more easily adopt value-based payment models by digitizing the end-to-end process of data collection, anonymization and contract negotiations for all parties to agree upon drug pricing and reimbursement.

“We are excited to be announcing this funding round and to have this vote of confidence from aMoon, APEX and our other investors who understand the shift in healthcare that we are experiencing, and are supporting our efforts to expand the Lyfegen platform,” said Girisha Fernando, CEO and founder of Lyfegen. “We currently work with leading government payers, health insurance companies in Europe, the US and the Middle East, and some of the world’s largest pharma companies. Our plan now is to further expand our presence in the US, partnering with both private and public healthcare insurance companies. The move away from volume-based healthcare has never been more needed, and we are happy to play an important role in the shift to value-based contracting.”

“Lyfegen is addressing a significant market need in an industry that is changing dramatically and rapidly, and we are thrilled to help validate their efforts through our investment,” said Moshic Mor, General Partner at aMoon, and former Partner at Greylock and Greylock Israel. “During a time of healthcare budget pressures and recessions, the world needs Lyfegen’s solution now more than ever. We look forward to seeing the company, led by an incredible executive team, continue to enhance access to new drugs as they drive value-based healthcare to become increasingly mainstream.”

About Lyfegen

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

Lyfegen is based in the USA & Switzerland, and was founded by individuals with decades of experience in healthcare, pharma and technology to enable the shift away from volume-based and fee-for-service healthcare to value-based healthcare. For more information, visit www.lyfegen.com.

Media Contact

Yael Hart

GK for Lyfegen

yael@gkpr.com

Read the Exclusive article with AXIOS

Read the Press Release on PR Newswire

The whitepaper is a joint initiative to share with healthcare stakeholders some of Lyfegen and KPMG’s expertise and experience in the development and implementation of value and data-driven agreements in an evolving healthcare environment.

Official Communication by KPMG on 26.10.2020

KPMG addresses the most pressing challenges the healthcare sector is facing today and in the future. Society’s desire to obtain value from the wider healthcare system is not new, however recent experience shows that there is a need to rethink and move healthcare into a new age.

Two current megatrends are: 1) the redesign of pricing for health solutions, and 2) the value of data and the importance of patient access. It is important to address both elements within the Life Sciences ecosystem, including how to innovate, how to develop successful digitalization strategies, and how to get the most out of data.

How outcome-based contracts benefit healthcare

The pricing of services and products based on outcomes or value created is another intrinsic element of the future of healthcare. Rising healthcare costs impact patient budgets and hinder access to treatments. Incentivizing positive outcomes can only benefit patients, while payers gain confidence that they are only reimbursing effective treatments. Manufacturers and providers that buy into the outcome-based model are taking an important step towards making their business more sustainable while contributing to the wider interest of the healthcare ecosystem.

One of the key issues has always been defining the factors that represent value and deciding how to measure them. To give an example, how do you measure if a patient is symptom-free and how long should the observation period last? How is the impact on those caring for an individual considered and how is the societal or economic impact assessed, e.g., can the individual go back to pursuing a career? These questions are key in any reimbursement of pricing arrangements.

Helping the healthcare community

Teaming up with Lyfegen, a healthtech company facilitating access to innovative therapies, KPMG recently published a joint whitepaper (see link below) on the application of outcome-based contracting. Girisha Fernando (CEO and Founder of Lyfegen HealthTech AG) and Martin Rohrbach (Head of Life Sciences for KPMG Switzerland) discuss how this approach can deliver value for healthcare payers, providers and patients.

The whitepaper is a joint initiative to share with healthcare stakeholders some of Lyfegen and KPMG’s expertise and experience in the development and implementation of value and data-driven agreements in an evolving healthcare environment. The combination of knowledge, reach, and technology specific to value-based healthcare, together with proven practical experience, brings unique insights into value and data-driven pricing agreements for healthcare stakeholders. The whitepaper focuses on why outcome-based contracting can address drug access and reimbursement challenges, and how such contracts can be enabled by innovative technology. There are some clear takeaways, serving as building blocks and opportunities to engage in outcome-based contracting for the benefit of healthcare systems.

READ THE WHITEPAPER

Basel, Switzerland | April 17th, 2019 – Lyfegen HealthTech AG successfully closes its seed financing round, raising a total of CHF 750‘000. The funding was led by Swiss private investors. The funds will be used to further build Lyfegen’s value-based payments platform Lyfevalue and conduct further pilots with partners in the US, Africa, and the EU, including the UK.

Lyfegen is a healthcare technology company that has developed a ground-breaking solution to accelerate value-based healthcare, entering a market set to grow to USD 390.7 billion by 2024 according to latest market research. Its platform, Lyfevalue, collects, analyses & reconciles disparate healthcare data for the purpose of automating value-based healthcare contracting. The platform enables life sciences companies, national and private healthcare payers and healthcare providers to operationalise value-based healthcare strategies whilst benefiting from a single holistic solution for their value-based healthcare operations, visit checklistmaids.com. In addition, the platform allows for personalised healthcare by enabling patient level pricing, fostering accelerated and facilitated access to innovative treatments for patients.

“Enabling the shift to sustainable healthcare is a huge challenge, giving us at Lyfegen great purpose and we are honoured to work with individuals that truly care about making a difference for patients around the world,” said Girisha Fernando, Lyfegen’s CEO & Founder.

Join in from anywhere in the world for two hours of incredibly interesting presentations by industry experts all around the topic of value-based healthcare.

At this DayOne Experts event, organized in close collaboration with Deloitte, industry experts will give an overview of where the pay-for-performance discussion in healthcare stands; possible solutions; and show how value-based healthcare could, should, and will impact the industry.

During the webinar, which will include deep dive sessions, we will seek answers to some of the most pressing questions: “How to define the value of a health outcome; how to capture it? Check out san diego boudoir photographer. In which areas of intervention is the value-based healthcare approach feasible; where would it be desirable? To what extent will value-based healthcare create new opportunities and accelerate innovation?”

See the full program & sign-up

To guarantee our users happiness when working with our software, we are welcoming a brand-new quality specialist at Lyfegen: Liubov Buzila has joined the team and will keep an eagle eye on our platform to ensure everything runs like clockwork.

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

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

I’m Ukrainian, but I moved to Romania two years ago and currently live in the city of Iași. I have a bachelor’s degree in applied linguistic, and my first job as a QA engineer was five years ago during my fourth year at university. I have worked in this field ever since.

What excites you about being a QA engineer?

Being a QA engineer is always challenging, and that’s what I love about it. Every day I deal with a lot of things that force me to think outside of the box. A tester is not only a person who has to find problems in the system, but also a person who takes responsibility for the system’s quality; this is what makes me super excited about my work – I enjoy improving our software for the better.

Why did you decide to join Lyfegen?

I am always striving to learn something new, and Lyfegen’s startup spirit is a great fit for that. I have tested products in different fields, but I have never worked in the healthcare industry before. Personally, I think it’s a great opportunity to see how the system works from a new perspective and to gain new experience.

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

QA is a field where you are constantly learning something new, starting with technologies used in the product and ending by gaining new soft skills as part of an amazing team. The healthcare industry is new territory for me; I’m looking forward to exploring it and gaining expertise.

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

My main goal is to improve the quality of the Lyfegen platform and deliver a highly reliable and convenient product to our customers. The rule is very simple: less bugs, happier customers!

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

I love to cook! Whenever I get any free time, I find new recipes and try to impress my family. I also like listening to music. Music is the thing that helps me to relax and forget about my troubles. And, of course, I like travelling – I have been to 20 countries already, and I look forward to exploring more.

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

Nothing specific, just enjoying my free time and travelling.

We are happy to have you with us, Liubov!

MEET THE LYFEGEN TEAM

Last week Lyfegen announced exciting news! Out of hundreds of start-ups, Lyfegen is among the top 10 selected to join one of Europe’s most innovative acceleration programs: InnoPeaks by Groupe Mutuel.

The news is taken with much excitement by Lyfegen’s co-founder, Michel Mohler, who briefly explains why being selected for this three month program by one of Switzerland’s leading health insurance companies is a great achievement for Lyfegen.

Hi Michel, can you give us a little more insights on the InnoPeaks program?

InnoPeaks is a business-focused acceleration program that focuses on challenging, enabling, growing, and scaling a business through workshops, mentorship, networking, and implementing proof of concepts. Groupe Mutuel, one of Switzerland’s leading health insurances, organizes this program. Their specific goal is to drive innovation in the two topics which support their core business: healthtech and insuretech.

Lyfegen is amongst only 10 startups that have been selected out of hundreds. What is Groupe Mutuel’s interest in having you on board?

Lyfegen, being one of Switzerland’s most innovative start-ups, is solving a crucial challenge healthcare – improving health outcomes for patients. We do this with our ground-breaking technology, working together with health insurances to give patients faster access to the medicine they need. Considering high-cost, personalized and potentially curative drugs, the prices of drugs need to become dynamic and depend on how well they work for patients. This also known as value-based contracting. Until recently, we have seen mostly Pharma Companies advocating for such pricing models. Engaging with a leading health insurance with our platform, we will achieve to bring such models to life in Switzerland, for Swiss patients.

What does Lyfegen want to achieve by being part of this program?

Switzerland's Federal Council (“Bundesrat”) addresses value-based contracting as one of the key solutions to achieve a more sustainable Swiss healthcare system. Our goal is to speak and learn from other startups, talk to decision makers at Groupe Mutuel, exchange thoughts and inspire Groupe Mutuel. As a result, we want to understand the perspective of health insurances and engage in a proof of concept.

We look forward to evolving with InnoPeaks, Groupe Mutuel and the other Start-ups. The team will be live-covering the InnoPeaks accelerator program in October, so stay tuned for more!

READ MORE ABOUT INNOPEAKS

At Lyfegen, we live by the highest quality standards, continuously improving as we move forward with facilitating value-based healthcare agreements for a fast & sustainable access to innovative therapies.

What is ISO 9001:2015?

The ISO 9001:2015 standard provides guidance and tools for companies and organizations who want to ensure that their products and services consistently meet customer’s requirements with quality being consistently improved.

This standard sets out the criteria for a quality management system used by many organization, large and small. Using ISO 9001:2015 helps ensure that customers get consistent, high quality products and services.

What this mean for Lyfegen?

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

We are audited yearly by a third-party to keep our ISO status up to date.

Want to discover our solutions?

Discover Lyfevalue

Discover Lyfeapp

“I am responsible for building the right products, and for building the products right.” Says Antti Hietala. Welcome to the Lyfegen Team!

As we embark on a new year, the great news start rolling in: Lyfegen welcomes its newest star, Antti Hietala, who takes on the key role of Product Owner.

As Antti arrives for his first day, Lyfegen’s CEO Girisha Fernando gives us his thoughts:
“Antti's excellent skills to think ahead and pull together industry, customer and technical perspectives to building a solid and ever-evolving product roadmap fills me with excitement, and will strengthen Lyfegen’s value for our customers even further. We are delighted to welcome Antti, a proud family man with values aligned with Lyfegen's values.”

We sat down with the ski-loving Product Owner to get a little more insight to who he is and what he will be doing at Lyfegen.

Hi Antti, tell us a little about yourself: where are you from and what is your professional background?

I come from the Arctic Circle. I grew up under the northern lights in a small town in northern Finland. I studied linguistics and computer science. My passion for content and technology led me to a career in technical writing. I wrote documentation for newspaper advertising systems and for financial asset management software.
Prior to joining Lyfegen I was the lead Product Manager at Magnolia where I built a content management solution. I’m a certified Scrum Product Owner and have worked with Product Managers and user experience designers in the past.

Why did you decide to join Lyfegen?

Lyfegen is my first venture into healthcare technology and it has an important mission: helping patients access innovative therapies by driving value-based healthcare. Removing obstacles that keep patients from getting the treatment or drugs they need is a high-level motivator. I’m also optimistic in our ability to make a big difference in the user experience of health technology and software.
I wanted to apply my product owner skills to an industry that is completely different from where I have worked before. Some say that it’s good to step out of your comfort zone and learn something completely new. The healthcare field is an exciting new challenge for me. I am thankful to the Lyfegen team for their confidence and trust that solid product management skills are universal and that I will apply them for a meaningful purpose.

You are joining Lyfegen as a Product Owner! In simple terms: what will you be working on?

I’m excited about joining Lyfegen! The team is packed with motivated and genuinely passionate people. We are on a path to build the most innovative contracting platform in the healthcare industry.
As Product Owner (PO) I am responsible for building the right products, and for building the products right. Concretely, this means talking to customers to understand their needs. I will define the product together with the Lyfegen team, translate the customer needs into features in our platform, together with our tech team.
My role has a strong outward-facing component. It’s critical for me to be in close contact with customers in order validate decisions quickly and build the right thing. My goal is to make our software valuable for our customers.

What are your next personal goals with Lyfegen?

Learning more about the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry is my first personal goal. There are so many new terms and abbreviations coming my way every day. It’s like the field has a language of its own.
On the product side, I’m very focused on optimizing the product-market fit. This means, finding the key features that really fulfill user needs and then amplifying those features in the product. I want to see users become fans! That’s a sign of a great product-market fit to me.

Enough about work! What passions do you have outside of Lyfegen?

I love to ski in the winter. I’m lucky to live in beautiful Switzerland where the Alps provide ample opportunity to hit the slopes. In the summer I do fly fishing in the Black Forest region of southern Germany or in Alsace, France. I’m also an avid pizza chef, forever improving my home-pizza game with the ultimate goal of authentic Neapolitan pie.

We are proud to welcome Antti to the Lyfegen team!

MEET THE LYFEGEN TEAM