How Gene Therapies Are Reshaping Patient Outcomes and Payer Expectations
READ MORE
.webp)
READ MORE
Gene therapies are redefining modern healthcare, offering the potential to address the root causes of genetic disorders through targeted treatment rather than symptom management. For patients, this represents a profound improvement in quality of life, while for payers and pharmaceutical companies, gene therapies introduce new challenges in contract structuring, reimbursement, and financial planning. In this blog, we’ll explore how gene therapies are reshaping patient outcomes, impacting payer expectations, and how Lyfegen’s solutions, such as the Agreements Library and Drug Contracting Simulator, are enabling pharma and payers to navigate this evolving landscape.
A New Horizon for Patient Outcomes with Gene Therapies
Gene therapies bring transformative potential to patient care by addressing the underlying genetic causes of diseases. Unlike traditional therapies that require ongoing treatment, many gene therapies promise long-lasting effects from a single intervention. This shift enables patients to move away from chronic management, experiencing a better quality of life, fewer medical interventions, and improved long-term health.
Why It Matters: For patients with rare genetic conditions, gene therapies offer a new chance at health. However, the high upfront costs and uncertain long-term efficacy make it challenging for payers to determine optimal reimbursement models. Balancing patient access with financial sustainability is crucial as healthcare systems adjust to the realities of high-cost gene therapies.
Payer and Pharma Contracting: Managing Uncertainty with Precision
With the high cost of gene therapies, payers and pharmaceutical companies face increased pressure to implement contracts that account for uncertain outcomes and long-term impact. Traditional pricing models often fall short in accommodating these complexities. Today, payers need new contracting frameworks that incorporate clinical and financial outcomes over extended timeframes, while pharma companies seek efficient ways to communicate the value and manage the financial implications of these therapies.
Shifting Expectations in Payer-Pharma Relations: To mitigate risk, payers and pharma companies are exploring innovative drug contracting models that tie payment to therapeutic outcomes. However, implementing such models requires robust data, effective scenario planning, and tools that support transparent, collaborative processes across stakeholders.
Lyfegen’s Role in Optimizing Drug Contracting for Gene Therapies
To address the complexities of gene therapy contracts, Lyfegen offers tailored tools that support payers and pharma companies through every stage of the contracting process. Our Agreements Library and Drug Contracting Simulator streamline research, analysis, and contract execution, allowing stakeholders to engage in informed, data-driven decision-making.
1. The Lyfegen Agreements Library: As the world’s largest digital repository of drug pricing agreements, the Lyfegen Library gives users access to over 6,000 public agreements and 20 unique pricing models.
• Accelerate Effective Contracting: With a comprehensive database covering over 550 drugs and real-world agreements from 33 countries, payers and pharma teams can find, compare, and analyze pricing models that meet specific market and therapeutic needs.
• Support Pragmatic Contracting: By exploring data from more than 150 drug manufacturers, users can identify successful contracting models and structures that match the challenges of gene therapies. This ensures informed choices that support sustainable access to innovative treatments.
2. Lyfegen Drug Contracting Simulator: Our simulator enables pharma and payer teams to model various drug pricing scenarios, providing real-time insights to drive negotiations.
• Accelerate Negotiations with Real-World Simulations: The simulator allows users to run multiple pricing models, delivering scenario-based insights that reflect real-world financial implications. This helps pharma and payers create compelling business cases and select pricing models that suit both patient needs and budget constraints.
• Improve Collaboration Across Teams: With flexible, secure access, the Drug Contracting Simulator enables local and global teams to work collaboratively. Users can save and share simulations, compare scenarios, and make evidence-based decisions quickly.
By equipping stakeholders with essential tools for research and analysis, Lyfegen’s solutions reduce the complexities of payer-pharma contracting, allowing stakeholders to navigate the high stakes of gene therapy reimbursement effectively.
Shaping the Future of Gene Therapy Access with Lyfegen
Gene therapies represent a future of precision medicine and improved patient outcomes. Yet, making this future accessible requires innovative approaches to contracting and reimbursement. By leveraging Lyfegen’s solutions, payers and pharma companies can structure contracts that maximize patient access to these therapies while managing financial risk.
Lyfegen is committed to supporting stakeholders as they navigate the challenges of gene therapies, providing solutions that bring real-world data, evidence-based simulations, and efficient contracting processes to the forefront. With the Lyfegen Agreements Library and Drug Contracting Simulator, payers and pharmaceutical teams have the tools they need to secure the future of gene therapies in a way that’s both financially sustainable and patient-centered.
To explore how Lyfegen’s Agreements Library and Drug Contracting Simulator can support your contracting needs for gene therapies, connect with our team or schedule a demo today.
READ MORE
With rising healthcare costs around the world, value-based care (VBC) is a paradigm shift poised to make healthcare more accessible and affordable. It’s a departure from the traditional fee-for-service (FFS) model, which pays providers each time they perform a service. In this type of care model, providers are rewarded for the volume of care they provide, rather than the quality.
Value-based care shifts the priority of healthcare to patient wellbeing and patient centeredness. Value-based care agreements incentivize healthcare stakeholders to achieve better outcomes, and may even penalize excessive spending or unnecessary procedures.
There are many approaches to providing and paying for value-based care, and they will be the subject of this article. Let’s take a broad look at what VBC is, its benefits, its challenges, and future directions.
Why value-based care is needed
Healthcare costs are rising across the globe, and patients are bearing the brunt of it, with out-of-pocket healthcare costs rising faster than costs to insurers. Drugs are also becoming more expensive, and insurers and employers are concerned about high-cost claims. Many insurers are refusing to cover expensive treatments, like cell and gene therapies, or GLP-1 agonists.
Although the fee-for-service model is still important, value-based care can fill the gaps to bring medicines to patients faster. Using cell and gene therapies as an example, VBC could prevent patients like Forrest VanPatten from dying during the process of jumping from insurer to insurer, hoping to find one that will cover the treatment.
Alternative payment models (ABMs), a core element in the delivery of VBC, help these therapies get to market faster, by lowering the financial burden of expensive therapies. This could include installment payments, among several types of value-based contracts.
Although pharmaceutical companies continue to improve patient outcomes by developing more effective medicines, healthcare costs include more than the price of the drugs. The total cost of care must also be managed and requires a close evaluation of how care is delivered to the patient.
Ultimately, value-based care is a strategy to deliver a better healthcare experience to the patient while utilizing resources more effectively. It is feasible to reward healthcare practitioners for improving patient health, whether it be keeping them out of the hospital, reducing their reliance on medication, or becoming completely disease-free. But there are many challenges in implementing these models, as we’ll discuss.
The types of value-based care
There are many forms of value-based care, and different terms are used interchangeably. Use the glossary table below while reading this article to better understand.
VBC can involve the following:
There are many ways medicine and care can be delivered to people in ways that support better outcomes. Let’s summarize the models above.
Effective care delivery
The accountable care organization (ACO) is a group of clinical entities and providers that in synchronization, aim to deliver efficient and cost-effective healthcare to patients. If the efforts are successful, saved costs can be distributed, providing an incentive to avoid unnecessary procedures. A key component of ACOs is that financial responsibility lies on caregivers. ACOs were a central component of the Affordable Care Act in the United States, and generally describe the American healthcare system. However in several European countries, similar models providing integrative care do exist.
This type of integrated care model may still rely on the fee-for-service model, but aim to reduce the volume of care.
Risk-sharing agreements
Several value-based drug pricing agreements foster risk-sharing between the manufacturer of the drug and the payer. The following are examples:
Many of the above terms overlap with each other. What they have in common is that they can address clinical uncertainty—payers may be reluctant to reimburse therapies with limited clinical evidence from the pivotal trial. However, to ensure patient access, risk-sharing agreements are way to allow patients to be treated for a steep discount, while gathering real-world evidence.
In a pay-for-performance agreement, payers will only have to pay for the treatment if anticipated patient outcomes are achieved. Several hybrid iterations of this type of agreement exist, including milestone payments, where payers receive rebates if disease progresses.
You can find specific examples of these kinds of agreements in our Agreements Library.
Population-based payments
Population-based payments facilitate integrative care delivery. They involve payments for either a specific condition, or for the care of an entire patient. However, unlike an ACO, population-based payments are value-based and are not based on the fee-for-service model.
The Health Care Payment Learning & Action Network (HCP LAN) defines population-based payments as a “single payment that encompasses a broad array of services.” This is also more widely referred to as capitation. Capitation can apply to the care for a specific condition, or the entire continuum of care.
NHS England defines capitation as “paying a provider or group of providers to cover the majority (or all) of the care provided to a specified population across different care settings. The regular payments are calculated as a lump sum per patient.”
Capitated payments typically involve a per-member-per-month fee. They provide predictable revenue for hospitals and providers while incentivizing them to provide quality care.
Restricted access
Another way to address clinical uncertainty is to limit who can receive treatment as real-world evidence is being gathered. By refining the eligibility criteria, patients most-likely to benefit from the treatment can receive access.
What are some of the challenges of implementing value-based care?
There are several challenges to implementing value-based care. They include:
One challenge with VBC is deciding on patient eligibility. Insurers may choose to cover a very select group of patients, denying others who may need treatment coverage, to ensure that they are incentivized accordingly. This leads to another challenge: choosing the right outcomes to measure. In the fee-for-service model, billing is tied to the condition and medication being prescribed, whereas in a value-based contract, financial incentives are tied to outcomes measured by a healthcare provider.
The chosen outcomes must be evidence-based and tracked accordingly. Collecting data, sharing it with various stakeholders, and integrating it into a patient’s care is another challenge. Great structural changes are needed to ensure the compliant sharing of this type of data.
For manufacturers and hospitals alike, another challenge is to manage revenues. Pharmaceutical companies may be unclear for example on how drug profitability could vary with a performance-based or utilization cap contract. One of our solutions to this largely manual process was to create a drug price simulator. This tool helps manufacturers of health technologies compare and contrast different value-based contracts during the negotiation process.
For hospitals, it’s imperative to correctly track rebates, especially if they are warranted after upfront payments: our rebate management platform helps hospital systems identify up to 30% more rebates.
Value-based care can balance innovation while lowering healthcare costs, but implementing it involves enhanced coordination of care delivery and significant organizational changes. VBC also involves innovative payment models that share risk with healthcare providers or place the burden of risk on them entirely to incentivize quality care.
Value-based payment models can reduce high upfront costs of expensive therapies while further evidence is gathered to justify the high costs. For providers, VBC may reduce burnout risk by incentivizing them to keep patients healthy.
The integration of value-based care in healthcare systems around the world requires data. At Lyfegen, we help pharma, MedTech, and providers understand the impact of value-based payment models with our innovative software. Let’s make this shift happen together.
READ MORE
The pharmaceutical industry and its drug market access strategies are continuing to evolve as we move through 2024, driven by mounting pricing pressures, aggressive regulatory shifts, and heightened payer demands. For pharma companies, refining market access strategies is no longer optional—it’s essential to securing rapid market entry and sustained patient access in an increasingly challenging environment. Let’s explore the key considerations for pharma companies within this space.
Evolving Drug Market Access Strategies
Pharmaceutical companies must adapt their drug market access strategies to address a rapidly evolving landscape shaped by policies and regulations across various regions, including the U.S. and Europe. New legislation, such as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), introduces more stringent reimbursement criteria, which could impact profitability and influence launch decisions for new drugs. To mitigate these challenges, companies need to prioritize earlier and broader data collection efforts, focusing on generating robust real-world evidence (RWE) and health economic outcomes research (HEOR). This comprehensive evidence base is essential for demonstrating the value of new therapies beyond the scope of traditional clinical trials, ultimately playing a critical role in payer negotiations and securing optimized reimbursement (NIH).
Global market variations also demand a tailored approach to launch strategies. In Europe, new regulations mandate shorter market exclusivity periods unless drugs are launched across all member states within two years, compelling pharma companies to align their launch timelines more closely with diverse national pricing schemes (European Parliament). Meanwhile, in markets like Japan, frequent price revisions are pushing companies to adopt dynamic pricing strategies to stay competitive.
The Role of Healthcare Technology Solutions in Market Access
With the industry pivoting towards value-based care and personalized treatments, healthcare technology solutions are essential in aligning stakeholder needs. Platforms like Lyfegen are pivotal in this shift. By offering a comprehensive Healthcare technology solution for outcome-based contracting, the Lyfegen platform supports the efficient implementation of value-based agreements between pharma companies, payers, and healthcare providers. Using platforms like Lyfegen means that the administration of complex pricing models can be simplified, patient outcomes can be tracked in real-time, and transparency can be increased, all of which are crucial for pharma to gain and maintain market access.
We continue to watch as the pharmaceutical industry is shaped by evolving regulations, mounting pricing pressures, and shifting payer demands. But to ensure market access, pharma companies must act now by building robust data portfolios early, integrating clinical trial data with real-world evidence (RWE), adapting to global pricing pressures, and leveraging digital solutions.
Lyfegen’s platform is at the forefront of helping pharma companies tackle these challenges. With Lyfegen’s Drug Contracting Simulator, you can model dynamic pricing strategies, optimize your market access plans, and streamline value-based agreements. Combined with the Lyfegen Library of real-world evidence and pricing models, you’ll be equipped to make data-driven decisions, ensuring faster patient access and successful contract negotiations.
Act Now – Book a demo of Lyfegen’s platform and discover how we can support your market access strategy: https://www.lyfegen.com/demo
READ MORE
The Joint Clinical Assessment (JCA) is poised to fundamentally change how health technologies gain market access across the European Union. Designed to streamline the evaluation process, the JCA promises to bring greater consistency, transparency, and efficiency to how new therapies and medical technologies are assessed for clinical effectiveness. But what does this mean for your market access strategies?
What is the JCA?
The JCA is a central pillar of the EU’s updated Health Technology Assessment (HTA) regulations. Historically, pharmaceutical and medical device companies faced significant hurdles when introducing new health technologies across different EU member states. Each country has had its own HTA process, leading to duplicated efforts, inconsistent outcomes, and delays in patient access. With the JCA, clinical assessments will be conducted at the EU level, offering a unified approach to evaluating the relative effectiveness of new treatments.
Key Benefits of the JCA
The JCA is expected to address several long-standing challenges:
1. Streamlined market access: By replacing multiple national HTA evaluations with a single EU-level assessment, the JCA will reduce duplication and accelerate the time it takes for new health technologies to reach the market.
2. Consistency across the EU: With the JCA, companies can expect more predictable and transparent outcomes when navigating the regulatory landscape. This will help align market access efforts across all member states, making it easier for companies to plan and execute their market entry strategies.
3. Cost efficiency: By pooling resources and conducting joint clinical assessments, the JCA is expected to save HTA bodies across the EU millions of euros annually. This increased efficiency will also benefit pharmaceutical and medical technology companies by reducing the administrative and financial burden of complying with multiple HTA processes.
How Will the JCA Impact Your Market Access Strategy?
For companies looking to introduce new health technologies in the EU, the JCA will bring both opportunities and new considerations:
• Early Engagement Will Be Key: The unified nature of the JCA means that companies will need to engage early with EU-level HTA bodies to ensure that their clinical data meets the requirements of the JCA. This early engagement can help smooth the path to market and avoid potential delays.
• A Shift in Regulatory Focus: With clinical assessments now being handled at the EU level, companies may need to adjust their strategies for navigating national market access pathways. While the JCA will simplify the clinical assessment process, national bodies will still be responsible for non-clinical aspects, such as pricing and reimbursement decisions.
• Data Consistency and Quality: The JCA emphasizes the importance of high-quality, consistent clinical data. Companies will need to ensure that their submissions are robust and aligned with the JCA’s methodology to avoid discrepancies and delays in the assessment process.
The Role of Technology in Managing Market Access
As market access strategies evolve with the implementation of the JCA, technology platforms like Lyfegen can play a crucial role in helping pharmaceutical and medical technology companies adapt. Lyfegen’s platform simplifies the process of planning, tracking, and managing health technology assessments, ensuring that companies are well-prepared to meet the requirements of the JCA.
By leveraging advanced analytics and real-time data management tools, Lyfegen enables companies to streamline their market access efforts, ensure compliance with EU-level assessments, and maintain transparency throughout the process. With the increasing complexity of market access in the EU, technology will be a critical factor in ensuring success.
Conclusion: Preparing for the Future of Market Access
The JCA is set to transform market access strategies across the EU by creating a more efficient, unified, and predictable pathway for introducing new health technologies. As companies navigate this new landscape, early preparation, high-quality clinical data, and the right technological tools will be essential to staying ahead.
Unlock smarter market access strategies with Lyfegen’s advanced tools! The Lyfegen Drug Contracting Simulator empowers you to navigate the complexities of the JCA, model various pricing scenarios, and optimize your market entry plans. Combined with the Lyfegen Library’s extensive collection of market access models, you’ll have everything you need to succeed in the EU’s evolving regulatory landscape.
Act Now – Book a demo of Lyfegen’s platform and learn how we can support your market access strategy: https://www.lyfegen.com/demo
READ MORE
In December 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved two groundbreaking gene therapies for sickle cell disease (SCD), offering a new lease on life for individuals battling this severe condition. However, while these therapies bring significant clinical improvements, their cost has emerged as a formidable challenge, particularly for Medicaid, which covers approximately half of the 100,000 individuals in the U.S. with SCD.
The Financial Strain of Sickle Cell Disease on Medicaid
Gene therapy represents a revolutionary treatment for SCD, a condition that has traditionally required ongoing management through therapies like allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT). While HSCT offers a potential cure, its use has been limited due to donor availability and high toxicity. Now, gene therapy provides a much-needed alternative, but the steep price tags—approximately $2.29 million per treatment—pose a significant challenge for Medicaid programs across the country.
The latest budget impact analysis updates previous findings on how these high-cost therapies could impact 10 Medicaid plans with the highest prevalence of SCD. The study reveals that even cost-effective treatments with exceptional clinical benefits may be unaffordable for payers, particularly given the expanding Medicaid enrollment and higher-than-expected launch prices for these therapies.
Short-Term Costs vs. Long-Term Savings
For Medicaid plans, the financial challenge of gene therapy is primarily in the upfront, one-time cost of the treatment. The updated model projects that in the first year alone, gene therapy for SCD will result in an average budget impact of $65.8 million per state program, with a per-member per-month (PMPM) cost of $3.11 across the 10-state sample. Although the cost decreases over time—with the PMPM dropping to $2.08 by year five—the initial budgetary strain is a significant concern.
Despite these costs, the long-term benefits of gene therapy are undeniable. By offering a potentially curative solution, gene therapy could avert future medical expenses associated with SCD, such as hospitalizations, pain management, and ongoing treatments. The model conservatively assumes perfect effectiveness and durability, projecting that the therapy would eliminate all future SCD-related healthcare costs for treated patients. While these assumptions may not reflect real-world outcomes, they provide a glimpse into the potential for long-term savings.
Market Diffusion and Budgetary Impact
A critical factor influencing the budget impact is the market diffusion rate—the speed at which patients adopt the new therapy. The analysis assumes an annual diffusion rate of 7%, meaning that a subset of eligible Medicaid enrollees will receive the therapy each year. This rate could vary, influenced by factors such as manufacturing capacity, delivery center availability, and payer policies. Notably, if the diffusion rate falls below 4%, the PMPM cost could remain below the affordability benchmark set by prior high-cost treatments, such as sofosbuvir for hepatitis C, which generated a PMPM cost of $1.89 in 2024 dollars.
The model also reveals that 35% of Medicaid enrollees with SCD are expected to have a severe phenotype, defined by two or more severe pain episodes annually. This percentage is a key driver of cost, as patients with more severe disease are more likely to be eligible for gene therapy.
State Medicaid Plans Face Varying Impacts
The updated analysis highlights significant variability in how different state Medicaid plans will be affected. For example, in Georgia, where SCD prevalence is higher, the projected PMPM cost is $3.92 in the first year, while Florida faces a slightly lower cost of $2.50 PMPM. These variations reflect differences in both disease prevalence and state enrollment levels.
By the fifth year, the PMPM costs across all state programs are expected to decrease, driven by reduced new therapy adoption and the absence of ongoing SCD-related costs for treated patients. However, the affordability challenge remains a pressing concern, particularly in the early years of gene therapy adoption.
Balancing Access with Affordability
Medicaid plans, payers, and policymakers are now tasked with finding ways to balance the promise of gene therapies with their potential financial burden. The affordability challenge could limit patient access, echoing the struggles faced during the rollout of high-cost hepatitis C treatments.
One potential solution is the development of novel payment models, such as annuity-based approaches, which could spread the cost of gene therapy over several years, easing the immediate budgetary impact. Additionally, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation is exploring alternative payment strategies specifically for gene therapies within Medicaid, aiming to ensure access without jeopardizing the financial sustainability of state programs.
The Role of Technology in Managing Costs
As gene therapies become more prevalent, platforms like Lyfegen can play a key role in helping payers manage the financial complexities associated with these high-cost treatments. Lyfegen’s platform simplifies the process of tracking the economic impact of gene therapies, providing payers and providers with the tools they need to assess real-world outcomes, monitor costs, and adjust strategies accordingly. By leveraging technology, healthcare systems can better navigate the financial risks and ensure that patients continue to benefit from the latest innovations in care.
Unlock smarter budget management strategies with Lyfegen’s powerful tools! The Lyfegen Drug Contracting Simulator helps payers and healthcare providers model the financial impact of high-cost therapies like gene therapy for SCD, optimize payment strategies, and make informed decisions. Coupled with the Lyfegen Library’s extensive database of pricing models, you’ll be equipped to tackle the financial challenges posed by the latest innovations in healthcare.
Act Now – Book a demo of Lyfegen’s platform and discover how we can support your budgeting and contracting needs: https://www.lyfegen.com/demo
References
Meyer, K. B., Kilburg, M. M., Johnson, K. B., & Meyers, M. A. (2024). A budget impact analysis of gene therapy for sickle cell disease: an updated analysis. Blood Advances, 8(17), 4658–4666. https://ashpublications.org/bloodadvances/article/8/17/4658/517069/A-budget-impact-analysis-of-gene-therapy-for-sickle-cell-disease
.jpg)
READ MORE
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
READ MORE
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.
READ MORE
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 MORE
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.
READ MORE
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 MORE
“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!
READ MORE
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?
READ MORE
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
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!
READ MORE
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?”
READ MORE
In June, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted unanimously (5-0) to examine rising list prices of insulin, but also to probe possible anti-competitive practices by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with respect to the use of rebate arrangements. Rebates are payments from drug manufacturers to PBMs in exchange for moving market share towards so-called preferred products on the formulary.
The FTC has specifically cited instances in which cheaper generics and biosimilars are excluded from PBM formularies, as this may violate competition and consumer protection laws.
The FTC inquiry into pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) practices could lead to legal action prohibiting certain rebate practices. In turn, this could induce major changes in the U.S. rebate system. Formulary management could become increasingly value- or outcomes-based, rather than simply a function of a financial power play between drug makers and PBMs. Or, rebates could fall by the wayside altogether, to be replaced by a combination of upfront discounts in lieu of rebates and value-based pricing arrangements. Partnering with Lyfegen may be the solution for manufacturers and payers alike, as its platform can put users on the right track towards successful implementation of value-based pricing arrangements.
The FTC has warned of legal action against PBMs if its inquiries find proof of anti-competitive practices. Here, the agency raised the stakes when it included terms like “commercial bribery” in its statements to describe what it perceives as anti-competitive rebates in the insulin market.
The latest FTC inquiries follow a recent investigation by Senators Grassley (R-Iowa) and Wyden (D-Oregon), which blamed rebate schemes for much of what ails the prescription drug market. Furthermore, nearly two years ago, Senator Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) and colleagues commissioned the General Accounting Office (GAO) to examine rebates. The GAO report is due out this fall.
PBMs receive rebates from drug manufacturers in exchange for preferred positioning on the formulary, which in turn drives market share. Experts have criticized rebates for the fact that payers often don’t base their decisions to include a drug on comparative clinical- and cost-effectiveness. Rather, decisions are strictly based on financial terms, namely which manufacturer offers a higher rebate payment to the PBM; a financial power play in which PBMs may threaten not to cover certain drugs if they don’t get the rebate they want. This applies to insulin as well as numerous other therapeutic categories.
What’s worse is when rebate traps or walls are involved. Branded manufacturers leverage their position as market leaders by offering financial incentives to PBMs and health insurers in the form of “all or nothing” conditional volume-based rebates, in exchange for (virtually) exclusive positioning on the formulary. This can mean keeping competitors off the formulary entirely, or severely limiting formulary access to a competing drug with drug utilization management tools like step edits. Here, a patient must use a preferred drug and fail on it (a so-called “fail-first” policy) before “stepping up” to a non-preferred drug.
Because the portion of the rebate retained by PBMs is often calculated as a percentage of a drug’s list price, PBMs can have incentives to establish formularies that favor branded drugs with higher list prices and larger rebates over lower priced biosimilars, specialty generics, or even branded competitors. Rival drugs entering the market lack sufficient sales volume to be able to offer the same level of rebates to PBMs that originator firms can provide.
Proof of the establishment of anti-competitive practices could lead to legal action being taken against PBMs. The question then becomes what would replace rebates? Payers may establish an entirely different formulary management system that is more value-based. Surely, it would be a system that’s less contingent on the role of the financial power play between drug makers and PBMs.
In areas such as immunotherapy targeting certain cancers, cell and gene therapy, and rheumatology, there are already a growing number of value-based agreements.
Girisha Fernando, CEO and Founder of Lyfegen, which offers a platform to track value-based agreements with real-world data, said that many outcomes-based deals are kept secret and therefore under the radar, so to speak. Commercial payers generally don’t share publicly what types of value-based deals they have with drug companies to maintain their competitive advantage. Yet, in an interview with Endpoints News Fernando stated that he’s observed at least a 300% increase in value-based agreements over the last five years. The Lyfegen Platform enables more efficient and transparent management of value-based drug pricing contracts by using intelligent algorithms to capture and analyze patient-level drug cost data.
Fallout from the FTC inquiry – should rebates be identified as anti-competitive - may entail further increases in value-based dealmaking.
About the author
Cohen is a health economist with more than 25 years of experience analyzing, publishing, and presenting on drug and diagnostic pricing and reimbursement, as well as healthcare policy reform initiatives. For 21 years, Cohen was an academic at Tufts University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Amsterdam. Currently, and for the past five years, Cohen is an independent healthcare analyst n a variety of research, teaching, speaking, editing, and writing projects.
READ MORE
Pharmaceutical regulating authorities in the U.S. and Europe are under increasing pressure to approve new treatments as quickly as possible. Expedited approval programs were created to speed up patients’ access to innovative treatments that meet unmet health needs or treat life-threatening diseases. But concerns about post-approval follow-up persist. Value-based drug pricing arrangements are a solution that generates real-world data and evidence of a drug’s safety and benefit to health outcomes.
Global health authorities must consider the risks of bringing a new drug to market quickly with limited data about a product’s safety and effectiveness–these risks versus the potential benefits of a new drug that addresses an unmet medical need, alleviates a public health emergency, or saves a patient’s life. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) are the ones weighing those risks and benefits and guarding the safety of pharmaceutical products and medical devices.
The usual approval process for pharmaceutical products is similar for both agencies. It includes pre-clinical testing, three clinical trials, and a final approval before manufacturers can sell their drugs to patients. Drugs that show potential and meet certain criteria may qualify for an expedited approval process.
Expedited drug approval programs
Both the European and U.S. agencies have developed expedited approval programs to speed up the process of drug development and approval when a treatment shows the potential to meet an unmet medical need or treat a life-threatening condition. A new drug may qualify for consideration under more than one expedited approval program.
· Priority-review designation (PR) – started in 1992, ensures the submission application will be reviewed within 6 months instead of the usual 12 months
· Accelerated approval (AA) – started in 1992, allows drugs to be approved using a surrogate endpoint instead of the outcomes of a clinical trial
· Fast-track designation (FTD) – started in 1997, a process to expedite the development and review of drugs designed to treat unmet medical needs and serious, life-threatening conditions
· Breakthrough-therapy designation (BTD) – started in 2012, speeds the development and review of drugs with the potential for better health outcomes compared to the results of current treatments on the market
Related Post: Value-based pricing vs best price? Medicaid's best price problem
· Accelerated assessment – started in 2004, a review of the application to be completed in 150 days instead of 210 days if there are no major objections from the authorizing agency
· Exceptional circumstances authorization – started in 2005, eligible for drugs that treat extremely rare diseases and where it is not possible to conduct large clinical trials
· Conditional marketing authorization (CMA) – started in 2006, accelerates approval of drugs designed to meet an unmet medical need or serious, life-threatening disease
· Priority medicines scheme (PRIME) – started in 2016, reviewers are appointed earlier than usual in the development process, mostly used for orphan medicines
Comparing FDA and EMA use of expedited approvals
A study published in 2020 in The BMJ (British Medical Journal) compares the use of expedited approval programs by the FDA and the EMA. The focus of the study included approvals of new medicines from 2007 to 2017. During that time, the FDA approved 320 new drugs, and the EMA approved 268.
The study shows that, as of April 2020, there was an overlap of 75% (239) of new drugs which were approved by both the FDA and the EMA. Most of the drugs approved by both agencies were developed to treat cancer, digestive and metabolic disorders, or blood and cardiovascular disorders.
Out of the 320 drugs the FDA approved, 57% (181) of the new drugs qualified for at least one of the FDA’s accelerated approval programs. Out of the 268 drugs approved by the EMA, only 15% (39) qualified for one of the EMA’s expedited approvals.
A different study of global drug approval programs, covering January 2007 to May 2020, focused on expedited approvals for 128 new cancer drugs. The EMA approved 73% (94) out of the 128 new drugs and qualified 46% of them through expedited approval. The FDA expedited 91% (117) of the new cancer drugs through at least one accelerated approval program. (In 2019, all the cancer drugs the FDA approved during the year qualified for expedited approval.)
Of the six jurisdictions in the study, the FDA was the first to approve 80% (102) of the new cancer drugs. In Europe, delays in submissions of regulatory applications slowed many of the approvals. The EMA’s approvals of the same 102 drugs took an additional median time of 9.7 months.
Related Post: Indication-specific pricing to make inroads in the U.S.
Post-approval confirmatory trials
The expedited approval process in both Europe and the U.S. relies on post-market, real-world clinical data to confirm the safety and effectiveness of a drug. After the FDA or EMA grants expedited approval and the drug is on the market, the manufacturer is required to conduct confirmatory trials to gather enough real-world evidence to transition the drug from an expedited approval to a regular approval. Both the FDA and the EMA carry a backlog of confirmatory trials that were not completed on time.
An NPR (National Public Radio) analysis of FDA and National Institutes of Health data showed there are around 200 drugs with expedited approvals currently on the U.S. market. Many drugs, especially cancer treatments, have more than one accelerated approval to cover expanded uses. Close to half of these drugs transitioned to standard approvals after confirmatory trials, and another 9% were withdrawn.
The 30 years of data NPR reviewed also revealed that 42% of confirmatory trials didn’t start within the first year after the drug was made available to patients. Some confirmatory trials were delayed by three or more years, and even up to ten years.
The EMA also appears to have a substantial percentage of manufacturers who are slow to transition expedited approvals to standard approvals. In 2016, only about half of the drugs that received expedited approvals from the EMA had converted to standard approvals. Manufacturers who switched to standard approvals took an average of 4 years to complete the conversion process.
Gathering real-world evidence through value-based drug pricing arrangements
Both healthcare payers and drug manufacturers benefit from value-based drug purchasing arrangements for drug treatments that come to market under expedited approval programs.
For manufacturers, the real-world evidence generated by a value-based agreement may be quite helpful for a few reasons. First, the data could satisfy the requirements for post-approval confirmatory trials. Second, manufacturers can show with real-world evidence that their treatment offers better benefits to patient outcomes as compared to competitors’ products. Third, manufacturers can use the data supporting the real-world effectiveness of their product to negotiate and justify their drug’s list price and preferential position on a payer’s formulary.
While payers want the expedited approval process to bring treatments for unmet needs to patients as quickly as possible, they may still have unanswered questions post-approval about a new drug’s benefits. Under a value-based arrangement, payers can collect and analyze real-world evidence to address their uncertainty and concerns about a drug’s safety, benefit to patient health outcomes, and cost-effectiveness.
Value-based pricing agreements between payers and manufacturers allow both parties to share the financial risk of a drug not performing as expected. And if a drug underperforms, real-world data from the value-based agreement can reinforce the terms of a manufacturer’s rebate. Therefore, manufacturers willing to share risk and enter value-based drug purchasing arrangements with payers have a competitive advantage.
The Lyfegen Solution
Lyfegen is an independent, global analytics company that offers a value-based contracting platform for healthcare insurances, pharma, and medtech companies wanting to participate in value-based drug pricing agreements. Lyfegen’s software platform includes three-fold functionality to implement value-based, data-driven agreements with greater efficiency and transparency: data ingestion, agreement execution, and insights generation. The Lyfegen Platform collects real-world data and uses intelligent algorithms to provide valuable information about drug performance and cost.
By enabling the shift away from volume-based and fee-for-service healthcare to value-based healthcare, Lyfegen increases access to healthcare treatments and their affordability.
To learn more about our services and the Lyfegen Platform, book a demo.
READ MORE
The high-costs of newer drug treatments make the adoption of non-traditional, value-based drug purchasing arrangements a necessity for healthcare payers and administrators trying to manage their budgets, provide patients with quicker access to the most effective treatments, and reduce wasteful spending on treatments that don’t work. Recent regulatory changes and advanced AI contracting software options are making value-based drug pricing arrangements easier.
Even before the onset of the pandemic, annual budgets for public and private healthcare insurers were strained by the high and increasing costs of prescription drugs. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical manufacturers are bringing new and even more expensive drug treatments to market each year. According to Bloomberg, the median list price for a year’s supply of a new drug introduced to the U.S. market in 2021 was $180,007.
Thanks to COVID-19 vaccines and COVID-related treatments, pharmaceutical sales reached record levels in 2021. Sales in North America account for close to half of the total $7.3 billion global market revenue for that year. And since prescription drug prices are higher in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world, the increasing costs of drugs are a top concern for policy makers, healthcare payers, and consumers.
New, more expensive drug therapies are in development
A growing niche and focus for pharmaceutical companies is high-cost cell and gene therapy products. Market analysis by Grand View Research forecasts the global cell and gene therapy clinical trials market to reach a compound annual growth rate of close to 15% and an estimated market revenue of USD 24.5 billion by 2030.
While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved only a limited number of cell and gene therapies so far, expedited approvals of new drugs and favorable designations of new therapies as orphan drug or breakthrough therapies support increasing consumption of these new drug therapies in the U.S. market. The FDA predicts that by 2025, it will approve up to 20 cell and gene therapy products a year.
Healthcare payers and consumers feel the pain of higher drug prices
Even though payers are getting rebates and not paying drug manufacturers’ full list prices, they still have cause for concern as drug prices increase annually. Payers need to protect their annual budgets from outsized expenditures, especially for specialty drugs.
Both payers and patients suffer the effects of high and increasing drug prices. A study of 14.4 million pharmacy claims made from 2010 to 2016 revealed the median healthcare insurer payments for specialty medications rose by 116%; the median patient out-of-pocket costs increased by 85%. Drug list prices during the same 7-year period more than doubled, rising faster than inflation.
Drug manufacturers recognize the need for non-traditional, value-based payment arrangements
A new cell or gene therapy’s price tag may generate as much attention as the drug’s ability to treat disease. For example, one of the most expensive drug therapies in the world is Zolgensma, approved by the FDA in 2019. Novartis Gene Therapies (formerly AveXis) developed the drug to be a cure for around 500 infants born each year in the U.S. with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). A full course of treatment is priced at $2.125 million.
Soon after Zolgensma received FDA approval, some of the top U.S. insurers quickly set up tight restrictions limiting coverage of the treatment. To help payers manage the impact of the cost and ensure patient access to Zolgensma, Novartis offers insurers the option of either a 5-year, pay-over-time contract or an outcome-based agreement.
The list price of Zyntelgo, the latest gene therapy to be approved by the FDA, surpassed Zolgensma as the world’s most expensive one-time drug therapy. Zyntelgo was developed by bluebird bio as a single-use treatment for an inherited blood disorder, beta thalassemia. According to bluebird, Zyntelgo’s price of $2.8 million is a good value when compared to the estimated $6.4 million worth of lifetime care costs for a patient living with beta thalassemia.
Estimates suggest that only around 850 patients in the U.S. will meet the criteria for treatment with Zyntelgo, and not all of those who are eligible will want the drug. Predictions of Zyntelgo’s annual sales revenue range from $64 million to $200 million.
The majority of patients eligible for Zyntelgo are covered by commercial health insurance, with most of the rest using Medicaid. Bluebird is offering payers a sizeable refund if the treatment underperforms or fails. If patients still need blood transfusions within two years after receiving Zyntelgo, bluebird will refund the payer up to 80% of the treatment’s costs.
Payers recognize the benefits of using value-based drug pricing agreements
Outcome-based agreements help payers address any uncertainty about the effectiveness of a new treatment, gain insight into a drug’s value to patient health outcomes, and reduce the risk of overpaying for a low-value treatment. The real-world evidence collected while managing value-based drug arrangements helps manufacturers justify their list price and reinforces refunds and rebates to the payer if the treatment doesn’t deliver results as expected. So why has there not been greater use of value-based drug agreements?
Regulatory barriers to value-based drug purchasing arrangements eliminated
This year, U.S. legislators have addressed most of the legislative hurdles that, in the past, hindered value-based drug purchasing arrangements. Policymakers updated two pieces of legislation to support increased adoption of value-based drug pricing agreements.
The Medicaid Best Price rule was changed in July, allowing pharmaceutical manufacturers taking part in Medicaid to report multiple best prices. This was followed by the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in August, which allows Medicare to negotiate directly with drug manufacturers over the prices of some of the most expensive drugs covered by the Medicare program.
Overcoming technological challenges to implementing value-based drug agreements
Another significant obstacle to increased adoption of value-based drug pricing arrangements has been the difficulty in operationalizing complex, data-driven, outcome-based contracts. These non-traditional agreements require a powerful, interoperable contracting software platform with extensive data collection and analysis capabilities to make real-world evidence both accessible and insightful.
To take on an outcome-based contract, an organization has two options. The first is to develop the IT framework in-house and devote management resources to monitor compliance and data security. This option is expensive, time-consuming, and beyond the current capabilities of many organizations.
The second option is to outsource the administrative burden of an outcome-based contract. In recent years, third-party vendors have developed comprehensive contracting software to bridge the gap and help manufacturers, payers, and providers transition from fee-for-service into value-based agreements.
The Lyfegen Solution
Lyfegen is an independent, global analytics company that offers a software-as-a-service platform for healthcare insurances, pharma, and medtech companies wanting to participate in value-based drug pricing agreements without making large investments in software upgrades. With extensive industry expertise and a vast library of resources, we can assess your current capabilities and advise and guide you through pre-implementation. Deployment of our customizable and scalable contracting platform is quick and integrates seamlessly into your existing workflow without compromising data security or compliance.
Lyfegen’s software platform includes three-fold functionality to implement value-based, data-driven agreements with greater efficiency and transparency: data ingestion, agreement execution, and insights generation. The Lyfegen Platform collects real-world data and uses intelligent algorithms to provide valuable information about drug performance and cost.
By enabling the shift away from volume-based and fee-for-service healthcare to value-based healthcare, Lyfegen increases access to healthcare treatments and their affordability.
To learn more about our services and the Lyfegen Platform, book a demo.
READ MORE
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.
READ MORE
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.
Sign up & be the first to know about INNOVATIONS
* By sending this message, you agree to our privacy policy.
