Tailoring biosimilar coverage policies to the client
READ MORE
.webp)
READ MORE
The next wave of biosimilars, including Humira-, Eylea-, and Stelara-referenced products, is upon us.
In the U.S., 10 Humira-referenced biosimilars are on the market, nine of which launched in 2023. Until now the biosimilars have gained minimal traction. But that is changing, as the number of new prescriptions written for biosimilar versions of Humira soared to 36% from just 5% during the first week of April, after CVS Caremark altered its formulary.
CVS Caremark—the largest pharmacy benefit manager in the U.S.— removed Humira from its national commercial “template” lists of reimbursable drugs starting April 1. In its place, the PBM included the Humira-referenced biosimilars Hyrimoz, Hadlima and adalimumab-fkjp (a Biocon-produced unbranded product). Hyrimoz appears to be the most favored biosimilar. Similar moves have been signaled by the PBM Express Scripts and its parent company Cigna to be enacted this month, but this time Simlandi will be the most preferred biosimilar.
The FDA also recently approved two interchangeable biosimilars to Eylea, which will produce additional competition for the pharma’s blockbuster as key patent protections are set to expire.
And the biologic Stelara, which was selected as one of the first 10 drugs for Medicare price negotiations, will have its net price disclosed in September of this year in addition to facing biosimilar competition in 2025. The downward pressure on Stelara's price, but also Stelara-referenced biosimilars, will likely be significant.
For their large populations of covered lives who take products in the Humira, Eylea and Stelara-related therapeutic classes, payers will need to implement value-based coverage decisions that provide for the most optimal solutions for health plans and employers but also the lowest out-of-pocket costs for patients.
Improved access to biosimilars will offer patients expanded, less costly treatment options. For uptake to happen, payers must educate healthcare providers and patients on the value of biosimilars so that they are on board, whether they are designated by the Food and Drug Administration as therapeutically interchangeable or not.
Hyrimoz and Simlandi are therapeutically interchangeable and favored due to the formulary moves by CVS Caremark and Express Scripts, respectively.
The therapeutic interchangeability designation still plays a role in the U.S., because for biosimilars to be automatically substitutable at the pharmacy they must have proven interchangeability in addition to biosimilarity. As a result, physicians have expressed a preference for biosimilars that have the designation.
But for the many biosimilars that don’t have the therapeutic interchangeability designation, to boost their adoption manufacturers and payers must overcome this de facto regulatory barrier by informing healthcare providers and patients that proof of biosimilarity is sufficient.
Lyfegen can assist in the design of formularies tailored to clients' objectives. It can also accommodate information requests concerning which value-based arrangements are the most appropriate, given the scope of its library database as well as other client services.
If you wish to improve your negotiating leverage you can do so with real-world simulations for effective prescription drug contracts.
READ MORE
Vertex Pharmaceuticals may soon obtain Food and Drug Administration approval for a non-opioid analgesic, dubbed VX-548, for moderate to severe pain. But will insurers pay, given that there are so many cheap generic prescription opioids and other pain medicines on the market?
Presumably, the new non-opioid pain medication will be substantially more expensive per unit than generic opioids. Given the large numbers of patients needing pain drugs, for post-surgery, for instance, payers will need to manage the cost.
Prescription opioid medications remain a common treatment for pain despite decreases in the total number of opioid prescriptions after 2012. They’re cheap but also effective.
Should VX-548 obtain FDA approval, payers might be reluctant to cover the drug without clear and consistent evidence that the drug works as well or better than prescription opioids. Recent examples of non-opioid analgesics, including Exparel (bupivacaine) and Zynrelef (bupivacaine/meloxicam), demonstrate the kinds of reimbursement challenges drug makers may face, particularly early following their approval by the FDA.
Nevertheless, prescription opioids can be misused, abused, and diverted. In this regard, the non-opioid medicines Exparel, Zynrelef and, if approved, VX-548, do meet an important unmet need. However, not every patient will require access to more expensive medications. And so, it will be imperative to differentiate patient sub-populations by risk factors, in addition to comparing the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of non-opioid treatments to prescription opioids.
Lyfegen can assist in the calculations of value for both prescription opioid and non-opioid analgesics, in addition to the design of appropriate formularies.
Managing pain, whether acute or chronic, invariably involves a balancing act in which doctors, patients and insurers must consider appropriate forms of treatment. Proper patient stratification includes an assessment of the benefits and risks of both opioid and non-opioid medications to individual patients.
Lyfegen can navigate the different ways in which payers and drug makers negotiate contracts for pain medications. In the Lyfegen Library you can find the right model to use as a benchmark during pricing and reimbursement negotiations, which in turn will increase the chances of success. To explore strategies that enhance your ability to negotiate and implement successful pricing and reimbursement agreements for pain medications, visit the Lyfegen Library at lyfegen.com/library.
READ MORE
While the recent wave of new obesity drugs appeals to many patients due to their effectiveness in reducing weight and even diminishing the risk of major cardiovascular events for some, data suggests that at current prices they’re not cost-effective. Amid increased concern about the costs of using therapeutics such as glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists, some U.S. insurers are imposing further restrictions or eliminating coverage of the drugs altogether.
To boost access, a recent Financial Times article discussed the possibility of introducing value-based pricing arrangements for weight loss drugs. Under such “risk-based contracts,” healthcare providers could spread the cost over a period of time during which savings are possible, for example, from not having to treat as many heart attacks. Alternatively, drug makers and payers may negotiate value-based contracts which include patient persistency as a prerequisite. Persistency is known to be an issue with obesity drugs, as many patients stop taking the medications owing to side effects and other issues. If patients discontinue treatment weight rebound occurs, which implies that payers and patients must be properly incentivized to be persistent.
To effectively implement value-based agreements requires reliable cost of care analytics, modeling capabilities and outcomes-based agreement templates, which Lyfegen can provide stakeholders to calculate and forecast return on investment for use in the contracting process.
Value-based arrangements could ease the projected financial burden for commercial insurers, but also public payers such as Medicaid and Medicare. At present, most Medicaid state agencies don’t reimburse obesity therapeutics, while Medicare still prohibits their coverage if prescribed as weight loss medications alone. The drug Wegovy (semaglutide) did secure a supplemental cardiovascular indication from the Food and Drug Administration in March. This allows limited access for certain Medicare beneficiaries who fulfill weight and major cardiovascular risk criteria. But it doesn’t follow that plans will necessarily jump to pay for the product, given the high cost and limited cost-effectiveness. Introducing pay-for-performance agreements could facilitate access.
Lyfegen can accommodate information requests concerning relevant measures. The Lyfegen Library specifically offers access to one central resource with more than 4,500 public agreements and 20 innovative pricing models. For a deeper understanding of how value-based pricing models can transform the accessibility of obesity treatments and optimize your healthcare investments, book a demo with us.
READ MORE
As more biosimilars get approved and launched in the U.S., payers are making key decisions about their coverage and formulary positioning. Recently, this includes Humira-, Stelara- and Remicade-referenced products.
Historically, in the U.S., biosimilars have often failed to gain much traction owing to a Byzantine system of pricing and reimbursement which involves opaque rebate schemes. Here, higher list-priced drugs often carry with them higher rebates, which can mean that pharmacy benefit managers may favor originator products such as Humira.
As an illustration of this, according to a federal government Medicare Payment Advisory Commission report, more than 40% of Medicare beneficiaries still have no access through their insurance to Humira-referenced biosimilars, despite several products having discounts of over 80% compared to the original Humira.
But novel approaches to pricing and reimbursement could change formulary decision-making significantly, establishing the basis for more use of outcomes-based decisions. CostVantage, for example, is a new cost-based pharmacy reimbursement approach that all PBMs will eventually be required to use if they contract with CVS retail pharmacies, the largest pharmacy in the nation.
The CostVantage model stipulates that prescription drug reimbursement will be based on net acquisition cost, a set mark-up and a fee that reflects the value of pharmacy services. CVS Pharmacy plans to launch CVS CostVantage with PBMs for their commercial payers in 2025.
Such net-cost reimbursement systems tend to stimulate the uptake of lower cost (and more cost-effective) biosimilars. We find evidence of this in Europe where cost-effective biosimilars generally have fairly rapid entry which then quickly displaces the market share of originator products. By the last quarter of 2019, within one year of Humira-referenced biosimilar entry into the European market, an average of 35% of patients across Europe had already switched to a biosimilar; in the U.K, the figure was 63% which was achieved just six months after biosimilars were allowed to compete; in Denmark, with its winner-takes-all tender, the number was 80% and was attained within three months of being on the market. Meanwhile, in the U.S., after 15 months of being on the market, Humira-referenced biosimilars have only achieved 2% market share.
The new net-cost model of reimbursement in the U.S. will likely lead to greater adoption of biosimilars, at least in the large CVS segment of the market. Lyfegen can navigate the different ways in which payers and drug makers are negotiating contracts for biosimilars. In addition, Lyfegen can help address the concerns payers may have about high-priced specialty drugs, such as originator biologics and biosimilars. In the Lyfegen Agreements Library you can find the right model to use as a reference during pricing and reimbursement negotiations, which in turn will increase the chances of success.
READ MORE
In the face of scarce resources, healthcare entities must make hard choices. One can’t spend the same healthcare dollar twice, which means that policymakers have to ensure that each dollar goes as far as it can in terms of producing health outcomes for the population. Preferably decisions on how to allocate resources are informed by robust evidence that describes the benefits and harms related to medical interventions.
As U.S. and European healthcare policymakers debate different ways of measuring health outcomes accruing from the use of prescription drugs, it's important to convey that value-based pricing and reimbursement decisions can be informed by a variety of measures, including the Quality-Adjusted-Life-Year but also non-QALY measures such as the Disability-Adjusted-Life-Year, Equal-Value-Life-Year-Gained, Healthy-Life-Year-Equivalents and others. Lyfegen can accommodate information requests concerning all such measures, given the scope of its database as well as other client services. The Lyfegen Library specifically offers access to one central resource with more than 4,500 public pricing-based agreements and 20 innovative pricing models.
In the U.S., Medicare may soon formally ban use of the QALY because it’s supposedly “discriminatory” against older people and folks with disabilities. Nevertheless, the commercial market will continue to use it, particularly since it is still one of the most common measures of benefit. It’s also the predominant measure deployed by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. ICER has grown in stature in recent years, now informing more than half of payers’ formulary decisions in the private sector.
According to ICER, the QALY measures how well different kinds of medical treatments extend lives or improve patients’ quality of life. As a composite measure of the outcomes, quantity and quality of life, it enables comparisons across disease states and treatments. When combined with the costs associated with healthcare interventions, the QALY can be used to assess their relative worth from an economic perspective.
As a concept the QALY can accommodate several of the issues cited by critics, including being able to account for severity of disease. Alternatively, there are methods such as the EVLYG that can be employed to place the same value on additional years of life across diseases and populations which could alleviate concerns around discrimination.
The Lyfegen Library allows you to search for pricing models and agreements by countries and payers, making it easy to find the information you need regarding the appropriate measures based on your specific requirements and interests.
Learn more: lyfegen.com/library
READ MORE
The news are out: we are immensely proud to be partnering with Johnson & Johnson to advance value-based healthcare and help patients around the world. We dived into a conversation with our CEO Girisha Fernando on why this partnership holds so much value for Lyfegen.
Girisha, why was the partnership with Johnson & Johnson such an important milestone for Lyfegen?
Girisha Fernando: Johnson & Johnson and Lyfegen share the same vision of sustainable & a value-based healthcare environment. Our goal is to help patients to receive the healthcare treatments they need and with this partnership, Lyfegen is proud to have been a key enabler for Johnson & Johnson and hospitals to deliver better health outcomes for patients.
How can this partnership be a blueprint for future collaborations?
Girisha Fernando: The increasing demand for healthcare measured against the limited financial resources is forcing the healthcare system to deliver innovative technologies to patients at sustainable costs. This can be done with value-based healthcare approaches and value-based agreements. The partnership between hospitals, Johnson & Johnson and Lyfegen shows how healthcare providers, manufacturers and an innovative tech company can deliver more value to patients whilst making efficient use of limited resources.
What would you suggest healthcare payers and hospitals to do if they are considering to implement value-based healthcare agreements with manufacturers?
Girisha Fernando: I believe it is important to focus on how to deliver better patient outcomes at lower cost. Value-based healthcare agreements can be used as a value-maximising method. It allows payers and hospitals to measure health outcomes and the adjacent cost to achieve these outcomes. Thus, hospitals can pivot on focusing their resources on value-adding healthcare treatments whilst addressing financial risk and uncertainty. It will take initial & minimal investment, but the return on investing in value-based healthcare and technology will be in the form of more value for money and better quality and patient health outcomes.
Why is Lyfegen the right platform for this?
Girisha Fernando: With over 120 value-based healthcare agreements running on the Lyfegen platform, we provide the necessary expertise, knowledge and technical competence to our customers. With these capabilities, we break down the complexity of implementing and managing value-based healthcare agreements. And lastly, we ensure that our customers can improve patient health outcomes by using value-based agreements at scale, efficiently.
Learn more about our platform by booking a demo today:
The news are out: we are immensely proud to be partnering with Johnson & Johnson to advance value-based healthcare and help...
Read More
READ MORE
Basel, Switzerland | April 17th, 2019 – Lyfegen HealthTech AG successfully closes its seed financing round, raising a total of CHF 750‘000. The funding was led by Swiss private investors. The funds will be used to further build Lyfegen’s value-based payments platform Lyfevalue and conduct further pilots with partners in the US, Africa, and the EU, including the UK.
Lyfegen is a healthcare technology company that has developed a ground-breaking solution to accelerate value-based healthcare, entering a market set to grow to USD 390.7 billion by 2024 according to latest market research. Its platform, Lyfevalue, collects, analyses & reconciles disparate healthcare data for the purpose of automating value-based healthcare contracting. The platform enables life sciences companies, national and private healthcare payers and healthcare providers to operationalise value-based healthcare strategies whilst benefiting from a single holistic solution for their value-based healthcare operations, visit checklistmaids.com. In addition, the platform allows for personalised healthcare by enabling patient level pricing, fostering accelerated and facilitated access to innovative treatments for patients.
“Enabling the shift to sustainable healthcare is a huge challenge, giving us at Lyfegen great purpose and we are honoured to work with individuals that truly care about making a difference for patients around the world,” said Girisha Fernando, Lyfegen’s CEO & Founder.
READ MORE
The whitepaper is a joint initiative to share with healthcare stakeholders some of Lyfegen and KPMG’s expertise and experience in the development and implementation of value and data-driven agreements in an evolving healthcare environment.
Official Communication by KPMG on 26.10.2020
KPMG addresses the most pressing challenges the healthcare sector is facing today and in the future. Society’s desire to obtain value from the wider healthcare system is not new, however recent experience shows that there is a need to rethink and move healthcare into a new age.
Two current megatrends are: 1) the redesign of pricing for health solutions, and 2) the value of data and the importance of patient access. It is important to address both elements within the Life Sciences ecosystem, including how to innovate, how to develop successful digitalization strategies, and how to get the most out of data.
How outcome-based contracts benefit healthcare
The pricing of services and products based on outcomes or value created is another intrinsic element of the future of healthcare. Rising healthcare costs impact patient budgets and hinder access to treatments. Incentivizing positive outcomes can only benefit patients, while payers gain confidence that they are only reimbursing effective treatments. Manufacturers and providers that buy into the outcome-based model are taking an important step towards making their business more sustainable while contributing to the wider interest of the healthcare ecosystem.
One of the key issues has always been defining the factors that represent value and deciding how to measure them. To give an example, how do you measure if a patient is symptom-free and how long should the observation period last? How is the impact on those caring for an individual considered and how is the societal or economic impact assessed, e.g., can the individual go back to pursuing a career? These questions are key in any reimbursement of pricing arrangements.
Helping the healthcare community
Teaming up with Lyfegen, a healthtech company facilitating access to innovative therapies, KPMG recently published a joint whitepaper (see link below) on the application of outcome-based contracting. Girisha Fernando (CEO and Founder of Lyfegen HealthTech AG) and Martin Rohrbach (Head of Life Sciences for KPMG Switzerland) discuss how this approach can deliver value for healthcare payers, providers and patients.
The whitepaper is a joint initiative to share with healthcare stakeholders some of Lyfegen and KPMG’s expertise and experience in the development and implementation of value and data-driven agreements in an evolving healthcare environment. The combination of knowledge, reach, and technology specific to value-based healthcare, together with proven practical experience, brings unique insights into value and data-driven pricing agreements for healthcare stakeholders. The whitepaper focuses on why outcome-based contracting can address drug access and reimbursement challenges, and how such contracts can be enabled by innovative technology. There are some clear takeaways, serving as building blocks and opportunities to engage in outcome-based contracting for the benefit of healthcare systems.
READ MORE
Lyfegen’s value-based contracting software is used by healthcare payers and leading pharma companies, including Novartis, Roche, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) and Johnson & Johnson
New York, NY - September 20, 2022 - Lyfegen, a global healthtech SaaS company driving the world’s transition from volume to value-based healthcare for high-cost drugs, today announced an oversubscribed $8 million Series A financing round led by aMoon, with additional participation from APEX Ventures and others.
Currently, less than 2% of the health insurance population requiring specialty drugs is responsible for 51% of drug spending. The cost of specialty drugs in the US is spiraling out of control, increasing 12% from 2020 to 2021 alone, with no sign of slowing down due to the increase of cell and gene therapies expected to come to market. As a result, value-based contracting is becoming a more viable alternative for healthcare payers to only pay for drugs that actually work.
By 2025, total net spending on medicine in the US is expected to reach up to $400B. Additionally, new drugs regularly enter the market, but when pharmaceutical companies fail to agree on commercial terms with payers, patients are at risk of being denied access to life saving therapies. Lyfegen’s platform helps regulators, pharma companies and payers more easily adopt value-based payment models by digitizing the end-to-end process of data collection, anonymization and contract negotiations for all parties to agree upon drug pricing and reimbursement.
“We are excited to be announcing this funding round and to have this vote of confidence from aMoon, APEX and our other investors who understand the shift in healthcare that we are experiencing, and are supporting our efforts to expand the Lyfegen platform,” said Girisha Fernando, CEO and founder of Lyfegen. “We currently work with leading government payers, health insurance companies in Europe, the US and the Middle East, and some of the world’s largest pharma companies. Our plan now is to further expand our presence in the US, partnering with both private and public healthcare insurance companies. The move away from volume-based healthcare has never been more needed, and we are happy to play an important role in the shift to value-based contracting.”
“Lyfegen is addressing a significant market need in an industry that is changing dramatically and rapidly, and we are thrilled to help validate their efforts through our investment,” said Moshic Mor, General Partner at aMoon, and former Partner at Greylock and Greylock Israel. “During a time of healthcare budget pressures and recessions, the world needs Lyfegen’s solution now more than ever. We look forward to seeing the company, led by an incredible executive team, continue to enhance access to new drugs as they drive value-based healthcare to become increasingly mainstream.”
About Lyfegen
Lyfegen is an independent, global software analytics company providing a value and outcome-based agreement platform for health insurances, pharma, medtech & hospitals around the globe. The secure platform identifies and operationalizes value-based payment models cost-effectively and at scale using a variety of real-world data and machine learning. With Lyfegen’s patent-pending platform, health insurances & hospitals can implement and scale value-based healthcare, improving access to treatments, patient health outcomes and affordability.
Lyfegen is based in the USA & Switzerland, and was founded by individuals with decades of experience in healthcare, pharma and technology to enable the shift away from volume-based and fee-for-service healthcare to value-based healthcare. For more information, visit www.lyfegen.com.
Media Contact
Yael Hart
GK for Lyfegen
Read the Exclusive article with AXIOS
Read the Press Release on PR Newswire
READ MORE
EGK uses the Lyfegen Platform to handle complex pricing models of on and off-label usage of more than 80 drugs
Basel, Switzerland - November 29, 2022 - Lyfegen, a global healthtech SaaS company driving the world’s transition from volume to value-based healthcare for high-cost drugs, announced today that EGK-Gesundheitskasse is joining its portfolio of insurer partners to execute all of their value-based pricing contracts for high-cost drugs efficiently, securely, and transparently.
Switzerland, with the fourth-highest pharmaceutical spending per capita, spent CHF 8 Billion (8.1 billion euro) on drugs prescribed for specific diseases in the first nine months of 2022. In an effort to combat the high drug spending, Switzerland has implemented an increasing number of discount models for on and off-label drug usage over the last five years. While intending to ensure accessibility to patients at sustainable prices, the complexity of the price models leads to millions spent by insurers to monitor and adjudicate the price models, resulting in an estimated CHF two- to three-digit million range of missed rebates.
Lyfegen's software enables EGK to identify and claim rebates from 141 drug price models with 32 manufacturers, with minimal effort and maximum transparency. This includes cases of rare or chronic illnesses, promising therapies that may be used outside the approved indication, or new drugs not yet available or approved in Switzerland. Lyfegen's platform addresses the needs of Swiss health insurers for cost efficiency and digitalization, helps solve existing complexities in the system, and does its utmost to counteract high insurance premiums.
"We are delighted to support EGK and take an active role in addressing the growing complexity of drug pricing models to support sustainable access to innovative drugs and therapies in Switzerland,” said Nico Mros, CXO and Co-Founder of Lyfegen. “By focusing on making the implementation of the platform as easy as possible and being responsive to EGK, we were able to quickly present results and kickoff the collaboration to a successful start!"
“With the Lyfegen Platform, EGK is further expanding its focus on sustainability and efficiency for the benefit of our policyholders”, said Carolina Pirelli, Head of Benefits and Deputy CEO at EGK. “The ever-increasing number of pricing models for medications poses challenges for insurance companies in terms of resources and processes. With the automated processing of pricing models through the Lyfegen Platform, we are able to perfectly meet our current needs and with Lyfegen's flexibility, focus and understanding, we see ourselves in good hands.”
About Lyfegen
Lyfegen is a global healthtech SaaS analytics company providing a value-based agreement platform for drugs, therapies and devices. Health insurances, pharma, medtech companies & hospitals use the secure platform for thousands of payment models throughout Switzerland, Europe, the Middle East and North America. The Lyfegen Platform supports the negotiation and automated execution of value-based payment models cost-effectively and at scale using real-world data and machine learning. Globally renowned health insurances, hospitals, pharma & medtech companies have already implemented Lyfegen’s patent-pending platform to scale value-based payment models for drugs, therapies and devices, improving access to treatments and patient outcomes.
Lyfegen was founded by individuals with decades of experience in healthcare, pharma and technology, pioneering the shift away from volume-based and fee-for-service healthcare to value-based healthcare. For more information, visit www.lyfegen.com.
About EGK-Gesundheitskasse
EGK-Gesundheitskasse is an SME health insurer based in Laufen (BL), Switzerland. The EGK Group comprises EGK Grundversicherungen AG (basic insurance in accordance with KVG), EGK Privatversicherungen AG (supplementary insurance in accordance with VVG) and EGK Services AG (administration). It insures around 100,000 people in basic insurance throughout Switzerland, 80% of them also have EGK supplementary insurance.
Naturalness and sustainability are part of EGK's values. It is considered a pioneer in providing unrestricted access to excellent complementary medicine. It launches and supports activities throughout Switzerland to strengthen health in a natural way.
Read on PR newswire in English
READ MORE
We are thrilled to welcome Ina Hasani to our team at Lyfegen as Director of Sales & Business Development for Canada. Ina brings nearly a decade of experience in the life sciences sector, specializing in healthcare strategy, market access, and health economics. We sat down with Ina to learn more about her background, her vision for transforming healthcare in Canada, and what excites her most about joining Lyfegen.
Can you tell us a bit about your background and what led you to your role as Director, Sales &Business Development for Canada at Lyfegen?
I have spent close to a decade in the life sciences sector, working with companies like Novartis and Pfizer, where I gained deep expertise in healthcare strategy, market access, and health economics. My passion has always been focused on improving patient outcomes and the healthcare system. This led me to Lyfegen, a company at the forefront of transforming healthcare through innovative solutions. The opportunity to work with payers and drug manufacturers to ensure better and sustainable access to innovative treatments for patients was a natural fit for me, both professionally and personally.
What are the biggest challenges facing the healthcare market in Canada, particularly in terms of drug pricing and access?
The Canadian healthcare system is highly complex! The biggest challenge that we are facing is how to accelerate access to innovative therapies without compromising the sustainability of the healthcare system. Payors, including both public and private insurers, are struggling to balance their budgets with the rising costs of therapies, particularly for specialty drugs. Outcome based agreements are a potential solution to enable timely access to breakthrough therapies. However, payors and pharmaceuticals don’t have the infrastructure in place to efficiently implement and operationalize such agreements.
What opportunities do you see for growth in Lyfegen’s sales efforts in Canada? How can we better support health insurers and government bodies?
There is tremendous potential for growth. Currently, payors and pharmaceuticals adjudicate their product listing agreements (PLAs) manually through Excel spreadsheets. It is resource intensive, leaves room for errors and is a barrier to potential innovative contracting. In addition, as Canada increasingly looks towards value-based healthcare models, Lyfegen is an enabler by providing the digital infrastructure for payor and manufacturers.
From your perspective, what key actions need to be taken in the next 12 months to drive success for Lyfegen in the Canadian market?
In the next 12 months, we need to focus on deepening our relationships with key stakeholders and demonstrate the value of our digital solutions for payors, manufacturers, healthcare system and, ultimately, the patients.
How do you see your role influencing the implementation of value-based solutions in Canada, and what impact do you hope to have?
Lyfegen has extensive experience in OBA implementation and operationalization in many countries. In my role, I hope to bridge the gap from theory to practice in the implementation of value-based healthcare in Canada.
In your opinion, what’s the most important aspect of building strong client relationships in the healthcare industry? How do you approach this in your role?
Trust and communication are at the core of any strong client relationship in healthcare. Given the complexity and sensitivity of the industry, clients need to know that you understand their unique challenges and are committed to solving them. In my role, I prioritize open and ongoing communication, ensuring that clients feel heard and that their feedback is integrated into our solutions. I also work hard to build trust by delivering results and being transparent about what we can achieve together.
Looking ahead, what excites you most about the future of sales and business development at Lyfegen in Canada?
I’m excited about the potential to be a catalyst for significant change in the Canadian healthcare landscape. Lyfegen is in a unique position to lead this transformation. The combination of increasing demand for cost-effective healthcare solutions and our innovative approach makes this an incredibly exciting time to be in sales and business development.
Outside of work, what are some of your favorite things to do in your free time?
Outside of work, I enjoy spending quality time with my family and friends. I also prioritize my health by being active on a daily basis. I also enjoy learning. Now that I have completed my MBA, I’m on a mission to learn Spanish.
We are excited to see Ina grow and thrive in her role at Lyfegen. Welcome to the team, Ina!
READ MORE
Once upon a time, In a whimsical forest, there lived a smart and creative blue bird. This bird, known for its brilliance in the world of tiny forest biotech, had concocted a magical potion.
This potion was a wonder, a gene therapy to cure the forest creatures of a troublesome disease called sickle cell. Perched thoughtfully on a branch, the blue bird faced a whimsical yet vital challenge. The potion, potent in its healing, needed to be more than just a marvel of science – it had to be reachable and affordable for all in the forest. Additionally, this magical creation was still unnamed, a name that should echo its life-affirming qualities and the journey from a mere idea to a beacon of hope in the forest.
Amidst this puzzlement, the blue bird heard tales of the wise owls of Lyfegen, far beyond the forest. These owls were not just wise; they were masters of a different kind of magic – the magic of numbers and agreements that made health solutions reachable to all. Intrigued, the blue bird fluttered over to learn more.
As it learned about Lyfegen's remarkable ability to navigate the complex world of potion pricing and access, inspiration struck. "Ah-ha!" chirped blue bird, "If Lyfegen can make health solutions accessible, why not name my potion in honor of their work? Lyfgenia – a name that sings of life, hope, and the ingenuity of Lyfegen!"
And so, the potion was christened Lyfgenia, a nod to the owls of Lyfegen whose wisdom ensured that such medical marvels reached every nook and cranny of the forest without burdening its inhabitants.
With its new name, Lyfgenia became more than just a potion; it symbolized a harmonious blend of medical genius and financial savvy. The blue bird turned Lyfgenia into a symbol of hope and healing in the whimsical world of the forest.
Disclaimer: "A Fable of the Blue Bird and Lyfegen's Wise Owls" is a work of fiction, created solely for entertainment and illustrative purposes. This fable does not represent any real-life strategies, decisions, or actions of these entities, nor should it be interpreted as an endorsement or representation of their values, capabilities, or business practices.
Using Lyfegen's solutions can streamline the financial management of advanced therapies like Lyfgenia, leading to more effective pricing strategies and improved access for patients. Learn more about how our solutions enable value-based contracting for gene therapies: lyfegen.com
READ MORE
Amid the buzz of innovation at Lyfegen, we sat down with Simon, our newest team member, whose journey has brought a fresh perspective to our mission.
Quick introduction – tell us a bit about yourself!
I'm based out of the UK. I studied Law at University but soon realized that a career as a Solicitor wasn’t my calling. Post-university, I ventured into Software Sales, initially focusing on Cloud Solutions and then transitioning into the Life Sciences realm. Most of my career has been dedicated to building startups and introducing new ideas and products to the market.
What excites you about your job?
What really thrills me about joining Lyfegen is the potential impact I can have on those needing life-saving treatments. The core goal of the pharma industry is to enhance the health and wellbeing of society, and at Lyfegen, we're crafting solutions that make medications more accessible, allowing us to treat more people. It's also incredibly rewarding to collaborate with some of the world's leading pharma companies, supporting them as they launch new assets.
Why did you decide to join Lyfegen?
It was the founders' vision that drew me to Lyfegen. Their passion was evident right from our initial conversations. Joining Lyfegen is an incredible opportunity for me to contribute my experience to another startup, and together, we can continue to thrive on this exciting journey.
What is something you want to learn or improve in the next 12 months?
Over the next year, I aim to deepen my understanding of the market access space within the pharma industry. Launching assets is intricate, with many layers involved, and there's a wealth of knowledge I'm eager to absorb. It's fascinating to learn about the different approaches of various companies and how they navigate the market.
How will your know-how help improve our customers’ experience of Lyfegen solutions?
With my background in launching new solutions for startups, I'm well-acquainted with the challenges that can arise. We can be proactive in addressing these before they occur. As Lyfegen is growing rapidly, it’s crucial that we adapt while maintaining our high standards and always remembering that our customers are our biggest priority. My experience with Global enterprises has also given me insight into the ongoing support they need and the importance of fostering great relationships based on trust and understanding.
Let’s get personal: What are your favorite things to do in your free time?
In my free time, I love to travel as much as I can, exploring different cultures and places, with my next plans to delve into more of Asia. When I'm in the UK, I spend time with my German Shepherd, Max, or playing water polo.
Is there anything else you are looking forward to outside of work in the next few months?
As we near the end of Q4, it's a busy period, but I'm looking forward to a well-deserved break over Christmas with friends and family, indulging in good food. It's the perfect time to recharge and gear up for a significant 2024 for Lyfegen, where we'll continue to serve our customers, engage with new ones, and grow as a company.
Our conversation with Simon ends on a high note, filled with anticipation for the contributions he will bring to Lyfegen. In the words of Girisha Fernando, our CEO, "we are very excited about Simon joining us. His experience is a valuable addition to our team, and we are confident he'll make a significant contribution to our mission. It's a pleasure to welcome him to Lyfegen."
Here’s to new beginnings and transformative journeys!
Welcome to our crew, Simon.
Amid the buzz of innovation at Lyfegen, we sat down with Simon, our newest team member, whose journey has brought a fresh...
Read More
READ MORE
At this years World Evidence, Pricing and Access event, Girisha Fernando, the CEO of Lyfegen, expressed excitement as he spoke about the company’s latest launched offering - the Lyfegen Model & Agreement Library. This unique learning resource is a true game-changer that builds upon the company’s existing product. It expands our horizons by allowing payers and market access & pricing professionals to explore over 2’500 real-life public agreements, and 18 drug pricing models from around the world. The library provides an unparalleled understanding of drug reimbursement models that help users make better informed choices like never before.
Selecting a drug reimbursement model is very complex, as manufacturers want quick market access, while payers may have many concerns, such as a drug’s efficacy and affordability. Fernando emphasized that the library bridges the gap by assisting payers and market access professionals in finding specific models that address each stakeholder’s concerns, and key real-life agreement examples, resulting in better-informed decision-making, and ultimately more efficient reimbursement processes.
“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 Fernando, “That is why we are 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.”
But that’s not all – Fernando explained that the database is constantly evolving, being updated weekly with new public agreements, allowing stakeholders to be up to date on public agreements.
Overall, it is clear that the Lyfegen Model & Agreement Library is an invaluable groundbreaking tool, that is becoming indispensable in increasing the knowledge on drug and Cell & Gene Therapy reimbursement.
READ MORE
He’s analytical, a techie and has a fantastic gift for music! Yes, we are talking about the latest addition to our team, our very own “Technical Business Analyst” and Ukrainian superstar: Pavlo Lupandin!
Just last month we announced the arrival of our Lead Developer, Daniel, and now more great news follows as Lyfegen continues to lay focus on the technical team: we have our very own Technical Business Analyst, Pavlo!
“Pavlo’s sharpness and problem-solving skills just made it clear that we needed him in our team! His drive and commitment will bring great value to our patients, our customers and Lyfegen as we continue to sharpen our platform” says Lyfegen’s CEO, Girisha Fernando.
We are proud to have him as part of the team and sat down with him to give you a little more insight behind the musical talent and witty “Technical Business Analyst”:
Hi Pavlo! Tell us a little about yourself: where are you from and what is your work experience background?
Hello! I was born in the east of Ukraine, got the Master’s Degree in Economics in Kyiv, worked at one of the Big 4 companies for 3 years as an Auditor, following one year in the role of Business Analyst. After this experience, I found myself being a fresh ACCA Member, who wanted to dive into something not that accounting related. Business analysis has proven to be an interesting area where I can develop further capitalizing on my previous experience.
It’s interesting, that back in my audit days I’ve had some big healthcare-related projects. Who knew that it was only the beginning of working in this promising domain…
This is your first experience in the Health Tech industry – what triggered this move?
Pace of development. The Healthcare & IT industries are developing in overwhelming waves, and to ride the peak of those waves is a challenge – formidable, but a tempting one. As soon as this opportunity presented itself, I decided to chase it. We’ll see, where this decision will bring me in a couple of years.
You are joining Lyfegen as Technical Business Analyst. In simple terms: what will you be working on?
I would be occupied mainly with gathering, documenting and communicating the requirements of our customers. Ever heard of different communication barriers? Those I would try to eliminate, trying to grasp the very core of what has to be done for the maximum customer satisfaction and making sure the development team implements requirements as close as possible to the ideal.
What are your next personal goals with Lyfegen?
There are several of them. First, I strive for development as a professional, and I think Lyfegen will provide me with opportunities to do that. Second, I want to embrace that spirit of a high-growth startup – after working for a massive and complex company, the flexibility and freedom of Lyfegen is a breath of fresh air. And finally, I want to know new talented people. I already know, that the Lyfegen team has a great diversity, and I can’t wait to learn some interesting things from people of other countries and cultures.
What motivated you to join?
Purpose and value. As simple as that. I can see the purpose and value of what I’m doing. Obviously, we are at the beginning of this journey, and it’s a bit early to speak about “value-based pricing for everybody” or “pay only for what is really working” but…the concept is huge, and it will become the question of life and death for some patients. And I’ll do my best to make it as close to life as possible.
Enough about work! What passions do you have outside of Lyfegen?
Oh, you don’t want to hear a full list, I assure you. Let me try to sum it up quickly…Music, videogames and tabletop games – I play them all. A small collection of musical instruments – some of them are quite exotic, especially for my home country (banjo and djembe, for example). A bigger collection of tabletop games in different genres – the Lyfegen team can definitely expect a session or two in the nearest future. And a vast collection of videogames on different platforms…without much details let’s just agree there are a lot.
There are some other hobbies of mine, but I’d prefer to keep a couple of surprises up my sleeve!
We are proud to have the Lyfegen team continue to grow with such fantastic team-members!
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.
