Finding the right insulin products for payers to cover
READ MORE
.webp)
READ MORE
Insulin is going through monumental shifts in pricing and reimbursement in the U.S. It started with the announcement of reductions in list prices by drug companies last year. First, Novo Nordisk announced plans to reduce the list prices of several of its insulin products beginning January 1, 2024. This included lowering the price of NovoLog and Levemir by at least 65%. This move was followed by a similar commitment by competitor Eli Lilly to reduce Humalog’s price, among others, and came just days before Sanofi’s announcement to decrease Lantus’s price.
Moreover, biosimilar competition is ramping up, particularly in the long-acting insulin glargine space. Rezvoglar and Basaglar are leading the way, as they gain traction on payer formularies, especially in the public Medicaid market.
And this year, owing to implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services began negotiating the net prices of both NovoLog and Fiasp, with public disclosure of said prices due to be revealed by September. Payers will soon be able to use these net prices as benchmarks to leverage better deals in markets besides Medicare. Also, CMS capped monthly out-of-pocket costs of insulin products for Medicare beneficiaries at $35.
For their large populations of insulin-dependent diabetics, 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.
Because both list and net prices have come down, payers will likely lose out on some portion of the rebates—which reflect the difference between gross and net price—that they had grown accustomed to getting in the past. At the same time, the increasing number of payers that are adopting a rebate-free, net cost approach to formulary design will benefit from lower net prices.
And cheaper treatment options for patients may translate into better adherence to drug regimens which in turn could lead to improved health outcomes. For payers with a long-term perspective and comparatively little churn or enrollee turnover the potential downstream cost savings could be beneficial.
Lyfegen can assist in the calculations of value for all insulin products, both short- and long-acting, in addition to the design of appropriate formularies.
If you wish to improve your negotiating leverage for insulin products you can do so with real-world simulations for effective prescription drug contracts. Discover the Lyfegen Drug Contracting Simulator, our intuitive solution for streamlining iterative, collaborative drug contracting design.
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
Basel, Switzerland –28, January 2025 - Lyfegen, a global innovator in drug market access, pricing, and rebate management, has announced a transformative collaboration with EVERSANA®, a leading provider of global commercial services to the life sciences industry, to revolutionize drug pricing and access through artificial intelligence-driven insights.
By combining data and information from the global pricing and market access platform, NAVLIN by EVERSANA®, with Lyfegen’s Public Drug Agreement Library, the two organizations will harness cutting-edge AI to empower market access and pricing professionals and payers with actionable insights. The joint agreement marks a key step in tackling rising drug costs and improving patient access globally.
Simplifying Complexity with AI
Drug pricing and access are increasingly difficult to navigate, with healthcare payers and pharmaceutical companies facing inefficiencies, missed opportunities, and delays in delivering therapies to patients.
The collaboration combines two leading platforms to address these challenges:
Together, these tools deliver a 360-degree view of pricing trends and access frameworks, enhanced by AI-driven capabilities. This integration helps users:
Driving Smarter and Fairer Decisions
Together, Lyfegen and EVERSANA will empower market access teams to make smarter, faster, and more equitable decisions. By combining AI-driven insights with robust data, payers and pharmaceutical companies can reduce inefficiencies and ensure patients receive timely access to life-saving therapies.
“Together with Lyfegen we can harness the power of AI to address one of the biggest challenges in healthcare—helping patients get timely access to life-saving medicines,” said Jim Lang, CEO, EVERSANA. “By uniting our expertise and our global pricing innovations, we have the opportunity to deliver a solution that simplifies decision-making and improves access in healthcare systems worldwide.”
A Vision for the Future of Drug Access
The healthcare industry is rapidly adopting AI to drive efficiency and innovation. This partnership positions Lyfegen and EVERSANA at the forefront of this transformation, enabling stakeholders to overcome affordability and access challenges.
“Our mission at Lyfegen has always been to create a more sustainable and equitable healthcare environment,” said Girisha Fernando, CEO of Lyfegen. “Through this partnership with EVERSANA, we are taking a giant step toward that future. By integrating EVERSANA’s price and access data into our combined offerings, we’re not just solving today’s challenges—we’re building a foundation for a smarter, more efficient drug access and pricing landscape.”
About Lyfegen
Lyfegen is an independent provider of rebate management software designed for the healthcare industry. With the world’s largest repository of drug access agreements and a powerful pricing simulator, Lyfegen helps payers and pharma implement and optimize rebates, reduce administrative effort, and understand financial impacts. Founded in 2018, Lyfegen is headquartered in Basel, Switzerland. Learn more at Lyfegen.com or connect with us on LinkedIn.
About EVERSANA
EVERSANA® is a leading independent provider of global services to the life sciences industry. The company’s integrated solutions are rooted in the patient experience and span all stages of the product life cycle to deliver long-term, sustainable value for patients, prescribers, channel partners and payers. The company serves more than 650 organizations, including innovative start-ups and established pharmaceutical companies, to advance life sciences solutions for a healthier world. To learn more about EVERSANA, visit eversana.com or connect through LinkedIn and X.
Media Contacts
For Lyfegen
For EVERSANA
Matt Braun
Vice President, Corporate Communications
.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 rebate management 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
Antes de unirse a nosotros en Lyfegen, David adquirió una gran experiencia y conocimientos en la industria de la salud y las finanzas, mientras perfeccionaba sus habilidades como Ejecutivo de Ventas Globales. Su curiosidad por la naturaleza humana y su amor por la humanidad es lo que alimenta su pasión por marcar la diferencia allí donde más importa.
Afincado en España y licenciado en Ingeniería Informática Con su amplia experiencia en la introducción de productos disruptivos en el mercado, ha llegado a comprender que es primordial destacar cómo las tareas diarias del usuario conectan con nuestra plataforma y guiar a través del proceso. Cuando se le pide que describa cómo ve su papel, David dice: "Todo el mundo busca algo. Mi trabajo consiste en entender qué es lo que realmente buscan". Cuándo le preguntamos qué es lo que más le gusta de su trabajo, respondió: "Bucear por debajo de las palabras y entender las necesidades de la gente,para luego conectar esas necesidades con las soluciones que Lyfegen puede aportar."
¿Qué es lo que quiere emprender este año? Siendo un aprendiz permanente, David quiere profundizar en el ciclo completo de nuestro servicio y explorar tanto la gestión de proyectos como la parte técnica. Apasionado de la buena música, pasa su tiempo libre con amigos que disfrutan de los mismos intereses. Es un creyente en la humanidad y en los actos de bondad al azar, está deseando conocer gente nueva este año de todo el mundo y tener la oportunidad de conectar experiencias y trabajar en un entorno internacional.
Girisha Fernando, Directora General de Lyfegen, está encantada de dar la bienvenida a David a nuestro equipo. 'Estamos encantados de tener a David Duro a bordo. Su inestimable pericia y amplia experiencia aportarán sin duda un inmenso valor al éxito de Lyfegen. Esto marca un hito importante en nuestros esfuerzos de expansión internacional, y estoy ansioso por anticipar las nuevas oportunidades que se avecinan'.
Desde Lyfegen, damos una calurosa bienvenida a David y esperamos crecer juntos.
READ MORE
Before joining us at Lyfegen, David gained a wealth of experience and knowledge in the healthcare and finance industry while honing his skills as a Global Sales Executive. His curiosity of human nature and love for humanity is what fuels his passion to make a difference where it matters most.
Based in Spain with a qualification in Computer Engineering, David is no stranger to bringing disruptive products to the market. With his extensive experience bringing disruptive products to the market, he has come to understand that it is paramount to highlight how our platform connects to the daily tasks of the user and prefers to guide them through the process. When asked to describe how he views his role, David said, “Everyoneis looking for something. My job is to understand what it is that you are really looking for”. When we asked what he likes the most about his job, he replied “diving below the words and understanding the needs of the people, then connecting those needs with the solutions that Lyfegen can provide.”
What is something he wants to take up this year? Being a curious lifelong learner, David eventually wants to deep dive into the full cycle of our service and explore both the project management and the tech side. Passionate about good music, he spends his free time with friends who enjoy the same interests. While being a tremendous believer in humanity and random acts of kindness, he looks forward to connecting with new people this year from all around the world and having the opportunity to connect experiences and work in an international environment.
Girisha Fernando, CEO of Lyfegen, is extremely excited to welcome David into our team. 'We are thrilled to have David Duro on board! His invaluable expertise and extensive experience will undoubtedly bring immense value to Lyfegen’s success. This marks a significant milestone in our international expansion efforts, and I am eagerly anticipating the new opportunities ahead.'
From all of us at Lyfegen, we warmly welcome David and look forward to growing together!
READ MORE
We are delighted to welcome our new executive assistant, Olga Dragos to the Lyfegen team! Olga joined us after making her final decision to work only with an enterprise that is directly impacting the lives of many for the better.
When we asked what fuels her purpose, she said, “The most exciting part of my profession is that I get to be key in streamlining processes that save time for our teams, which in turn helps get our product in front of more patients and increases our capacity to brainstorm new projects.”
With a solid background spanning over more than fifteen years in Executive and Administrative Support, Olga is a highly experienced professional that has worked in the US market for several corporates and small businesses in the medical insurance and transportation industries.
Originally from Belarus, Olga immigrated to the US in 1996 and further moved to Romania in 2021 where she is happily settled now with her husband and son. Being an avid traveler at heart with a passion for diverse cultures and their delicacies, Olga takes solace in both nature and outdoor activities where she’s been known to take scenic canoe rides down the river in early spring. While she has an adventurous spirit, family and cooking is her first love and creating her own recipes for them to enjoy while spending quality time together is a high priority.
When we asked what’s next for this year outside of work, we were not surprised to discover her warm philanthropic nature has steered her on the path of finding a new organization where she can volunteer her time to make a difference.
We give a very warm welcome to Olga and look forward to having her vibrant personality, and sound expertise to propel our team forward.
READ MORE
After graduating in Computer Science from Babeș-Bolyai University in Romania, Andrei co-founded a digital health start-up that was laser focused on assisting patients and clinicians alike, to reach better health outcomes. His keen interest in UX design and problem solving has been the driving force behind his success in creating and building meaningful experiences and solutions in the digital healthcare arena.
However, his story doesn’t start there.
Andrei’s first interactions with design started in his high school years, where he took part in numerous competitions within the digital solutions and education space – this being where he realized his true passion for design and creating solutions that would positively impact the lives of many.
When we asked Andrei what excited him the most about joining Lyfegen as the new Senior Product Designer, his answer was clear cut – “I am allowed to be an active part in envisioning, designing and building meaningful solutions that can help users, which in turn helps patients and saves lives – this is what I find exciting and refreshing.
Joining Lyfegen has been a perfect synergy between Andrei’s personal views on digital healthcare and Lyfegen’s impactful approach in the sector – solving deep complex issues, while still remaining mindful and deeply empathetic towards its users and end goals. This is what fuels his motivation in contributing his valuable expertise in the process, while working alongside his incredible team.
While in his spare time, Andrei has been known to catch up with his video games when time allows, play board games, watch his favorite science channels, read a good book, and of course spend quality time with his friends and family, when he’s not outdoors enjoying some nature.
We warmly welcome Andrei to our team and look forward to revolutionizing the industry side-by-side.
READ MORE
We are thrilled to welcome Denisa Filip to our tech team at Lyfegen as a Full Stack Developer. Denisa brings a wealth of experience and enthusiasm, and we sat down with her to learn more about her background, passions, and what excites her about joining Lyfegen.
Quick introduction – tell us a bit about yourself! Where are you from and what’s your educational and professional background?
I’m from the west of Romania and have been into informatics since high school. However, my real passion for technology started once I joined a robotics team where I was able to apply everything I had learned in a hands-on environment. I went on to earn a degree in Computer Science and began my career in cybersecurity. Along the way, I gained diverse experiences through volunteering and working with startups. Eventually, I found myself enjoying building websites more, which I now focus on.
What excites you about your job?
What excites me most about my role as a developer at Lyfegen is the opportunity to create new functionalities on our platform that truly end up helping those in need. I'm thrilled to be part of a company that shares my vision and is dedicated to making treatments more accessible to people. It's incredibly fulfilling to know that the work I do contributes to such a meaningful cause.
Why did you decide to join Lyfegen?
I was looking for a dynamic startup environment where I could grow and contribute to its evolution. I wanted to use my skills to leave a positive impact on the community, and I saw that same passion in the founders and team at Lyfegen. Their dedication to creating important change resonated with me and motivated me to be part of their mission of creating a lot of value.
What is something you want to learn or improve in the next 12 months?
I wish to improve my development skills to create amazing user experiences on Lyfegen’s platform while also exploring new relevant technologies. Additionally, I want to focus on my interpersonal abilities within the team, allowing me to contribute more effectively.
How will your know-how help improve our customers’ experience of Lyfegen solutions?
In Lyfegen's dynamic startup environment, where legislations and requirements can change rapidly, agility is key. We must be quick to launch innovative and reliable solutions on the market, and my expertise in developing intricate products helps us to achieve this by delivering seamless and intuitive features. Also, I am very detail-oriented and try to anticipate various edge cases within our platform's logic, ensuring that many potential errors are addressed before they can reach our clients.
Let’s get personal: What are your favorite things to do in your free time?
I’ve recently developed a passion for graphic design, often working on various posters and creative projects. I also love cooking, experimenting with new recipes, or crafting some of my own. Otherwise, I enjoy traveling and I’m trying to explore more countries in the future.
Is there anything else you are looking forward to outside of work in the next few months?
I’m eager to dive deeper into my graphic design hobby, exploring more challenging projects and learning more about it. I’m also looking forward to an upcoming road trip through Greece where I plan to explore the stunning landscapes and rich culture.
We are excited to see Denisa grow and thrive in her role at Lyfegen. Welcome to the team, Denisa!
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.
READ MORE
Medicaid’s launched its multiple best price program in July 2022 to address a major regulatory barrier to value-based drug pricing arrangements. Policy makers hope with this potential contracting risk and liability gone, manufacturers and healthcare payers will increase their participation in value-based drug pricing agreements.
In 1990, the Medicaid Prescription Drug Rebate Program (MDRP) was created to help slow the expenditures of outpatient prescription drugs to Medicaid patients. Under the MDRP, drug manufacturers who want their drugs covered by state-run Medicaid programs must sign a National Drug Rebate Agreement (NDRA) with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The NDRA requires participating manufacturers to reveal the lowest available price of their products and pay rebates on their products. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), there are around 780 drug manufacturers with NDRAs currently in effect.
The rebates of the Medicaid Best Price Policy
Under the MDRP, manufacturers must inform CMS of the “best price” available for its products. Excluding the price negotiated with some government programs, manufacturers are required to report the lowest price it offers to any drug wholesaler, retail outlet, or healthcare provider. This best price is then used to calculate rebates. Manufacturers pay rebates quarterly to states for the drugs covered under state Medicaid programs.
The rebate for most brand name drugs (excluding certain clotting drugs and pediatric drugs) is 23.1% of the average manufacturer price (AMP) paid by wholesalers and retail pharmacies. If the difference between the AMP and the best price on the market is more than the AMP, then this percentage would become the rebate. The rebate amount for generic drugs does not include a best price provision and stands at 13%.
Outcome-based drug pricing can affect rebates
Despite the industry-wide push from stakeholders and policy makers towards value-based drug pricing arrangements, manufacturers have been wary of signing on to these agreements. They argue these outcomes-based pricing agreements could have unintended consequences that affect the AMP and best price. This, in turn, can skew the calculations for a manufacturer’s rebate liability.
In value-based drug pricing, a drug’s purchase price is linked to the effectiveness of the drug; if the drug underperforms, the manufacturer must pay a rebate, or other form of reimbursement, to the purchaser. Depending on the terms of the value-based pricing arrangement, this could be a substantial reimbursement to a payer for poor patient outcomes. The reduced price after the rebate–even if it’s paid on behalf of only one patient’s poor outcome–could become the new, lower best price.
The new Multiple Best Price policy
Before the multiple best price policy went into effect, manufacturers feared that, in theory, if the terms of a pricing agreement resulted in a 100% reimbursement to a payer for a drug proven to be ineffective, the manufacturer could find themselves in a situation where they had to give away their drug for free to every state Medicaid program.
In response to this interpretation of the best price policy–which became a regulatory barrier to value-based drug pricing arrangements–CMS revised the best price policy with the Final Rule. Under the Final Rule, as of July 2022, manufacturers can now report multiple best prices: the single best price for traditional sales and the prices negotiated under value-based pricing arrangements.
This option to report multiple best prices to CMS is only available for manufacturers who offer states the same terms negotiated in the value-based drug pricing arrangements with commercial insurances. State Medicaid programs can choose to take part in the value-based arrangements or continue to make purchases using the traditional best price.
Critique of the Multiple Best Price policy
Although CMS’ goal with the multiple best price policy was to reduce a significant regulatory barrier, this change still draws critics. And CMS has acknowledged that there will be implementation challenges. Here are some examples of criticisms of the new multiple best price policy.
· Critics find the Final Rule’s updated definition of a value-based drug pricing agreement to be too narrow or too broad. Before the Final Rule went into effect, organizations such as the Coalition for Affordable Prescription Drugs (CAPD) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) were concerned the CMS definition of value-based contracting is too narrow and will exclude some value-based pricing arrangements that are already in effect or in negotiations.
y contrast, AARP worried there is a lack of clarity on the definition of value in the Final Rule that could lead to the designation of almost any drug purchasing agreement as a value-based agreement and open the door to fewer rebates for Medicaid programs and more revenue for manufacturers. Time will tell which is the real problem.
· There may not be a non-value-based price for a drug. If a manufacturer is not offering its product outside of a value-based pricing arrangement, there may not be a single, traditional best price to report. When there are no non-value-based sales to look at, CMS advises manufacturers to use reasonable assumptions to set a non-value-based price. Critics, of course, question the loose guidance of a “reasonable assumption” and see this as an opportunity for manufacturers to game the system.
Some stakeholders are also concerned manufacturers will shift most traditional sales contracts to value-based pricing arrangements with the goal of eliminating less profitable, non-value-based best prices. AARP and the National Association of Medicaid Directors (NAMD) have warned that the new rule could undermine the MDRP best price policy that has been so successful in reducing Medicaid drug expenditures.
· There may be technological and operational barriers for State Medicaid programs who want to take part in value-based drug pricing agreements. Like NAMD and AARP, the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) worries manufacturers could be working to erode the MDRP’s best price policy by providing better rebates to commercial insurance companies under value-based pricing arrangements.
Manufacturers and CMS know that some state Medicaid programs will not have the infrastructure needed to implement value-based pricing agreements with more favorable terms. In its Technical Guidance for using multiple best prices, CMS makes suggestions for creating alternative, innovative agreements when intensive data collection and analysis are not feasible.
The Lyfegen Solution
A lack of resources and staff prevents some state Medicaid programs from operationalizing value-based drug pricing arrangements. Lyfgen assesses an organization’s current data gathering capacity, then offers customized solutions using its contracting software platform to support the execution of value-based drug pricing arrangements.
Lyfegen’s Platform helps healthcare insurances, pharma, and medtech companies implement and scale value-based drug pricing contracts with greater efficiency and transparency. By collecting real-world data and using intelligent algorithms, the Lyfegen solution can provide valuable insights into drug performance and cost in value-based contracts.
Lyfegen helps increase affordability and access to healthcare treatments by enabling the shift away from volume-based and fee-for-service healthcare to value-based healthcare.
Contact us to learn more about Lyfegen’s software solutions and to book a demo.
READ MORE
Biosimilars are launching soon in several categories, including auto-immune disorders and ophthalmology
2023 will likely be a pivotal year for biosimilars, as Humira-referenced adalimumab products launch in the U.S. Worldwide, Humira has been a massive blockbuster for AbbVie, but also a drain on payer budgets. Once Humira-referenced biosimilars were marketed in Europe, they took off in many countries, as payers sought to reduce financial exposure with heavily discounted products. Steep discounts and tender offers, in which the best bid gets the lion’s share of the market, have helped boost uptake of biosimilars. Additionally, European payers have bought into the value proposition that biosimilars are cost-effective.
Besides auto-immune disorders, biosimilars are entering new therapeutic areas such as ophthalmology. Together with Samsung Bioepis, Biogen is launching Byooviz (ranibizumab) this month. Byooviz is a biosimilar referencing Lucentis. Approved by the FDA in September of last year, the drug will soon become the first ophthalmology biosimilar in the U.S. Byooviz’s approved indications include wet age-related macular degeneration, macular edema following retinal vein occlusion, and myopic choroidal neovascularization. Byooviz is being offered at a list price of $1,130 per single-use vial, which is a 40% discount off the wholesale acquisition cost of Roche’s originator, Lucentis. It’s expected that the price of Lucentis will also drop.
But, selling biosimilars like Byooviz to payers and clinics isn’t as simple as discounting the price. As with any new biosimilar, detailing Byooviz’s launch – demonstrating its value - will be an elaborate endeavor, which involves engaging doctors, payers, and patient advocacy groups to facilitate access and appropriate physician and patient support. Biogen, for instance, has said it will be educating ophthalmologists about the science and value of biosimilars, as well as the regulatory framework for its approval.
In the U.S., policymakers firmly believe that safe, effective, and lower-cost biosimilars must be made available to all who need them. However, biosimilars have sometimes been excluded from formularies owing to rebate schemes. In this context, higher-priced originator medications are sometimes preferred by some U.S. payers as rebates are larger for those products. Indeed, perverse financial incentives in the U.S. have been a limiting factor with respect to increasing adoption of biosimilars.
Nevertheless, with employers and patients demanding more pass-through of rebates and the role of cost-effectiveness and value-based pricing gradually becoming more important to payers, it’s expected that biosimilars will ascend in market share across all therapeutic categories where they are available.
Indeed, after a painfully slow start from 2015 to 2019, the U.S. has finally been experiencing a sustained uptick in the uptake of biosimilars in the past few years. Robust biosimilar penetration is now apparent across several therapeutic classes. In addition to the filgrastims and pegfilgrastims, there’s been erosion of the originator biologic market share in the trastuzumab, rituximab, and bevacizumab classes.
Biosimilar usage can be bolstered by value-based contracts in which financial incentives of key stakeholders – payers, drug manufacturers, and healthcare providers - are aligned. For example, payers can institute capitated contracts with healthcare providers which hold those who prescribe originator biologics and biosimilars accountable in part for the total cost of care. Partnering with Lyfegen may be the solution for manufacturers and payers alike, as its platform can put users on the right track towards successful implementation of value-based purchasing agreements. The Lyfegen platform identifies and operationalizes value-based payment models in a cost-effective manner.
Undoubtedly, payers who are less reliant on rebate arrangements and therefore more cost- and value-conscious will be able to achieve a decrease in overall costs, as lower-priced biosimilars introduce market competition within therapeutic classes. In turn, this sparks steeper discounts across all drugs, including originator products.
What may further ameliorate the adoption of biosimilars Is the granting of therapeutic interchangeability designation to certain products. To illustrate, on July 28th, 2021, the FDA approved the first interchangeable biosimilar product, Semglee (long-acting insulin glargine), which implies that it can be automatically substituted at the pharmacy counter. This has ushered in more competition, specifically in the insulin glargine class. Furthermore, one of the six biosimilars referencing Humira (adalimumab), Cyltezo, is now approved as therapeutically interchangeable and may be automatically substituted for its reference product Humira. All six approved biosimilars, including Cyltezo, are slated to enter the U.S. market at different points in 2023.
When determining the cost-effectiveness and budgetary impact of biosimilars, payers must consider dynamics, such as the distinguishing between the initiation of treatment-naïve patients on a biosimilar and therapeutic switching practices, as well as price competition with alternative therapies, and the effect of originator companies who can introduce biobetters, or improvements – often in terms of formulation and dosing – on their original product. Lyfegen can assist with evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of biosimilars and biobetters.
Armed with information about biosimilar and originator biologic clinical efficacy, patient preference, and treatment costs - which Lyfegen can provide - payers will be positioned to make appropriate coverage decisions.
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.
