Adding a Medicare Part E benefit to pay for cell and gene therapies
READ MORE
.webp)
READ MORE
Despite their curative potential, the extraordinarily high price tags of cell and gene therapies have raised concerns about the U.S. and European healthcare systems' financial sustainability. This is especially true for recently approved treatments indicated for relatively sizable sub-populations, including multiple myeloma, beta thalassemia, sickle cell disease and different types of hemophilia.
To address these challenges, researchers have suggested creating a universal benefit in the U.S., named “Part E,” specifically designed for coverage of cell and gene therapies. Part E would technically fall under Medicare, but it would not have age- or disease-specific eligibility restrictions. In other words, it would be open to all who for whom the therapies are indicated and who may not be eligible for the Medicaid-specific model the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are implementing (for information on this model, see previous microblog).
Upon the Food and Drug Administration approval of an eligible cell or gene therapy, Part E coverage and pricing would be determined centrally by CMS, whose mandate it would be to consider whether such products are deemed “reasonable and necessary” to treat the affected population, as CMS already does when it conducts National Coverage Determinations. Part E would be financed by an earmarked tax.
Any decision to cover a product would include outcomes-based agreements, in which the net price would depend on a product's performance over time. Alternatively, CMS could negotiate subscription-like payment models as some Medicaid programs have done in the hepatitis C space. Here, CMS would be responsible for a fixed payment regardless of the number of patients treated or the volume of a drug or therapy dispensed. In other words, unlike traditional payment arrangements, payment would not scale with volume.
In negotiating pricing and reimbursement for cell and gene therapies, CMS would establish a national risk pool across the Medicare, commercial and (part of the) Medicaid markets. In turn, this would decrease the level of financial risk borne in the system.
The Lyfegen Library offers you access to one central resource with more than 4,500 public price-based agreements and 20 innovative pricing models (including subscription-like payment arrangements) which can form the basis for outcomes-based agreements to be signed under an eventual Medicare Part E. This invaluable resource has all the market research in one place to gather intelligence on novel ways to establish innovative payment systems that are uniquely designed to suit business needs of key stakeholders such as drug manufacturers and health insurers.
READ MORE
Newly approved gene therapies for hemophilia A and B, beta thalassemia and sickle cell disease come with multimillion dollar price tags that could bankrupt financially strapped state Medicaid programs. In many instances, the majority of patients affected by these diseases rely on Medicaid for healthcare coverage.
Last month, the federal government unveiled a novel “access model” - the Cell and Gene Therapy Access Model- designed to mitigate the costs state Medicaid programs incur when they pay for these potentially curative treatments and allow for patient access. The announcement by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services marks a significant step towards addressing the access issue.
Similar to what is currently happening with a select group of prescription drugs under the Inflation Reduction Act, CMS plans to negotiate prices of these gene therapies with drug makers at the national level for all state Medicaid that decide to participate in the model. By facilitating access to potentially life-changing treatments and supporting outcomes-based agreements with manufacturers, the model has the potential to improve health outcomes and alleviate financial burdens on state Medicaid agencies.
At first, CMS intends to negotiate pricing and rebates with the drug manufacturers Vertex and bluebird bio over the next few months on behalf of state Medicaid agencies that voluntarily choose to join the program.
Bluebird bio says it has already established an outcomes-based agreement for its SCD therapy, Lyfgenia, with commercial insurers. The product is listed at $3.1 million. The company did not divulge further details. Vertex, which priced its SCD therapy, Casgevy, at $2.2 million, has declined to discuss its plans.
The fact sheet that CMS provides contains few details as to what kinds of pricing arrangements would be put in place for products such as Lyfgenia and Casgevy. Prior to deciding to participate in the model and allow CMS to negotiate prices on their behalf, Medicaid agency directors will want to know specifically what kinds of outcomes-based agreements CMS can turn to.
The Lyfegen Model & Agreements Library offers CMS and state Medicaid agencies access to one central resource with more than 4,000 public pricing agreements and 20 innovative pricing models, including outcomes-based agreements. This invaluable resource has all the market research in one place for stakeholders to gather intelligence on novel ways to establish innovative payment models that are uniquely designed to suit the needs of Medicaid payers, CMS, and drug makers alike. To further enhance the practicality of these models, our value-based contracting platform mitigates the high costs and administrative challenges involved in managing these contracts. It equips CMS, the States, and Pharma with a streamlined, cost-effective means to implement outcome-based agreements efficiently.
Medicaid directors will also seek information on methods of evidence gathering, outcomes measurement, the length of time needed to test durability of gene therapies and how this information will be provided to CMS, presumably via a patient registry. Lyfegen offers solutions to identify the right drug pricing agreements in which evidence generation and the use of patient registries are key.
READ MORE
Ostensibly, patients who have “skin in the game” through cost-sharing motivates them to be good stewards of their pharmacy benefit. But in the present system in the U.S., cost-sharing is usually not outcomes-based. It’s simply a way for insurers to defray costs onto patients, even when it poses barriers to access.
On the other hand, value-based insurance design is an increasingly popular method used by payers in which prescription drugs considered of high value have correspondingly low or no patient cost-sharing and few if any other utilization restrictions. By contrast, treatments deemed of low value are assigned higher patient cost-sharing and more conditions of reimbursement.
Optimally, this leads to greater patient adherence to high-value drugs and better health outcomes.
This method is used in the commercial sector, though until now relatively sparingly. One of the more interesting recent initiatives is the Medicare Advantage Value-Based Insurance Design Model. Remarkably, the pilot is attracting many participants. Sixty-nine Medicare Advantage plans with nearly 9 million Medicare beneficiaries are signed up, an increase of almost 50% from 2023.
Aligning patient and payer financial incentives around the value of healthcare technologies and services implies the need to gather evidence and measure health outcomes. Broader implementation of value-based insurance design will entail the expanded use of incentive-based drug formulary models in which the most cost-effective pharmaceuticals have the lowest cost-sharing and the fewest reimbursement restrictions.
The Lyfegen Library offers you access to one central resource with more than 3,500 public pricing agreements and 20 innovative pricing models, including value-based insurance arrangements. This invaluable resource has all the market research in one place to gather intelligence on novel ways to establish innovative payment models that are uniquely designed to suit your business needs.
READ MORE
The promise of gene therapy is to cure diseases associated with faulty or missing genes. Yet the high upfront costs, uncertainty surrounding long-term durability, and adverse events in some patients have often impeded market uptake.
So when the investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald said it expects a “very strong product launch” of a recently approved gene therapy made by Krystal Biotech, the topical gel Vyjuvek indicated for a rare skin disease called dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, it caught people’s attention.
Successful commercialization of gene therapies has remained largely elusive, in part due to access hurdles erected by insurers. The current payer system is not particularly well suited to accommodate single-dose therapies for which long-term treatment efficacy, risk-benefit ratios and safety remain uncertain.
But Vyjuvek (beremagen geperparvec) is different. Unlike most current gene therapies on the market today, it’s not meant to be a one-off cure. Vyjuvek is the first and only Food and Drug Administration-approved topical gene therapy that can be re-dosed.
Listed at $630,500 annually per patient—$485,000 after mandatory government discounts in Medicaid—it is certainly expensive. But it is not nearly as high-priced as other gene therapies that have been approved in recent years.
The manufacturer has successfully pursued coverage agreements with payers in the commercial and public spaces. Further, Krystal is using an innovative payment model with its payer clients. The company is offering them a price cap of $900,000 annually per patient to account for patients who may require large numbers of vials of treatment.
The Lyfegen Library offers you access to one central resource with 3000+ public pricing agreements and 20 innovative pricing models—this invaluable resource has all the market research in one place to gather intelligence on innovative ways to establish innovative payment models, such as the one in place for Vyjuvek, that are uniquely designed to suit your business needs.
Learn more: https://www.lyfegen.com/products/model-and-agreement-library
READ MORE
On November 16th, the UK’s MHRA approved Casgevy (exagamglogene autotemcel) or exa-cel for sickle cell disease and beta thalassemia. And this month the FDA is expected to license exa-cel and lovo-cel (lovotibeglogene autotemcel), both of which attack SCD at its genetic root.
For these advanced gene therapies the challenge of access through Medicaid and other programs looms large. Medicaid will be the predominant payer for the 25,000 patients who could be eligible for these gene therapies. And it must figure out a budget-conscious way to pay for these potential one-time “cures.”
In April, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review issued a draft report on the cost-effectiveness of exa-cel and lovo-cel. ICER noted that the proportion of patients achieving treatment success was 97% for both therapies. Even at the placeholder price of nearly $2 million per dose, ICER says both treatments could be cost-effective. But ICER cautioned that a prerequisite is their durability over time and the establishment of value-based pricing agreements between payers and manufacturers.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is therefore pursuing a two-pronged approach to value-based pricing and reimbursement of cell and gene therapies such as exa-cel and lovo-cel.
First, a proposed rule would require manufacturers with the highest drug Medicaid spending per claim to turn over confidential information justifying their prices. CMS would post this information online, seek public comment, and compel manufacturers to “address” their pricing in a public forum.
Second, CMS is planning on “testing of payment models” based on outcomes-based agreements on behalf of all 50 state Medicaid programs, rather than having them done separately by individual states.
Innovative payment models such as these require the ability to analyze patient outcomes and negotiate prices based on those outcomes. Digital platforms, such as those offered by Lyfegen, are designed to implement value-based contracting models. This investment can yield operational efficiency, recovery of missed revenues, and provide critical access for patients to life-saving drug therapies.
Lyfegen offers solutions to identify the right drug pricing agreements, simulate and understand the financial impacts of those agreements, and automate the execution and adjudication of them—thus delivering a measurable reduction in administrative effort in rebate management and optimization.
.jpg)
READ MORE
Basel, Switzerland / Boston, USA – December 11, 2024
Lyfegen, a global leader in drug rebate management technology, today announced the successful close of its additional CHF 5 million Series A funding round. The round was led by TX Ventures, a leading European fintech investor, with additional participation from aMoon, a global health-tech venture capital firm, and other institutional investors. This funding represents a significant milestone for Lyfegen, enabling the company to accelerate its global expansion and innovation efforts, with a focus on extending its reach beyond Europe into new markets worldwide.
Addressing Rising Drug Costs with Intelligent Drug Pricing and Rebate Solutions
The healthcare industry faces increasing challenges with rising drug costs and the complexity of managing growing volumes of rebate agreements. For payers and pharmaceutical companies, manual processes often lead to inefficiencies, compliance risks, and operational delays. Lyfegen is transforming this process with its fully automated platform that ensures secure, real-time tracking, compliance, and operational efficiency at scale.
Today, 50+ leading healthcare organizations across 8 geographical markets rely on Lyfegen’s solutions to streamline 4'000+ rebate agreements while tracking over $1 billion in pharmaceutical revenue and managing over $0.5 billion in rebates annually. These solutions enable healthcare organizations to improve pricing strategies, accelerate access to modern treatments, and better manage rebate complexities.
Learn more about Retrospective Payment System
Scaling Globally with a Leading Rebate Management Platform
Already used by healthcare payers and pharmaceutical companies in Europe, North America, and the Middle East, Lyfegen’s platform is poised for broader global deployment. By automating rebate management, the platform enables healthcare organizations to simplify complex agreements, save time, reduce errors, and enhance financial performance.
“The market for innovative and personalized treatments is expanding rapidly, but with that comes increasingly complex and costly pricing models,” says Girisha Fernando, CEO of Lyfegen. “Lyfegen’s automated solution simplifies this complexity, helping payers and pharmaceutical companies unlock the full potential of rebates while improving patient access to modern treatments. With this funding and our new partners, we’re ideally positioned to accelerate our growth and make a meaningful impact globally.”
Jens Schleuniger, Partner at TX Ventures, adds: “Lyfegen is at the forefront of innovation, offering payers and pharmaceutical companies a powerful solution to address the rising complexities of pharma rebates. We’re proud to lead this funding round and support Lyfegen’s mission to bring greater efficiency and cost savings to healthcare systems worldwide.”
About Lyfegen
Lyfegen is an independent provider of rebate management software designed for the healthcare industry. Lyfegen solutions are used by health insurances, governments, hospital payers, and pharmaceutical companies around the globe to dramatically reduce the administrative burden of managing complex drug pricing agreements and to optimize rebates and get better value from those agreements. Lyfegen maintains the world’s largest digital repository of innovative drug pricing models and public agreements and offers access to a robust drug pricing simulator designed to dynamically simulate complex drug pricing scenarios to understand the full financial impact. Headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, the company was founded in 2018 and has a market presence in Europe, North America, and the Middle East. Learn more at Lyfegen.com.
About TX Ventures
TX Ventures is one of Europe’s emerging leaders in early-stage fintech investing. The venture capital fund invests predominantly in B2B Fintech across Europe - preferably in seed to series A stage.
For more information about Lyfegen’s solutions or to schedule an interview, please contact:
marketing@lyfegen.com
READ MORE
In an industry often characterized by incremental changes, Girisha Fernando, the CEO and founder of Lyfegen, is making leaps. We sat down with Fernando to discuss the recent landmark partnership between Lyfegen and Newfoundland and Labrador Health Services—a collaboration that heralds a significant shift in the Canadian healthcare landscape.
Your partnership with Newfoundland and Labrador Health Services is quite a milestone. Can you share with us what this means for the current state of rebate management in Newfoundland?
Girisha Fernando (GF): Absolutely. This partnership is a transformative step for rebate management in Newfoundland. The current system, largely manual and complex, is ripe for innovation. With our digital platform, we're bringing a level of automation and accuracy that was previously unattainable. This means more efficient processing, less room for error, and a better allocation of resources, which is critical in healthcare.
That’s quite an advancement. And how does this impact the management of drug products, especially in areas like oncology?
GF: It’s a game-changer, especially for critical areas like oncology. Newfoundland and Labrador, as the first in Canada to use our platform, sets a precedent. The region, through the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance, has been managing complex product listing agreements for drugs, including those for oncology. These agreements are vital for making treatments affordable. Our platform simplifies this, managing the various terms of these agreements efficiently, which is crucial for timely and affordable access to treatments.
It seems like a significant step forward for healthcare management. How does this align with the broader goals of Lyfegen?
GF: This partnership aligns perfectly with our goal to make healthcare more accessible and efficient. Automating the rebate process in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially for critical treatments in oncology, directly contributes to the sustainability and accessibility of healthcare treatments.
Looking to the future, what does this partnership mean for Lyfegen and healthcare systems globally?
GF: This is just the beginning. We're looking to extend our platform to healthcare systems around the world. Our aim is to make this technology a standard in healthcare management, fostering more efficient, sustainable, and equitable healthcare systems globally.
Read more about the partnership in the official press release.
READ MORE
Basel, Switzerland, October 27, 2021
Lyfegen announces that Swiss health insurance Sympany is using the Lyfegen Platform to implement & execute complex drug pricing models. Sympany applies the Lyfegen Platform to execute and efficiently manage all value and data-driven pricing models. Sympany gains efficiency and transparency in managing pricing models with the Lyfegen Platform. It offers many pricing models, including pay-for-performance, combination therapy and indication-based models.
The Lyfegen Software Platform digitalises all pricing models and automates the management and execution of these agreements between health insurances and pharmaceutical companies. This is done using real-world data and machine learning enabled algorithms. With the Lyfegen Platform, Sympany is also creating the basis for sustainably handling the increasing number of value-based healthcare agreements for drugs and personalized Cell and Gene therapies. These new pricing models allow health insurances to better manage their financial risk by only paying for drugs and therapies that benefit patients.
"The Lyfegen Platform helps Sympany execute complex pricing models efficiently, securely and transparently. We are pleased to extend our pioneering role in the health insurance industry by working with Lyfegen. This is another step for Sympany to provide our customers with the best possible access to therapies in a sustainable way," says Nico Camuto, Head of Benefits at Sympany, about the use of the Lyfegen Platform.
Girisha Fernando, CEO of Lyfegen, says: "We are very proud to support Sympany in strengthening its focus on value creation, efficiency and transparency amidst the growing complexity of pricing models. It is clear that the trend is increasingly towards complex pay-for-performance arrangements. Ultimately, our goal is to help patients receive their much-needed treatments while helping health insurances better manage risk and cost."
The Lyfegen Platform aims to help patients access innovative medicines and treatments by enabling innovative drug pricing agreements. The Platform collects and analyzes real-time pricing data, allowing health insurances and pharmaceutical companies to obtain relevant information on drug benefits and related financial planning.
About Sympany
Sympany is the refreshingly different insurance company that offers tailored protection and unbureaucratic assistance. Sympany is active in the health and accident insurance business for private individuals and companies, as well as in the property and liability insurance business, and is headquartered in Basel. The group of companies under the umbrella of Sympany Holding AG comprises the insurance companies Vivao Sympany AG, Moove Sympany AG, Kolping Krankenkasse AG, and Sympany Versicherungen AG, as well as the service company Sympany Services AG.
In 2020, profit amounted to CHF 68.8 million, of which Sympany allocated CHF 27.5 million to the surplus fund for the benefit of its policyholders. Total premium volume amounted to CHF 1,058 million. With 575 employees, the company serves around 257,100 private customers, of which around 204,500 are basic insurance policyholders under the KVG. In the corporate customer business, Sympany offers loss of earnings and accident insurance.
More about Sympany: https://www.sympany.ch
About Lyfegen
Lyfegen is an independent, global software analytics company providing a value and outcome-based agreement platform for Health Insurances, Pharma, MedTech & Hospitals around the globe. The secure Lyfegen Platform identifies and operationalizes value-based payment models cost-effectively and at scale using a variety of real-world data and machine learning. With Lyfegen’s patent-pending platform, Health Insurances & Hospitals can implement and scale value-based healthcare, improving access to treatments, patient health outcomes and affordability.
Lyfegen is based in the USA & Switzerland and has been founded by individuals with decades of experience in healthcare, pharma & technology to enable the shift away from volume-based and fee-for-service healthcare to value-based healthcare.
Contact Press: press@lyfegen.com
Contact Investors: investors@lyfegen.com
READ MORE
New York, NY - March 29, 2023 - Lyfegen, a global healthtech SaaS company driving the world’s transition from volume to value-based healthcare for high-cost drugs, announced at the World EPA Congress the launch of its latest solution: the Model & Agreement Library. The purpose of the library is to help payers and pharma negotiate better drug prices while providing an in-depth view on current international drug pricing models and value-based agreements. The database library serves as the basis for successful drug pricing negotiations, resulting in accelerated access and drug prices better aligned to their value for the patient.
The shift towards value-based healthcare, rather than volume-based, has been steadily increasing over the years. This evolution has further reinforced Lyfegen's mission to remain at the forefront of analytics and digital automated solutions for the healthcare sector. Indoing so, Lyfegen’s solutions help to accelerate access and increase affordability of healthcare treatments.
“Because of rising healthcare costs and the increase of medical innovations, the thirst for knowledge and need for value-based healthcare capabilities has surged among healthcare payers, and pharma companies across the world”, said Girisha Fernando, CEO of Lyfegen. “That is why we are so excited about launching the world’s largest database of real-world value-based agreements. It gives payers, and pharma a unique insight into how to structure value-based agreements.”
The Lyfegen Model & Agreement Library was developed as an accelerated negotiation resource for both manufacturers and payers – allowing them to save on time, money; and for the first time – an opportunity to learn at their own pace without incurring large research projects or hiring expensive external experts. Users of the library are now enabled to make informed decisions in determining the most suitable drug pricing models and agreements for their products.
The database holds over 2'500+ public value-based agreements and 18+ drug pricing models – spanning across 550 drugs,35 disease areas and 150 pharma companies. Its search capabilities are spread across product, country, drug manufacturer and payer – with all the knowledge, insights, current pricing and reimbursement activities shown in near real-timeacross the industry.
“Just an academic taxonomy of models is intellectually exciting but it's not really helping your typical customer”, said Jens Grüger, Director and Partner at Boston Consulting Group (BCG). “The Lyfegen Platform goes several steps further. Payers and pharma have a problem and they want a solution. The Lyfegen Model & Agreement Library is practical. It offers case examples.”
Looking for a Pharmaceutical Healthcare Solution?
Get personalized advice and take the next step in optimizing your healthcare strategy with innovative solutions designed for the pharmaceutical industry.
The Model & Agreement Library lets the user see the specifics of agreements reached between manufacturers and payers, including which disease areas and drug/device innovations were targeted. This market-leading database allows for one-to-one comparisons of agreements while heightening increased leverage during the negotiations process.
“I like having a palette of contracts that fall under different domains, like disease state, the way the drug is administered, or available evidence. There are different ways to make a contract attractive to us, to pharma, and to our physicians”, said Chester Good, Senior Medical Director Center for Value Based Pharmacy Initiatives at UPMC Health Plan.
This resource represents a breakthrough in the healthcare industry that facilitates the sharing of knowledge – a strong point of discussion that is becoming increasingly more important. Lyfegen is currently providing a limited time opportunity for industry professionals who are interested to try out the Model & Agreement Library with a complimentary 7-day trial.
READ MORE
Basel, Switzerland, August 3rd, 2021
Lyfegen announces that its value-based healthcare contracting platform has been implemented together with Johnson & Johnson Medical Devices Companies Switzerland (Johnson & Johnson) and a leading Swiss Hospital.
Through this new value-based healthcare approach, Lyfegen and its partners drive the shift towards what matters most to patients: improved patient health outcomes and more efficient use of financial and human resources, enabling a sustainable post-COVID-19 healthcare environment.
The shift towards a value-based healthcare in Switzerland and globally can only be achieved through the support of innovative technologies. Lyfegen’s platform is a key enabler for this transition. The platform digitalises and automates the execution of value-based healthcare agreements, paving the way for the resource-efficient scaling of such novel agreements.
“COVID-19 has shown us the urgent need for a more sustainable healthcare system. With the implementation of value-based healthcare agreements on the Lyfegen platform, we are extremely proud to help Johnson & Johnson and hospitals to accelerate the transition to value-based healthcare and improve patient health outcomes at reduced cost.” says Lyfegen’s CEO, Girisha Fernando.
Lyfegen's compliant, secure and patent-protected value-based healthcare contracting platform automates the collection and analysis of patient-level data. Users receive transparency on actionable health outcomes and agreement performance. Lyfegen’s contribution to this partnership is a blueprint for the scaling of value-based healthcare models across hospitals, health insurances, medical device & pharma companies globally. The partnership marks another important milestone for Lyfegen, as the company continues to grow and has recently opened its next investment round.
READ MORE
Lyfegen is proud to announce that Professor Jens Grueger, PhD, has joined the company´s Advisory Board. Jens is the former Head of Global Access at F. Hoffmann-La Roche and has led country, regional, and global health economics and outcomes research, pricing, and market access organizations for SmithKline Beecham, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche.
He is a healthtech pioneer, founding his first digital disease management start-up in 1997, has been a long-time scientific reviewer for Value in Health and is the President Elect at ISPOR, the leading professional society for health economics and outcomes research. Throughout his various roles he has been promoting value-based pricing models across healthcare systems. Jens holds a PhD in Mathematical Statistics from the Technical University of Dortmund and is Affiliate Professor at the CHOICE Institute at University of Washington School of Pharmacy in Seattle, USA.
With his vast experience and expertise in healthcare, Jens will support Lyfegen to achieve its mission of facilitating and accelerating value-based healthcare to improve the life of patients.
READ MORE
Lyfegen is excited to announce that co-founder Nico Mros is taking on a new role as Chief Customer Experience Officer (CXO). Until recently, Nico held the position of Chief Operating Officer (COO) of Lyfegen. Nico gives first-hand insights on what this shift means for him and Lyfegen.
The choice to transition into this new and exciting role is a logical one as Lyfegen continues to evolve and center all decisions and platform optimizations around the customers and patients needs.
With more than 8 years of experience in healthcare, Nico is a value-based healthcare leader with a strong skill set in project and change management. He is and stays responsible for customer experience and success at Lyfegen and leads the digitization projects for value-based agreements and real-world data insights of Lyfegen’s platform. This change helps to advance Lyfegen’s mission which is to create the most disruptive health tech company by driving the world’s transition to value-based and data-driven healthcare.
What does Nico have to say about his new title and the reasons for the change? We asked our new CXO to share his thoughts with us:
“At Lyfegen, we lived customer centricity since the beginning. This change in title comes natural and underlines for everyone what our existing customers tell us regularly – they feel understood, motivated and purpose-driven when working with us.” Nico says. “As a Co-Founder of Lyfegen I gladly accept this new title, letting go of my previous title as COO which, I honestly never liked. The choice to change this title feels obvious and necessary at the same time. I would say – just right. “
Furthermore Nico sees three main reasons for the renaming of the position which are:
1. The happiness of the customers at Lyfegen is of utmost importance, it is even a key factor for success at Lyfegen. Hence, Lyfegen wants to establish a point of view that focuses unconditionally on customer happiness, allowing to establish trusted and long-lasting relationships with clear point of contacts.
2. Besides acting directly with the customers, a customer-first environment within Lyfegen is crucial. Embedding the customer perspective in every decision, beginning with product design and ending with company strategy, allows Lyfegen to be the customer-centered company we want to be.
3. Keep it simple and understandable. While a COO can have many focuses, the Customer Experience Officer has just ONE: the customer's best possible experience and success.
Further Nico adds: “It is my firm belief that helping customers to gain success and delivering superior experience in every point of contact can be a major competitive advantage, even a unique selling point. As CXO I can guarantee this kind of philosophy from the product to personal interactions. In combination with innovative technology, this is the key to sustainable success.”
Are you ready to become a happy customer?
READ MORE
Our CEO, Girisha Fernando, gives first-hand insights to what it means to be a “Mindful Leader” and how the COVID19 pandemic has impacted his leadership style.
Admit it, you clicked on this blogpost because the question itself raises endless questions. What is mindful leadership? Is it really possible to be a mindful leader in a high-paced (stressful and sleepless) startup environment? Now add the physiological stress of a pandemic to the equation.
Recently I came across one of the live lectures of Simon Sinek (if you don’t know him: google him), focusing on the topic of “mindful meditation for focused leadership”. I was pleasantly surprised to see that mindfulness and mindful leadership is gaining well-deserved attention in the workplace. Before I dive into how I live by this leadership style at Lyfegen, let’s quickly dive into what it means:
What is Mindful Leadership (without writing a Wikipedia essay)?
Mindful leadership is leading while being aware in the present, focusing (in our case) on the road to success rather than success itself, all while interacting humbly within the team and with customers.
When confronted with challenges, a mindful leader will focus on action rather than control, remaining as agile and calm as possible. After all, you cannot always control the output but can influence how the team gets to it.
Example: It unexpectedly starts raining. A controlling leader will focus on the unforeseen rain and how the team failed to get sunshine (despite it not having necessarily been in their power), micromanaging every consequent step.
A mindful leader will stay calm, gearing up on raincoats & boots for his team, enabling and helping them to adapt their strategy in order to reach sunshine.
While this is a rather simplistic way of looking at mindful leadership, you get the overall idea and how this encourages a high confidence, creative, agile, and cooperative environment.
Mindful Leadership at Lyfegen
I am by no means an expert in mindful leadership and have made my share of mistakes. My Buddhist family background has taught me a lot about mindfulness, incorporating meditation into my daily routine.
However, one would think that practicing mindful leadership is harder in a high-paced start-up environment. I disagree: it is exactly in such an environment that, despite the 14+ hour workdays, one needs to stay present. Focus on the now and continuously fine-tune how to “reach the sunshine”, learning from mistakes on the way.
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit Switzerland hard in March, our team was faced with various challenges in terms of business and speed of implementation. However, team-work was not one of them and for that I greatly attribute this leadership style.
We took everyday as it came and continued, even digitally, to work together like an orchestra in perfect harmony. When comparing to the analogy above, COVID-19 was a true thunderstorm and at the same time, it gave light to a rainbow of opportunities.
My 5 key takeaways for becoming a more mindful leader:
- Focus on the now: optimize how your team works together. The goal will follow as a direct result.
- Focus on the essential: if everything is a priority then nothing is a priority. As a leader, make sure everyone is working towards the same milestones along the road rather than mainly focusing on the goal.
- Always remain humble: treat others the way you expect them to treat you (unfortunately a lot of people in other companies know this but don’t live by it).
- Never be afraid to fail. Let go of fear to unlock maximum potential.
- Always take a moment, as a leader, for self-reflection & calm. At Lyfegen, we have a little room in our office with some bean-bags where anyone can retreat and meditate during the day. If you don’t find me at my desk, this is where you’ll find me.
READ MORE
To build the best software ever, you also need the best team ever. We are meticulous in our selection and delighted to announce that we have found a gem for our junior quality engineer position: Alina Bratu has joined Lyfegen to improve the quality and user experience of our platform. We sat down with Alina to learn about her experience, her goals, and her aspirations.
Hello Alina, and welcome to Lyfegen! Please tell us a little about yourself: Where are you from, and what’s your educational and professional background?
Hi! I grew up in the city of Buzau in Romania and currently live in Bucharest. In college, I studied public administration and later decided to pursue a career in analytics. With the recommendation of friends, I decided to move towards software testing – which is the best decision I’ve made!
What excites you about being a junior quality engineer?
I like to view software testing as the work of a detective who follows clues that eventually help them to solve a case. It is a challenging and ever-changing line of work, and the best thing about it is that it truly impacts the delivery of quality products in a tech-driven world.
Why did you decide to join Lyfegen?
The company’s mission to make healthcare more accessible resonated with me, and I was really excited about the opportunity to work on a project that has the potential to impact the world. Working in a start-up environment with such a motivated and talented team is an amazing chance for me as a junior QA to develop my career while applying the knowledge I gained in the past year to something new and meaningful.
What do you want to learn or improve on this year?
My main goal this year is to learn more about the healthcare industry while also expanding my QA knowledge and expertise.
How will your know-how help to improve our customers’ experience of the Lyfegen platform?
As a QA engineer, I am responsible for tracking down any defects that might affect the users’ interaction with the platform. As I enjoy doing this ‘detective work’ and challenging the software in different ways, together with the developers, I can ensure that the user experience will be pleasant and the platform will look and act accordingly.
Let’s get personal: What are your favorite things to do in your free time?
In my free time, I enjoy reading fiction and self-development books and traveling as these activities help me to gain a new perspective and relax. When I’m not engaging in these hobbies, I enjoy cooking, watching movies, and playing board games with my friends.
Is there anything else you’re looking forward to outside of work this year?
I want to achieve balance and start enjoying and practicing my hobbies more. I am also planning to dust off my driving skills as I’ve postponed this for quite some time!
We are super happy to have you with us, Alina!
READ MORE
Nico Mros, Lyfegen’s COO, explains why Lyfegen is a firm believer in the UN Sustainable Development Goals and how the company works towards Goal # 3: Good Health & Well Being.
Chances are that since the pandemic hit, you have at least heard of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. But what do these mean and how does a company like Lyfegen incorporate these in their business?
The Basics
The 17 goals were set in 2015 by the United Nations General Assembly with the intention of reaching these by 2030. The interlinked goals are a “blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all. They address the global challenges we face, including poverty, inequality, climate change, environmental degradation, peace and justice.” Each of the 17 goals outlines even more specific targets, which are constantly monitored and discussed between countries.
Lyfegen & Sustainable Development Goal #3: Good Health & Well being
Ensuring healthy lives for all and promoting well being is an essential goal, even more so since the pandemic affected millions worldwide. That said, this goal aims at improving the health of millions of people, increasing their life expectancy and reducing child and maternal mortality. In addition, it addresses persistent and emerging health issues, focusing on providing more efficient funding of health systems. This in turn, enabling millions of people worldwide to have more widespread access to the medication they need.
Specifically, Sustainable Development Goal #3 outlines the following target:
“3.8 Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all.”
Sounds familiar? Lyfegen’s mission is to help patients to access innovative therapies by driving value-based healthcare. In other words: Doing what’s right for patients!
The pay-for-performance model, which Lyfegen enables through their value-based contracting platform, allows for more people worldwide to have access to innovative and often expensive medication. This directly addressing the UN’s goal to “provide more efficient funding of health systems” and have more “widespread access to medication”.
With some of the leading manufacturers, payers, and care providers already using Lyfegen’s solutions, a clear step towards supporting the UN Sustainable Development Goals is taken. We are proud to be a part of this journey towards a better future!
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.
