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, 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
The news are out: we are immensely proud to be partnering with Johnson & Johnson to advance value-based healthcare and help patients around the world. We dived into a conversation with our CEO Girisha Fernando on why this partnership holds so much value for Lyfegen.
Girisha, why was the partnership with Johnson & Johnson such an important milestone for Lyfegen?
Girisha Fernando: Johnson & Johnson and Lyfegen share the same vision of sustainable & a value-based healthcare environment. Our goal is to help patients to receive the healthcare treatments they need and with this partnership, Lyfegen is proud to have been a key enabler for Johnson & Johnson and hospitals to deliver better health outcomes for patients.
How can this partnership be a blueprint for future collaborations?
Girisha Fernando: The increasing demand for healthcare measured against the limited financial resources is forcing the healthcare system to deliver innovative technologies to patients at sustainable costs. This can be done with value-based healthcare approaches and value-based agreements. The partnership between hospitals, Johnson & Johnson and Lyfegen shows how healthcare providers, manufacturers and an innovative tech company can deliver more value to patients whilst making efficient use of limited resources.
What would you suggest healthcare payers and hospitals to do if they are considering to implement value-based healthcare agreements with manufacturers?
Girisha Fernando: I believe it is important to focus on how to deliver better patient outcomes at lower cost. Value-based healthcare agreements can be used as a value-maximising method. It allows payers and hospitals to measure health outcomes and the adjacent cost to achieve these outcomes. Thus, hospitals can pivot on focusing their resources on value-adding healthcare treatments whilst addressing financial risk and uncertainty. It will take initial & minimal investment, but the return on investing in value-based healthcare and technology will be in the form of more value for money and better quality and patient health outcomes.
Why is Lyfegen the right platform for this?
Girisha Fernando: With over 120 value-based healthcare agreements running on the Lyfegen platform, we provide the necessary expertise, knowledge and technical competence to our customers. With these capabilities, we break down the complexity of implementing and managing value-based healthcare agreements. And lastly, we ensure that our customers can improve patient health outcomes by using value-based agreements at scale, efficiently.
Learn more about our platform by booking a demo today:
The news are out: we are immensely proud to be partnering with Johnson & Johnson to advance value-based healthcare and help...
Read More
READ MORE
Basel, Switzerland | April 17th, 2019 – Lyfegen HealthTech AG successfully closes its seed financing round, raising a total of CHF 750‘000. The funding was led by Swiss private investors. The funds will be used to further build Lyfegen’s value-based payments platform Lyfevalue and conduct further pilots with partners in the US, Africa, and the EU, including the UK.
Lyfegen is a healthcare technology company that has developed a ground-breaking solution to accelerate value-based healthcare, entering a market set to grow to USD 390.7 billion by 2024 according to latest market research. Its platform, Lyfevalue, collects, analyses & reconciles disparate healthcare data for the purpose of automating value-based healthcare contracting. The platform enables life sciences companies, national and private healthcare payers and healthcare providers to operationalise value-based healthcare strategies whilst benefiting from a single holistic solution for their value-based healthcare operations, visit checklistmaids.com. In addition, the platform allows for personalised healthcare by enabling patient level pricing, fostering accelerated and facilitated access to innovative treatments for patients.
“Enabling the shift to sustainable healthcare is a huge challenge, giving us at Lyfegen great purpose and we are honoured to work with individuals that truly care about making a difference for patients around the world,” said Girisha Fernando, Lyfegen’s CEO & Founder.
READ MORE
The whitepaper is a joint initiative to share with healthcare stakeholders some of Lyfegen and KPMG’s expertise and experience in the development and implementation of value and data-driven agreements in an evolving healthcare environment.
Official Communication by KPMG on 26.10.2020
KPMG addresses the most pressing challenges the healthcare sector is facing today and in the future. Society’s desire to obtain value from the wider healthcare system is not new, however recent experience shows that there is a need to rethink and move healthcare into a new age.
Two current megatrends are: 1) the redesign of pricing for health solutions, and 2) the value of data and the importance of patient access. It is important to address both elements within the Life Sciences ecosystem, including how to innovate, how to develop successful digitalization strategies, and how to get the most out of data.
How outcome-based contracts benefit healthcare
The pricing of services and products based on outcomes or value created is another intrinsic element of the future of healthcare. Rising healthcare costs impact patient budgets and hinder access to treatments. Incentivizing positive outcomes can only benefit patients, while payers gain confidence that they are only reimbursing effective treatments. Manufacturers and providers that buy into the outcome-based model are taking an important step towards making their business more sustainable while contributing to the wider interest of the healthcare ecosystem.
One of the key issues has always been defining the factors that represent value and deciding how to measure them. To give an example, how do you measure if a patient is symptom-free and how long should the observation period last? How is the impact on those caring for an individual considered and how is the societal or economic impact assessed, e.g., can the individual go back to pursuing a career? These questions are key in any reimbursement of pricing arrangements.
Helping the healthcare community
Teaming up with Lyfegen, a healthtech company facilitating access to innovative therapies, KPMG recently published a joint whitepaper (see link below) on the application of outcome-based contracting. Girisha Fernando (CEO and Founder of Lyfegen HealthTech AG) and Martin Rohrbach (Head of Life Sciences for KPMG Switzerland) discuss how this approach can deliver value for healthcare payers, providers and patients.
The whitepaper is a joint initiative to share with healthcare stakeholders some of Lyfegen and KPMG’s expertise and experience in the development and implementation of value and data-driven agreements in an evolving healthcare environment. The combination of knowledge, reach, and technology specific to value-based healthcare, together with proven practical experience, brings unique insights into value and data-driven pricing agreements for healthcare stakeholders. The whitepaper focuses on why outcome-based contracting can address drug access and reimbursement challenges, and how such contracts can be enabled by innovative technology. There are some clear takeaways, serving as building blocks and opportunities to engage in outcome-based contracting for the benefit of healthcare systems.
READ MORE
Lyfegen’s value-based contracting software is used by healthcare payers and leading pharma companies, including Novartis, Roche, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) and Johnson & Johnson
New York, NY - September 20, 2022 - Lyfegen, a global healthtech SaaS company driving the world’s transition from volume to value-based healthcare for high-cost drugs, today announced an oversubscribed $8 million Series A financing round led by aMoon, with additional participation from APEX Ventures and others.
Currently, less than 2% of the health insurance population requiring specialty drugs is responsible for 51% of drug spending. The cost of specialty drugs in the US is spiraling out of control, increasing 12% from 2020 to 2021 alone, with no sign of slowing down due to the increase of cell and gene therapies expected to come to market. As a result, value-based contracting is becoming a more viable alternative for healthcare payers to only pay for drugs that actually work.
By 2025, total net spending on medicine in the US is expected to reach up to $400B. Additionally, new drugs regularly enter the market, but when pharmaceutical companies fail to agree on commercial terms with payers, patients are at risk of being denied access to life saving therapies. Lyfegen’s platform helps regulators, pharma companies and payers more easily adopt value-based payment models by digitizing the end-to-end process of data collection, anonymization and contract negotiations for all parties to agree upon drug pricing and reimbursement.
“We are excited to be announcing this funding round and to have this vote of confidence from aMoon, APEX and our other investors who understand the shift in healthcare that we are experiencing, and are supporting our efforts to expand the Lyfegen platform,” said Girisha Fernando, CEO and founder of Lyfegen. “We currently work with leading government payers, health insurance companies in Europe, the US and the Middle East, and some of the world’s largest pharma companies. Our plan now is to further expand our presence in the US, partnering with both private and public healthcare insurance companies. The move away from volume-based healthcare has never been more needed, and we are happy to play an important role in the shift to value-based contracting.”
“Lyfegen is addressing a significant market need in an industry that is changing dramatically and rapidly, and we are thrilled to help validate their efforts through our investment,” said Moshic Mor, General Partner at aMoon, and former Partner at Greylock and Greylock Israel. “During a time of healthcare budget pressures and recessions, the world needs Lyfegen’s solution now more than ever. We look forward to seeing the company, led by an incredible executive team, continue to enhance access to new drugs as they drive value-based healthcare to become increasingly mainstream.”
About Lyfegen
Lyfegen is an independent, global software analytics company providing a value and outcome-based agreement platform for health insurances, pharma, medtech & hospitals around the globe. The secure platform identifies and operationalizes value-based payment models cost-effectively and at scale using a variety of real-world data and machine learning. With Lyfegen’s patent-pending platform, health insurances & hospitals can implement and scale value-based healthcare, improving access to treatments, patient health outcomes and affordability.
Lyfegen is based in the USA & Switzerland, and was founded by individuals with decades of experience in healthcare, pharma and technology to enable the shift away from volume-based and fee-for-service healthcare to value-based healthcare. For more information, visit www.lyfegen.com.
Media Contact
Yael Hart
GK for Lyfegen
Read the Exclusive article with AXIOS
Read the Press Release on PR Newswire
READ MORE
We are thrilled to welcome Ina Hasani to our team at Lyfegen as Director of Sales & Business Development for Canada. Ina brings nearly a decade of experience in the life sciences sector, specializing in healthcare strategy, market access, and health economics. We sat down with Ina to learn more about her background, her vision for transforming healthcare in Canada, and what excites her most about joining Lyfegen.
Can you tell us a bit about your background and what led you to your role as Director, Sales &Business Development for Canada at Lyfegen?
I have spent close to a decade in the life sciences sector, working with companies like Novartis and Pfizer, where I gained deep expertise in healthcare strategy, market access, and health economics. My passion has always been focused on improving patient outcomes and the healthcare system. This led me to Lyfegen, a company at the forefront of transforming healthcare through innovative solutions. The opportunity to work with payers and drug manufacturers to ensure better and sustainable access to innovative treatments for patients was a natural fit for me, both professionally and personally.
What are the biggest challenges facing the healthcare market in Canada, particularly in terms of drug pricing and access?
The Canadian healthcare system is highly complex! The biggest challenge that we are facing is how to accelerate access to innovative therapies without compromising the sustainability of the healthcare system. Payors, including both public and private insurers, are struggling to balance their budgets with the rising costs of therapies, particularly for specialty drugs. Outcome based agreements are a potential solution to enable timely access to breakthrough therapies. However, payors and pharmaceuticals don’t have the infrastructure in place to efficiently implement and operationalize such agreements.
What opportunities do you see for growth in Lyfegen’s sales efforts in Canada? How can we better support health insurers and government bodies?
There is tremendous potential for growth. Currently, payors and pharmaceuticals adjudicate their product listing agreements (PLAs) manually through Excel spreadsheets. It is resource intensive, leaves room for errors and is a barrier to potential innovative contracting. In addition, as Canada increasingly looks towards value-based healthcare models, Lyfegen is an enabler by providing the digital infrastructure for payor and manufacturers.
From your perspective, what key actions need to be taken in the next 12 months to drive success for Lyfegen in the Canadian market?
In the next 12 months, we need to focus on deepening our relationships with key stakeholders and demonstrate the value of our digital solutions for payors, manufacturers, healthcare system and, ultimately, the patients.
How do you see your role influencing the implementation of value-based solutions in Canada, and what impact do you hope to have?
Lyfegen has extensive experience in OBA implementation and operationalization in many countries. In my role, I hope to bridge the gap from theory to practice in the implementation of value-based healthcare in Canada.
In your opinion, what’s the most important aspect of building strong client relationships in the healthcare industry? How do you approach this in your role?
Trust and communication are at the core of any strong client relationship in healthcare. Given the complexity and sensitivity of the industry, clients need to know that you understand their unique challenges and are committed to solving them. In my role, I prioritize open and ongoing communication, ensuring that clients feel heard and that their feedback is integrated into our solutions. I also work hard to build trust by delivering results and being transparent about what we can achieve together.
Looking ahead, what excites you most about the future of sales and business development at Lyfegen in Canada?
I’m excited about the potential to be a catalyst for significant change in the Canadian healthcare landscape. Lyfegen is in a unique position to lead this transformation. The combination of increasing demand for cost-effective healthcare solutions and our innovative approach makes this an incredibly exciting time to be in sales and business development.
Outside of work, what are some of your favorite things to do in your free time?
Outside of work, I enjoy spending quality time with my family and friends. I also prioritize my health by being active on a daily basis. I also enjoy learning. Now that I have completed my MBA, I’m on a mission to learn Spanish.
We are excited to see Ina grow and thrive in her role at Lyfegen. Welcome to the team, Ina!
READ MORE
Once upon a time, In a whimsical forest, there lived a smart and creative blue bird. This bird, known for its brilliance in the world of tiny forest biotech, had concocted a magical potion.
This potion was a wonder, a gene therapy to cure the forest creatures of a troublesome disease called sickle cell. Perched thoughtfully on a branch, the blue bird faced a whimsical yet vital challenge. The potion, potent in its healing, needed to be more than just a marvel of science – it had to be reachable and affordable for all in the forest. Additionally, this magical creation was still unnamed, a name that should echo its life-affirming qualities and the journey from a mere idea to a beacon of hope in the forest.
Amidst this puzzlement, the blue bird heard tales of the wise owls of Lyfegen, far beyond the forest. These owls were not just wise; they were masters of a different kind of magic – the magic of numbers and agreements that made health solutions reachable to all. Intrigued, the blue bird fluttered over to learn more.
As it learned about Lyfegen's remarkable ability to navigate the complex world of potion pricing and access, inspiration struck. "Ah-ha!" chirped blue bird, "If Lyfegen can make health solutions accessible, why not name my potion in honor of their work? Lyfgenia – a name that sings of life, hope, and the ingenuity of Lyfegen!"
And so, the potion was christened Lyfgenia, a nod to the owls of Lyfegen whose wisdom ensured that such medical marvels reached every nook and cranny of the forest without burdening its inhabitants.
With its new name, Lyfgenia became more than just a potion; it symbolized a harmonious blend of medical genius and financial savvy. The blue bird turned Lyfgenia into a symbol of hope and healing in the whimsical world of the forest.
Disclaimer: "A Fable of the Blue Bird and Lyfegen's Wise Owls" is a work of fiction, created solely for entertainment and illustrative purposes. This fable does not represent any real-life strategies, decisions, or actions of these entities, nor should it be interpreted as an endorsement or representation of their values, capabilities, or business practices.
Using Lyfegen's solutions can streamline the financial management of advanced therapies like Lyfgenia, leading to more effective pricing strategies and improved access for patients. Learn more about how our solutions enable value-based contracting for gene therapies: lyfegen.com
READ MORE
Amid the buzz of innovation at Lyfegen, we sat down with Simon, our newest team member, whose journey has brought a fresh perspective to our mission.
Quick introduction – tell us a bit about yourself!
I'm based out of the UK. I studied Law at University but soon realized that a career as a Solicitor wasn’t my calling. Post-university, I ventured into Software Sales, initially focusing on Cloud Solutions and then transitioning into the Life Sciences realm. Most of my career has been dedicated to building startups and introducing new ideas and products to the market.
What excites you about your job?
What really thrills me about joining Lyfegen is the potential impact I can have on those needing life-saving treatments. The core goal of the pharma industry is to enhance the health and wellbeing of society, and at Lyfegen, we're crafting solutions that make medications more accessible, allowing us to treat more people. It's also incredibly rewarding to collaborate with some of the world's leading pharma companies, supporting them as they launch new assets.
Why did you decide to join Lyfegen?
It was the founders' vision that drew me to Lyfegen. Their passion was evident right from our initial conversations. Joining Lyfegen is an incredible opportunity for me to contribute my experience to another startup, and together, we can continue to thrive on this exciting journey.
What is something you want to learn or improve in the next 12 months?
Over the next year, I aim to deepen my understanding of the market access space within the pharma industry. Launching assets is intricate, with many layers involved, and there's a wealth of knowledge I'm eager to absorb. It's fascinating to learn about the different approaches of various companies and how they navigate the market.
How will your know-how help improve our customers’ experience of Lyfegen solutions?
With my background in launching new solutions for startups, I'm well-acquainted with the challenges that can arise. We can be proactive in addressing these before they occur. As Lyfegen is growing rapidly, it’s crucial that we adapt while maintaining our high standards and always remembering that our customers are our biggest priority. My experience with Global enterprises has also given me insight into the ongoing support they need and the importance of fostering great relationships based on trust and understanding.
Let’s get personal: What are your favorite things to do in your free time?
In my free time, I love to travel as much as I can, exploring different cultures and places, with my next plans to delve into more of Asia. When I'm in the UK, I spend time with my German Shepherd, Max, or playing water polo.
Is there anything else you are looking forward to outside of work in the next few months?
As we near the end of Q4, it's a busy period, but I'm looking forward to a well-deserved break over Christmas with friends and family, indulging in good food. It's the perfect time to recharge and gear up for a significant 2024 for Lyfegen, where we'll continue to serve our customers, engage with new ones, and grow as a company.
Our conversation with Simon ends on a high note, filled with anticipation for the contributions he will bring to Lyfegen. In the words of Girisha Fernando, our CEO, "we are very excited about Simon joining us. His experience is a valuable addition to our team, and we are confident he'll make a significant contribution to our mission. It's a pleasure to welcome him to Lyfegen."
Here’s to new beginnings and transformative journeys!
Welcome to our crew, Simon.
Amid the buzz of innovation at Lyfegen, we sat down with Simon, our newest team member, whose journey has brought a fresh...
Read More
READ MORE
At this years World Evidence, Pricing and Access event, Girisha Fernando, the CEO of Lyfegen, expressed excitement as he spoke about the company’s latest launched offering - the Lyfegen Model & Agreement Library. This unique learning resource is a true game-changer that builds upon the company’s existing product. It expands our horizons by allowing payers and market access & pricing professionals to explore over 2’500 real-life public agreements, and 18 drug pricing models from around the world. The library provides an unparalleled understanding of drug reimbursement models that help users make better informed choices like never before.
Selecting a drug reimbursement model is very complex, as manufacturers want quick market access, while payers may have many concerns, such as a drug’s efficacy and affordability. Fernando emphasized that the library bridges the gap by assisting payers and market access professionals in finding specific models that address each stakeholder’s concerns, and key real-life agreement examples, resulting in better-informed decision-making, and ultimately more efficient reimbursement processes.
“Because of rising healthcare costs and the increase of medical innovations, the thirst for knowledge and need for value-based healthcare capabilities has surged among healthcare payers and pharma companies across the world”, said Fernando, “That is why we are excited about launching the world’s largest database of real-world value-based agreements. It gives payers and pharma a unique insight into how to structure value-based agreements.”
But that’s not all – Fernando explained that the database is constantly evolving, being updated weekly with new public agreements, allowing stakeholders to be up to date on public agreements.
Overall, it is clear that the Lyfegen Model & Agreement Library is an invaluable groundbreaking tool, that is becoming indispensable in increasing the knowledge on drug and Cell & Gene Therapy reimbursement.
READ MORE
He’s analytical, a techie and has a fantastic gift for music! Yes, we are talking about the latest addition to our team, our very own “Technical Business Analyst” and Ukrainian superstar: Pavlo Lupandin!
Just last month we announced the arrival of our Lead Developer, Daniel, and now more great news follows as Lyfegen continues to lay focus on the technical team: we have our very own Technical Business Analyst, Pavlo!
“Pavlo’s sharpness and problem-solving skills just made it clear that we needed him in our team! His drive and commitment will bring great value to our patients, our customers and Lyfegen as we continue to sharpen our platform” says Lyfegen’s CEO, Girisha Fernando.
We are proud to have him as part of the team and sat down with him to give you a little more insight behind the musical talent and witty “Technical Business Analyst”:
Hi Pavlo! Tell us a little about yourself: where are you from and what is your work experience background?
Hello! I was born in the east of Ukraine, got the Master’s Degree in Economics in Kyiv, worked at one of the Big 4 companies for 3 years as an Auditor, following one year in the role of Business Analyst. After this experience, I found myself being a fresh ACCA Member, who wanted to dive into something not that accounting related. Business analysis has proven to be an interesting area where I can develop further capitalizing on my previous experience.
It’s interesting, that back in my audit days I’ve had some big healthcare-related projects. Who knew that it was only the beginning of working in this promising domain…
This is your first experience in the Health Tech industry – what triggered this move?
Pace of development. The Healthcare & IT industries are developing in overwhelming waves, and to ride the peak of those waves is a challenge – formidable, but a tempting one. As soon as this opportunity presented itself, I decided to chase it. We’ll see, where this decision will bring me in a couple of years.
You are joining Lyfegen as Technical Business Analyst. In simple terms: what will you be working on?
I would be occupied mainly with gathering, documenting and communicating the requirements of our customers. Ever heard of different communication barriers? Those I would try to eliminate, trying to grasp the very core of what has to be done for the maximum customer satisfaction and making sure the development team implements requirements as close as possible to the ideal.
What are your next personal goals with Lyfegen?
There are several of them. First, I strive for development as a professional, and I think Lyfegen will provide me with opportunities to do that. Second, I want to embrace that spirit of a high-growth startup – after working for a massive and complex company, the flexibility and freedom of Lyfegen is a breath of fresh air. And finally, I want to know new talented people. I already know, that the Lyfegen team has a great diversity, and I can’t wait to learn some interesting things from people of other countries and cultures.
What motivated you to join?
Purpose and value. As simple as that. I can see the purpose and value of what I’m doing. Obviously, we are at the beginning of this journey, and it’s a bit early to speak about “value-based pricing for everybody” or “pay only for what is really working” but…the concept is huge, and it will become the question of life and death for some patients. And I’ll do my best to make it as close to life as possible.
Enough about work! What passions do you have outside of Lyfegen?
Oh, you don’t want to hear a full list, I assure you. Let me try to sum it up quickly…Music, videogames and tabletop games – I play them all. A small collection of musical instruments – some of them are quite exotic, especially for my home country (banjo and djembe, for example). A bigger collection of tabletop games in different genres – the Lyfegen team can definitely expect a session or two in the nearest future. And a vast collection of videogames on different platforms…without much details let’s just agree there are a lot.
There are some other hobbies of mine, but I’d prefer to keep a couple of surprises up my sleeve!
We are proud to have the Lyfegen team continue to grow with such fantastic team-members!
READ MORE
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.
