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
EGK uses the Lyfegen Platform to handle complex pricing models of on and off-label usage of more than 80 drugs
Basel, Switzerland - November 29, 2022 - Lyfegen, a global healthtech SaaS company driving the world’s transition from volume to value-based healthcare for high-cost drugs, announced today that EGK-Gesundheitskasse is joining its portfolio of insurer partners to execute all of their value-based pricing contracts for high-cost drugs efficiently, securely, and transparently.
Switzerland, with the fourth-highest pharmaceutical spending per capita, spent CHF 8 Billion (8.1 billion euro) on drugs prescribed for specific diseases in the first nine months of 2022. In an effort to combat the high drug spending, Switzerland has implemented an increasing number of discount models for on and off-label drug usage over the last five years. While intending to ensure accessibility to patients at sustainable prices, the complexity of the price models leads to millions spent by insurers to monitor and adjudicate the price models, resulting in an estimated CHF two- to three-digit million range of missed rebates.
Lyfegen's software enables EGK to identify and claim rebates from 141 drug price models with 32 manufacturers, with minimal effort and maximum transparency. This includes cases of rare or chronic illnesses, promising therapies that may be used outside the approved indication, or new drugs not yet available or approved in Switzerland. Lyfegen's platform addresses the needs of Swiss health insurers for cost efficiency and digitalization, helps solve existing complexities in the system, and does its utmost to counteract high insurance premiums.
"We are delighted to support EGK and take an active role in addressing the growing complexity of drug pricing models to support sustainable access to innovative drugs and therapies in Switzerland,” said Nico Mros, CXO and Co-Founder of Lyfegen. “By focusing on making the implementation of the platform as easy as possible and being responsive to EGK, we were able to quickly present results and kickoff the collaboration to a successful start!"
“With the Lyfegen Platform, EGK is further expanding its focus on sustainability and efficiency for the benefit of our policyholders”, said Carolina Pirelli, Head of Benefits and Deputy CEO at EGK. “The ever-increasing number of pricing models for medications poses challenges for insurance companies in terms of resources and processes. With the automated processing of pricing models through the Lyfegen Platform, we are able to perfectly meet our current needs and with Lyfegen's flexibility, focus and understanding, we see ourselves in good hands.”
About Lyfegen
Lyfegen is a global healthtech SaaS analytics company providing a value-based agreement platform for drugs, therapies and devices. Health insurances, pharma, medtech companies & hospitals use the secure platform for thousands of payment models throughout Switzerland, Europe, the Middle East and North America. The Lyfegen Platform supports the negotiation and automated execution of value-based payment models cost-effectively and at scale using real-world data and machine learning. Globally renowned health insurances, hospitals, pharma & medtech companies have already implemented Lyfegen’s patent-pending platform to scale value-based payment models for drugs, therapies and devices, improving access to treatments and patient outcomes.
Lyfegen was founded by individuals with decades of experience in healthcare, pharma and technology, pioneering the shift away from volume-based and fee-for-service healthcare to value-based healthcare. For more information, visit www.lyfegen.com.
About EGK-Gesundheitskasse
EGK-Gesundheitskasse is an SME health insurer based in Laufen (BL), Switzerland. The EGK Group comprises EGK Grundversicherungen AG (basic insurance in accordance with KVG), EGK Privatversicherungen AG (supplementary insurance in accordance with VVG) and EGK Services AG (administration). It insures around 100,000 people in basic insurance throughout Switzerland, 80% of them also have EGK supplementary insurance.
Naturalness and sustainability are part of EGK's values. It is considered a pioneer in providing unrestricted access to excellent complementary medicine. It launches and supports activities throughout Switzerland to strengthen health in a natural way.
Read on PR newswire in English
READ MORE
Lyfegen HealthTech AG announced today that it has raised CHF 2 million of additional capital, bringing its total funding to CHF 3 million. Read the full press release.
BASEL, Switzerland, Sept. 1, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --
- Investors back Lyfegen's mission to make innovative healthcare therapies more accessible and affordable
- Funding secures market-leading position prior to Series A opening in 2021
Lyfegen HealthTech AG, a Swiss health technology company, announced today that it has raised CHF 2 million of additional capital, bringing its total funding to CHF 3 million. The additional funding was completed by private investors and the innovation program of one of Switzerland's largest banks.
Lyfegen has developed a ground-breaking software solution to accelerate value-based healthcare contracting, pioneering in a global market that could reach USD 400 billion by 2024, according to the latest estimates by research firm MarketsandMarkets™. Some of the world's 10-largest pharmaceutical and medical technologies companies are already employing Lyfegen's platform in strategic markets in Europe and South America.
Looking for a Rebate Management Platform?
Lyfegen makes rebate management easy and efficient by streamlining analytics, ensuring contract accuracy, and reducing administrative work.
Girisha Fernando, Chief Executive Office and co-founder, said: "Increasingly, healthcare systems around the world are transitioning from fee-for-service payment schemes to value-based contracting. Our solutions support the shift towards sustainable payment models that help ensure patients get the treatments they need at prices they can afford, while healthcare companies make an adequate return on their investment. We are proud to have strong partners and investors on board to support us in this challenging and rewarding mission."
The new funding, combined with the seed capital raised in April 2019 and the founders' contributions, secures the development of Lyfegen's proprietary technology as it continues to roll out its value-based contracting solution in the U.S. as well as additional European and Latin American markets in the areas of oncology, rare diseases and medical devices.
Michel Mohler, Chief Financial Officer and co-founder, added: "We continue delivering on our ambitious goals prior to opening our Series A funding in 2021. This latest additional funding confirms the growing interest of international investors in innovative healthcare technology built for a data-driven world. The funds will be used to further strengthen our leading market position as we prepare for a strong Series A funding round."
About Lyfegen
Lyfegen HealthTech AG is a Swiss healthcare technology company that is pioneering digital value-based healthcare contracting. Lyfegen's patent-pending, ground-breaking software analyses complex healthcare data sets in order to help patients access innovative therapies that focus on the healthcare outcomes that matter most to them. Lyfegen's solutions collect the patient's specific medical profile whilst ensuring the strictest data privacy protocols. Lyfegen's founders Girisha Fernando, Michel Mohler, Nico Mros, and Leon Rebolledo have combined their expertise in life sciences and financial services to create a holistic solution that enables life sciences companies, healthcare payers and healthcare providers to develop and roll out digital value-based healthcare, a market that is set to grow to USD 400 billion by 2024.
READ MORE
The goal of this innovative initiative is to increase the processes of value-based drug procurement, allowing CSC-affiliated health centers to focus on the evaluation of the clinical, economic, and social benefits that the drug can provide in relation to its cost.
For the design of these new procurement models, the "Lyfegen Agreements Library" database and the “Lyfegen Drug Contracting Simulator” were used, and work was done on the automation of administrative tasks and on improving interoperability among hospitals and health administrations. These tools allow the CSC to model various agreements and improve the drug management process in the central contracting office. The Health and Social Consortium of Catalonia thus becomes the first organization in Spain to incorporate these tools.
"From the Consortium, we are convinced that access to innovation and the sustainability of the health system relies on reaching innovative management agreements with pharmaceutical laboratories," says Josep Maria Guiu, director of the Pharmacy and Medication Area of the CSC. "The alliance with Lyfegen gives us a tool to work in this direction and to advance in the establishment of satisfactory agreements that facilitate access to innovation and contribute to the sustainability of the health system."
Girisha Fernando, CEO of Lyfegen, comments that "We are proud to help the Consortium lead access to innovation to improve patient care in Catalonia." "By using our advanced solutions, more than 100 health organizations throughout the region can research, model, and efficiently manage agreements, as well as value-based drug procurement," he adds.
“This allows professionals to really focus on what matters most: patient care.”
The collaboration with Lyfegen reflects the commitment of the Health and Social Consortium of Catalonia to value-based drug procurement and to access to pharmacological innovation, as well as the will to continue working for the implementation of solutions that ensure equity and sustainability of the health system.
The total contracting volume of the CSC, which acts as the purchasing center for the subsidized health sector of Catalonia, was 1.497 billion euros in 2023. Of this amount, 90% corresponded to medicines and 10% to sanitary products.
In recent years, the Consortium of Health and Social Services of Catalonia has incorporated social value aspects into the purchasing processes. For example, it has committed to ensuring that 100% of its drug and sanitary product tenders incorporate environmental clauses by 2024.
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 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.
The Consortium of Health and Social of Catalonia (CSC) is a public entity with a local and associative basis, founded in 1983, which has its origin in the municipal movement. The CSC, a reference to the sector and with a clear vocation for service, has as a mission: to promote excellent and sustainable health and social models to improve the quality of life of the people, offering services of high added value to its partners. CSC wants to be the main reference for knowledge and capacity for cooperation, influence and anticipation in the face of the new challenges of the health and social system. All CSC associates are public or private non-profit bodies. For more information, please visit https://www.consorci.org/el-csc/en_index
READ MORE
In light of today’s anticipated press release and exclusive article with AXIOS, we would like to extend a heartfelt thank you to our investors, customers, and team for sharing our vision to transform the healthcare system, helping patients to receive the healthcare treatments they need. The closing of our oversubscribed series A, led by aMoon Fund with additional participation from APEX Ventures and others, marks an important milestone.
Skyrocketing drug prices–especially for high-cost specialty drugs like cell and gene therapies–are accelerating the demand for value-based drug pricing. 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 a value-based future.
With the $8 million in funding, we will expand our presence in Europe and the U.S. to increase drug affordability for more customers and, more importantly, more patients.
Together, we save lives.
Read the official Press Release
Read the Exclusive article with AXIOS
[caption id="attachment_3253" align="aligncenter" width="200"]
Girisha Fernando
CEO & Founder[/caption]
READ MORE
EGK nutzt die Lyfegen-Plattform, um komplexe Preismodelle für die On- und Off-Label-Verwendung von mehr als 80 Medikamenten zu verwalten.
Basel, Schweiz - 29. November 2022 - Lyfegen, ein globales Healthtech-SaaS-Unternehmen, das den weltweiten Übergang von einer volumen- zu einer wertbasierten (value-based) Gesundheitsversorgung für hochpreisige Arzneimittel vorantreibt, gab heute bekannt, dass die EGK-Gesundheitskasse sich seinem Portfolio von Versicherungspartnern anschliesst, um alle ihre Verträge zur wertbasierten Preisgestaltung für hochpreisige Arzneimittel effizient, sicher und transparent auszuführen.
Die Schweiz, mit den vierthöchsten Arzneimittelausgaben pro Kopf, gab in den ersten neun Monaten des Jahres 2022 8 Milliarden Franken (8,1 Milliarden Euro) für Medikamente aus, die für bestimmte Krankheiten verschrieben wurden. Um die hohen Arzneimittelausgaben zu bekämpfen, hat die Schweiz in den letzten fünf Jahren eine wachsende Zahl von Rabattmodellen für den On- und Off-Label-Einsatz von Medikamenten eingeführt. Die Komplexität der Preismodelle führt jedoch dazu, dass die Versicherer Millionenbeträge für die Überwachung und Beurteilung der Preismodelle ausgeben, was zu entgangenen Rabatten in zwei- bis dreistelliger Millionenhöhe führt.
Mit der Software von Lyfegen kann die EGK mit minimalem Aufwand und maximaler Transparenz Rabatte aus 141 Medikamentenpreismodellen von 32 Herstellern identifizieren und einfordern. Dazu gehören Fälle von seltenen oder chronischen Krankheiten, vielversprechende Therapien, die ausserhalb der zugelassenen Indikation eingesetzt werden können, oder neue Medikamente, die in der Schweiz noch nicht erhältlich oder zugelassen sind. Die Plattform von Lyfegen adressiert die Bedürfnisse der Schweizer Krankenversicherer nach Kosteneffizienz und Digitalisierung. Sie hilft, bestehende Komplexitäten im System zu lösen und wirkt hohen Versicherungsprämien entgegen.
„Wir freuen uns, die EGK zu unterstützen und eine aktive Rolle bei der Bewältigung der zunehmenden Komplexität von Medikamentenpreismodellen zu übernehmen, um den nachhaltigen Zugang zu innovativen Medikamenten und Therapien in der Schweiz zu unterstützen“ sagte Nico Mros, CXO und Mitgründer von Lyfegen. „Indem wir uns darauf konzentrierten, die Implementierung der Plattform so einfach wie möglich zu gestalten und auf die EGK einzugehen, konnten wir schnell Ergebnisse präsentieren und die Zusammenarbeit erfolgreich starten!“
"Mit der Lyfegen-Plattform baut die EGK ihren Fokus auf Nachhaltigkeit und Effizienz zum Wohle ihrer Versicherten weiter aus", sagt Carolina Pirelli, Leiterin Leistungen und stv. Geschäftsleiterin bei der EGK. "Die immer grösser werdende Zahl von Preismodellen für Medikamente stellt die Versicherer vor Herausforderungen in Bezug auf Ressourcen und Prozesse. Mit der automatisierten Verarbeitung von Preismodellen über die Lyfegen-Plattform können wir unsere aktuellen Anforderungen perfekt erfüllen und sehen uns mit der Flexibilität, dem Fokus und dem Verständnis von Lyfegen in guten Händen."
Über Lyfegen
Lyfegen ist ein globales SaaS-Analyseunternehmen im Gesundheitsbereich, das eine Plattform für wert- und ergebnisbasierte Verträge für Medikamente, Therapien und Medizingeräte anbietet.
Krankenversicherungen, Pharma- und Medizintechnikunternehmen sowie Spitäler nutzen die sichere Plattform für Tausende von Preismodellen in der Schweiz, Europa, dem Nahen Osten und Nordamerika. Die Lyfegen Plattform unterstützt die Verhandlungen und ermöglicht die automatisierte Ausführung von wertbasierten Preismodellen durch die Analyse von real-world Daten durch intelligente, lernfähige Algorithmen.
Weltweit renommierte Krankenversicherungen, Spitäler, Pharma- und Medizintechnikunternehmen haben die zum Patent angemeldete Plattform von Lyfegen bereits implementiert, um wertbasierte Preismodelle für Medikamente, Therapien und Medizingeräte zu skalieren und damit den Zugang zu Behandlungen sowie Therapieergebnisse für Patienten zu verbessern.
Lyfegen wurde von Personen mit jahrzehntelanger Erfahrung in den Bereichen Gesundheitswesen, Pharma und Technologie gegründet und leistet Pionierarbeit bei der Umstellung von der volumenbasierten und kostenpflichtigen Gesundheitsversorgung auf die wertbasierten Gesundheitsversorgung. Weitere Informationen finden Sie unter www.lyfegen.com.
Über die EGK-Gesundheitskasse
Die EGK-Gesundheitskasse ist ein KMU-Krankenversicherer mit Sitz in Laufen (BL). Die EGK-Gruppe umfasst die EGK Grundversicherungen AG (Grundversicherung nach KVG), die EGK Privatversicherungen AG (Zusatzversicherung nach VVG) sowie die EGK Services AG (Verwaltung). Sie versichert schweizweit rund 100'000 Personen in der Grundversicherung, 80% von diesen verfügen auch über eine EGK-Zusatzversicherung.
Natürlichkeit und Nachhaltigkeit gehören zur Werthaltung der EGK. Sie gilt als Pionierin beim uneingeschränkten Zugang zu exzellenter Komplementärmedizin. Sie lanciert und unterstützt in der ganzen Schweiz Aktivitäten zur natürlichen Stärkung der Gesundheit.
Read on PR newswire in English
READ MORE
We are thrilled to welcome Ina Hasani to our team at Lyfegen as Director of Sales & Business Development for Canada. Ina brings nearly a decade of experience in the life sciences sector, specializing in healthcare strategy, market access, and health economics. We sat down with Ina to learn more about her background, her vision for transforming healthcare in Canada, and what excites her most about joining Lyfegen.
Can you tell us a bit about your background and what led you to your role as Director, Sales &Business Development for Canada at Lyfegen?
I have spent close to a decade in the life sciences sector, working with companies like Novartis and Pfizer, where I gained deep expertise in healthcare strategy, market access, and health economics. My passion has always been focused on improving patient outcomes and the healthcare system. This led me to Lyfegen, a company at the forefront of transforming healthcare through innovative solutions. The opportunity to work with payers and drug manufacturers to ensure better and sustainable access to innovative treatments for patients was a natural fit for me, both professionally and personally.
What are the biggest challenges facing the healthcare market in Canada, particularly in terms of drug pricing and access?
The Canadian healthcare system is highly complex! The biggest challenge that we are facing is how to accelerate access to innovative therapies without compromising the sustainability of the healthcare system. Payors, including both public and private insurers, are struggling to balance their budgets with the rising costs of therapies, particularly for specialty drugs. Outcome based agreements are a potential solution to enable timely access to breakthrough therapies. However, payors and pharmaceuticals don’t have the infrastructure in place to efficiently implement and operationalize such agreements.
What opportunities do you see for growth in Lyfegen’s sales efforts in Canada? How can we better support health insurers and government bodies?
There is tremendous potential for growth. Currently, payors and pharmaceuticals adjudicate their product listing agreements (PLAs) manually through Excel spreadsheets. It is resource intensive, leaves room for errors and is a barrier to potential innovative contracting. In addition, as Canada increasingly looks towards value-based healthcare models, Lyfegen is an enabler by providing the digital infrastructure for payor and manufacturers.
From your perspective, what key actions need to be taken in the next 12 months to drive success for Lyfegen in the Canadian market?
In the next 12 months, we need to focus on deepening our relationships with key stakeholders and demonstrate the value of our digital solutions for payors, manufacturers, healthcare system and, ultimately, the patients.
How do you see your role influencing the implementation of value-based solutions in Canada, and what impact do you hope to have?
Lyfegen has extensive experience in OBA implementation and operationalization in many countries. In my role, I hope to bridge the gap from theory to practice in the implementation of value-based healthcare in Canada.
In your opinion, what’s the most important aspect of building strong client relationships in the healthcare industry? How do you approach this in your role?
Trust and communication are at the core of any strong client relationship in healthcare. Given the complexity and sensitivity of the industry, clients need to know that you understand their unique challenges and are committed to solving them. In my role, I prioritize open and ongoing communication, ensuring that clients feel heard and that their feedback is integrated into our solutions. I also work hard to build trust by delivering results and being transparent about what we can achieve together.
Looking ahead, what excites you most about the future of sales and business development at Lyfegen in Canada?
I’m excited about the potential to be a catalyst for significant change in the Canadian healthcare landscape. Lyfegen is in a unique position to lead this transformation. The combination of increasing demand for cost-effective healthcare solutions and our innovative approach makes this an incredibly exciting time to be in sales and business development.
Outside of work, what are some of your favorite things to do in your free time?
Outside of work, I enjoy spending quality time with my family and friends. I also prioritize my health by being active on a daily basis. I also enjoy learning. Now that I have completed my MBA, I’m on a mission to learn Spanish.
We are excited to see Ina grow and thrive in her role at Lyfegen. Welcome to the team, Ina!
READ MORE
Once upon a time, In a whimsical forest, there lived a smart and creative blue bird. This bird, known for its brilliance in the world of tiny forest biotech, had concocted a magical potion.
This potion was a wonder, a gene therapy to cure the forest creatures of a troublesome disease called sickle cell. Perched thoughtfully on a branch, the blue bird faced a whimsical yet vital challenge. The potion, potent in its healing, needed to be more than just a marvel of science – it had to be reachable and affordable for all in the forest. Additionally, this magical creation was still unnamed, a name that should echo its life-affirming qualities and the journey from a mere idea to a beacon of hope in the forest.
Amidst this puzzlement, the blue bird heard tales of the wise owls of Lyfegen, far beyond the forest. These owls were not just wise; they were masters of a different kind of magic – the magic of numbers and agreements that made health solutions reachable to all. Intrigued, the blue bird fluttered over to learn more.
As it learned about Lyfegen's remarkable ability to navigate the complex world of potion pricing and access, inspiration struck. "Ah-ha!" chirped blue bird, "If Lyfegen can make health solutions accessible, why not name my potion in honor of their work? Lyfgenia – a name that sings of life, hope, and the ingenuity of Lyfegen!"
And so, the potion was christened Lyfgenia, a nod to the owls of Lyfegen whose wisdom ensured that such medical marvels reached every nook and cranny of the forest without burdening its inhabitants.
With its new name, Lyfgenia became more than just a potion; it symbolized a harmonious blend of medical genius and financial savvy. The blue bird turned Lyfgenia into a symbol of hope and healing in the whimsical world of the forest.
Disclaimer: "A Fable of the Blue Bird and Lyfegen's Wise Owls" is a work of fiction, created solely for entertainment and illustrative purposes. This fable does not represent any real-life strategies, decisions, or actions of these entities, nor should it be interpreted as an endorsement or representation of their values, capabilities, or business practices.
Using Lyfegen's solutions can streamline the financial management of advanced therapies like Lyfgenia, leading to more effective pricing strategies and improved access for patients. Learn more about how our solutions enable value-based contracting for gene therapies: lyfegen.com
READ MORE
Amid the buzz of innovation at Lyfegen, we sat down with Simon, our newest team member, whose journey has brought a fresh perspective to our mission.
Quick introduction – tell us a bit about yourself!
I'm based out of the UK. I studied Law at University but soon realized that a career as a Solicitor wasn’t my calling. Post-university, I ventured into Software Sales, initially focusing on Cloud Solutions and then transitioning into the Life Sciences realm. Most of my career has been dedicated to building startups and introducing new ideas and products to the market.
What excites you about your job?
What really thrills me about joining Lyfegen is the potential impact I can have on those needing life-saving treatments. The core goal of the pharma industry is to enhance the health and wellbeing of society, and at Lyfegen, we're crafting solutions that make medications more accessible, allowing us to treat more people. It's also incredibly rewarding to collaborate with some of the world's leading pharma companies, supporting them as they launch new assets.
Why did you decide to join Lyfegen?
It was the founders' vision that drew me to Lyfegen. Their passion was evident right from our initial conversations. Joining Lyfegen is an incredible opportunity for me to contribute my experience to another startup, and together, we can continue to thrive on this exciting journey.
What is something you want to learn or improve in the next 12 months?
Over the next year, I aim to deepen my understanding of the market access space within the pharma industry. Launching assets is intricate, with many layers involved, and there's a wealth of knowledge I'm eager to absorb. It's fascinating to learn about the different approaches of various companies and how they navigate the market.
How will your know-how help improve our customers’ experience of Lyfegen solutions?
With my background in launching new solutions for startups, I'm well-acquainted with the challenges that can arise. We can be proactive in addressing these before they occur. As Lyfegen is growing rapidly, it’s crucial that we adapt while maintaining our high standards and always remembering that our customers are our biggest priority. My experience with Global enterprises has also given me insight into the ongoing support they need and the importance of fostering great relationships based on trust and understanding.
Let’s get personal: What are your favorite things to do in your free time?
In my free time, I love to travel as much as I can, exploring different cultures and places, with my next plans to delve into more of Asia. When I'm in the UK, I spend time with my German Shepherd, Max, or playing water polo.
Is there anything else you are looking forward to outside of work in the next few months?
As we near the end of Q4, it's a busy period, but I'm looking forward to a well-deserved break over Christmas with friends and family, indulging in good food. It's the perfect time to recharge and gear up for a significant 2024 for Lyfegen, where we'll continue to serve our customers, engage with new ones, and grow as a company.
Our conversation with Simon ends on a high note, filled with anticipation for the contributions he will bring to Lyfegen. In the words of Girisha Fernando, our CEO, "we are very excited about Simon joining us. His experience is a valuable addition to our team, and we are confident he'll make a significant contribution to our mission. It's a pleasure to welcome him to Lyfegen."
Here’s to new beginnings and transformative journeys!
Welcome to our crew, Simon.
Amid the buzz of innovation at Lyfegen, we sat down with Simon, our newest team member, whose journey has brought a fresh...
Read More
READ MORE
At this years World Evidence, Pricing and Access event, Girisha Fernando, the CEO of Lyfegen, expressed excitement as he spoke about the company’s latest launched offering - the Lyfegen Model & Agreement Library. This unique learning resource is a true game-changer that builds upon the company’s existing product. It expands our horizons by allowing payers and market access & pricing professionals to explore over 2’500 real-life public agreements, and 18 drug pricing models from around the world. The library provides an unparalleled understanding of drug reimbursement models that help users make better informed choices like never before.
Selecting a drug reimbursement model is very complex, as manufacturers want quick market access, while payers may have many concerns, such as a drug’s efficacy and affordability. Fernando emphasized that the library bridges the gap by assisting payers and market access professionals in finding specific models that address each stakeholder’s concerns, and key real-life agreement examples, resulting in better-informed decision-making, and ultimately more efficient reimbursement processes.
“Because of rising healthcare costs and the increase of medical innovations, the thirst for knowledge and need for value-based healthcare capabilities has surged among healthcare payers and pharma companies across the world”, said Fernando, “That is why we are excited about launching the world’s largest database of real-world value-based agreements. It gives payers and pharma a unique insight into how to structure value-based agreements.”
But that’s not all – Fernando explained that the database is constantly evolving, being updated weekly with new public agreements, allowing stakeholders to be up to date on public agreements.
Overall, it is clear that the Lyfegen Model & Agreement Library is an invaluable groundbreaking tool, that is becoming indispensable in increasing the knowledge on drug and Cell & Gene Therapy reimbursement.
READ MORE
He’s analytical, a techie and has a fantastic gift for music! Yes, we are talking about the latest addition to our team, our very own “Technical Business Analyst” and Ukrainian superstar: Pavlo Lupandin!
Just last month we announced the arrival of our Lead Developer, Daniel, and now more great news follows as Lyfegen continues to lay focus on the technical team: we have our very own Technical Business Analyst, Pavlo!
“Pavlo’s sharpness and problem-solving skills just made it clear that we needed him in our team! His drive and commitment will bring great value to our patients, our customers and Lyfegen as we continue to sharpen our platform” says Lyfegen’s CEO, Girisha Fernando.
We are proud to have him as part of the team and sat down with him to give you a little more insight behind the musical talent and witty “Technical Business Analyst”:
Hi Pavlo! Tell us a little about yourself: where are you from and what is your work experience background?
Hello! I was born in the east of Ukraine, got the Master’s Degree in Economics in Kyiv, worked at one of the Big 4 companies for 3 years as an Auditor, following one year in the role of Business Analyst. After this experience, I found myself being a fresh ACCA Member, who wanted to dive into something not that accounting related. Business analysis has proven to be an interesting area where I can develop further capitalizing on my previous experience.
It’s interesting, that back in my audit days I’ve had some big healthcare-related projects. Who knew that it was only the beginning of working in this promising domain…
This is your first experience in the Health Tech industry – what triggered this move?
Pace of development. The Healthcare & IT industries are developing in overwhelming waves, and to ride the peak of those waves is a challenge – formidable, but a tempting one. As soon as this opportunity presented itself, I decided to chase it. We’ll see, where this decision will bring me in a couple of years.
You are joining Lyfegen as Technical Business Analyst. In simple terms: what will you be working on?
I would be occupied mainly with gathering, documenting and communicating the requirements of our customers. Ever heard of different communication barriers? Those I would try to eliminate, trying to grasp the very core of what has to be done for the maximum customer satisfaction and making sure the development team implements requirements as close as possible to the ideal.
What are your next personal goals with Lyfegen?
There are several of them. First, I strive for development as a professional, and I think Lyfegen will provide me with opportunities to do that. Second, I want to embrace that spirit of a high-growth startup – after working for a massive and complex company, the flexibility and freedom of Lyfegen is a breath of fresh air. And finally, I want to know new talented people. I already know, that the Lyfegen team has a great diversity, and I can’t wait to learn some interesting things from people of other countries and cultures.
What motivated you to join?
Purpose and value. As simple as that. I can see the purpose and value of what I’m doing. Obviously, we are at the beginning of this journey, and it’s a bit early to speak about “value-based pricing for everybody” or “pay only for what is really working” but…the concept is huge, and it will become the question of life and death for some patients. And I’ll do my best to make it as close to life as possible.
Enough about work! What passions do you have outside of Lyfegen?
Oh, you don’t want to hear a full list, I assure you. Let me try to sum it up quickly…Music, videogames and tabletop games – I play them all. A small collection of musical instruments – some of them are quite exotic, especially for my home country (banjo and djembe, for example). A bigger collection of tabletop games in different genres – the Lyfegen team can definitely expect a session or two in the nearest future. And a vast collection of videogames on different platforms…without much details let’s just agree there are a lot.
There are some other hobbies of mine, but I’d prefer to keep a couple of surprises up my sleeve!
We are proud to have the Lyfegen team continue to grow with such fantastic team-members!
READ MORE
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.
