How Technology is Transforming Drug Rebate Management
READ MORE
.webp)
READ MORE
The complexity of drug rebate management has grown significantly in recent years. With multiple rebate structures, evolving regulations, and limited visibility across the process, pharmaceutical companies and payers face increasing challenges in tracking, optimizing, and ensuring compliance in rebate agreements.
Traditional rebate management often relies on manual processes, spreadsheets, and siloed data sources—leading to inefficiencies, errors, and revenue leakage. But technology is changing that. Automation, real-time analytics, and centralized platforms are transforming how pharma and payers approach rebate strategies.
Automation and AI
Advanced Analytics and Predictive Modeling
Improved Compliance & Transparency
The future of rebate management isn’t manual—it’s intelligent, automated, and built for scale. That’s exactly where Lyfegen comes in.
Our Rebate Analytics Platform is designed to help both payers and pharmaceutical companies take control of growing complexity. With automation, analytics, and real-time insights at its core, Lyfegen enables your team to:
Payers and pharma leaders around the world are already using Lyfegen to recover lost revenue and gain full visibility into their rebate performance.
Now it’s your turn. 👉 Book a demo and see how Lyfegen transforms rebate management—starting today.
READ MORE
With price tags in the millions, gene therapies are redefining medicine—and reshaping how we negotiate access to it. For both payers and pharmaceutical companies, these breakthrough treatments present a shared challenge: how do you fund what feels priceless?
From Zolgensma to Hemgenix, gene therapies promise one-time cures for rare and life-threatening diseases. But the financial model behind them can’t follow the traditional playbook. These treatments call for a smarter, more collaborative approach to pricing—and that’s exactly what’s taking root.
Why Payers and Pharma Need a New Playbook
Unlike conventional drugs, gene therapies frontload their cost while delivering benefits over time. That disconnect forces a fundamental rethink of how pricing, reimbursement, and risk-sharing are handled.
According to the Lyfegen 2024 Drug Contracting Trends Report, health systems worldwide are moving toward innovative agreements: outcome guarantees, installment plans, and subscription-based models. These aren’t just experiments—they’re becoming essential tools to balance patient access with financial responsibility.
For payers, it’s about managing risk while maintaining equity. For pharma, it’s about demonstrating value in a way that aligns with clinical reality. Either way, the direction is clear: shared risk, shared benefit.
Global Shifts That Are Shaping the Market
The trends are global and accelerating. In the United States, payers like Blue Cross Blue Shield and Medicaid are embracing outcome-based models for sickle cell gene therapies like Casgevy and Lyfgenia. Brazil’s Ministry of Health uses installment payments for Zolgensma, spreading risk over five years while tying reimbursement to real-world outcomes.
In Europe, countries like Spain and Italy combine restricted coverage with annual reassessments, ensuring that high-cost therapies are only reimbursed if they continue to deliver results.
The message? Pricing innovation is no longer a nice-to-have—it’s the only way forward.
How Lyfegen Bridges the Gap
At Lyfegen, we help payers and pharma move beyond the negotiation table—and into action.
• Our Agreements Library, the world’s largest digital repository of value-based contracts, helps you understand what others are doing and where the benchmarks lie.
• Our pricing simulation engine lets both sides explore scenarios before committing—making deals smarter from day one.
• And our automated platform handles everything from contract setup to rebate tracking, saving time, reducing risk, and driving transparency.
A Smarter Way to Fund the Future of Medicine
Gene therapies will continue to challenge the limits of what we think healthcare can afford. But with the right models and tools, both payers and pharma can find common ground—ensuring that innovation reaches the patients who need it most.
Curious about what’s next in drug contracting?
Download the 2024 Drug Contracting Trends Report for exclusive insights, real-world examples, and global benchmarks.
READ MORE
The UK government is taking a bold step toward modernizing public services by cutting red tape, integrating AI into operations, and bringing NHS England back under direct ministerial control. This reform signals a shift toward efficiency, innovation, and better patient care—one where AI-driven solutions like Lyfegen can play a pivotal role.
NHS England was originally established in 2012 as an arm’s-length organization to insulate the health service from political interference. Over time, however, bureaucracy accumulated, slowing decision-making and increasing costs. With Starmer’s decision to fold NHS England’s functions back into the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), the system is poised for a fresh start. This restructuring aims to eliminate redundant roles, reduce administrative waste, and reallocate resources to frontline care—ushering in a new era of efficient and accountable healthcare management.
A key takeaway from Starmer’s announcement is his strong push for automation. The government is aiming to cut administrative costs by 25%, ensuring that resources are directed where they matter most: patient care.
Some of the expected changes include:
By integrating NHS England’s functions into the DHSC, the government is positioned to strengthen and streamline negotiations with pharmaceutical companies. This shift could lead to:
One of the most promising aspects of this reform is the government’s commitment to leveraging AI to transform operations. For an AI-powered platform like Lyfegen, this presents a significant opportunity to deliver real-world benefits in healthcare management. Here’s how Lyfegen can help:
While AI promises to revolutionize healthcare efficiency, successful implementation will require overcoming hurdles such as:
Transforming the NHS is no small task. Beyond balancing innovation and cost, the government must manage vast amounts of healthcare data and navigate the complexities of implementing change at scale. However, Starmer’s announcement represents more than just another cycle of NHS reforms—it’s a meaningful step toward a future where efficiency and technology-driven innovation deliver real, lasting benefits to patients.
At Lyfegen, we’re ready to support this transformation by delivering AI-powered solutions that drive real savings and faster patient access. Let’s build a smarter, more efficient NHS together.
Want to see how our AI-powered solutions can support smarter drug pricing and better healthcare access? Let’s schedule a demo today.
READ MORE
In an era of innovative therapies and escalating healthcare costs, drug contracting has become a cornerstone of sustainable healthcare delivery. Balancing the promise of cutting-edge treatments with financial realities poses a significant challenge for payers and pharmaceutical companies alike. In this blog, we’ll delve into how drug contracting is evolving to bridge the gap between value and cost and how Lyfegen’s solutions empower stakeholders to achieve this balance efficiently.
The healthcare industry faces a dual mandate: ensure patient access to life-saving treatments and maintain financial sustainability. This balance is particularly critical in the face of rising costs for innovative therapies such as gene and cell treatments, which can range from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars per patient. For example, the average cost of some gene therapies exceeds $1 million per treatment, creating substantial financial pressure on healthcare systems and insurers.
At the heart of this challenge is the need for value-based frameworks that link reimbursement to patient outcomes. Traditional models—which rely on fixed pricing or volume-based discounts—are no longer adequate to address the uncertainties associated with high-cost therapies. These uncertainties include the long-term effectiveness of treatments, variability in patient response, and potential complications that may arise over time.
Moreover, there is increasing pressure from governments and regulatory bodies to ensure affordability without compromising access. For instance, in Europe, innovative reimbursement models are gaining traction, with over 50% of countries exploring outcome-based agreements as a way to manage budgetary constraints. Similarly, in Asia, the growing adoption of health technology assessments (HTAs) underscores the focus on aligning drug pricing with real-world effectiveness.
For payers, these dynamics mean embracing tools that provide clarity on financial risks while ensuring that patients receive timely access to treatments. Pharmaceutical companies, on the other hand, face the challenge of justifying the high costs of their therapies through transparent data and measurable outcomes. Success in this evolving landscape requires collaboration between stakeholders, data-driven decision-making, and the adoption of technology platforms that streamline the contracting process.
Traditional pricing models often struggle to account for the long-term impacts of high-cost therapies. To address these challenges, stakeholders are increasingly adopting value-based contracting models that tie payment to outcomes. However, implementing these models requires sophisticated data analysis, scenario planning, and a commitment to shared goals.
Lyfegen’s suite of tools is designed to simplify and optimize the drug contracting process, enabling payers and pharmaceutical companies to achieve their objectives efficiently. Here’s how:
1. Lyfegen Agreements Library: This comprehensive digital repository offers access to over 6,000 public agreements and 20 unique pricing models.
2. Lyfegen Drug Contracting Simulator: This tool empowers users to simulate pricing scenarios and evaluate their financial implications in real-time.
3. Lyfegen Rebate Analytics Platform (ARA): Optimize rebate management with seamless automation and centralized processes.
Adopting innovative drug contracting strategies can make the difference between missed opportunities and successful outcomes. Lyfegen’s solutions, are here to help you design contracts that balance value and cost effectively. Book your demo today to see how these tools can support your goals.
READ MORE
The first quarter of the year is a pivotal time for the pharmaceutical industry. As budgets are finalized and contracts renegotiated, Q1 sets the stage for how effectively organizations manage rebates, optimize costs, and deliver value.
For those navigating the complexities of pharma rebate management, Q1 offers unique opportunities to streamline workflows, review existing agreements, and ensure every rebate maximizes its potential. This period isn’t just about planning, it’s about implementing smarter processes to stay ahead in an increasingly dynamic healthcare landscape.
Why Rebate Management Deserves Q1 Attention
Q1 is the ideal time to evaluate rebate performance from the previous year. Were the agreements aligned with expectations? Did they deliver the promised value?
By assessing past performance, teams can identify underperforming agreements and opportunities for improvement. This ensures resources are allocated to agreements that drive measurable results.
Rebate workflows are often complex, requiring significant manual effort for tracking, reconciliation, and reporting. In Q1, organizations have the opportunity to implement systems that:
Streamlining workflows early in the year creates efficiencies that save time and resources throughout the year.
The first quarter is also critical for renegotiating rebate terms with manufacturers and payers. Updated contracts may include:
Teams equipped with data from previous agreements are better positioned to negotiate terms that align with strategic goals.
The Role of Technology in Pharma Rebate Management
Technology is transforming how organizations approach pharma rebate management. Tools like those offered by Lyfegen enable teams to:
For example, Lyfegen’s platform simplifies rebate tracking and provides actionable insights, ensuring organizations maximize their rebate potential while minimizing inefficiencies.
Start your year smarter!
Q1 is the time to rethink and refine your approach to pharma rebate management. With smarter workflows, clearer insights, and a focus on data-driven strategies, your team can unlock measurable savings and operational excellence.
Book a demo today to discover how Lyfegen’s solutions can simplify your rebate workflows and set you up for success in 2025.
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
Lyfegen is proud to announce that Professor Jens Grueger, PhD, has joined the company´s Advisory Board. Jens is the former Head of Global Access at F. Hoffmann-La Roche and has led country, regional, and global health economics and outcomes research, pricing, and market access organizations for SmithKline Beecham, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche.
He is a healthtech pioneer, founding his first digital disease management start-up in 1997, has been a long-time scientific reviewer for Value in Health and is the President Elect at ISPOR, the leading professional society for health economics and outcomes research. Throughout his various roles he has been promoting value-based pricing models across healthcare systems. Jens holds a PhD in Mathematical Statistics from the Technical University of Dortmund and is Affiliate Professor at the CHOICE Institute at University of Washington School of Pharmacy in Seattle, USA.
With his vast experience and expertise in healthcare, Jens will support Lyfegen to achieve its mission of facilitating and accelerating value-based healthcare to improve the life of patients.
READ MORE
Lyfegen is excited to announce that co-founder Nico Mros is taking on a new role as Chief Customer Experience Officer (CXO). Until recently, Nico held the position of Chief Operating Officer (COO) of Lyfegen. Nico gives first-hand insights on what this shift means for him and Lyfegen.
The choice to transition into this new and exciting role is a logical one as Lyfegen continues to evolve and center all decisions and platform optimizations around the customers and patients needs.
With more than 8 years of experience in healthcare, Nico is a value-based healthcare leader with a strong skill set in project and change management. He is and stays responsible for customer experience and success at Lyfegen and leads the digitization projects for value-based agreements and real-world data insights of Lyfegen’s platform. This change helps to advance Lyfegen’s mission which is to create the most disruptive health tech company by driving the world’s transition to value-based and data-driven healthcare.
What does Nico have to say about his new title and the reasons for the change? We asked our new CXO to share his thoughts with us:
“At Lyfegen, we lived customer centricity since the beginning. This change in title comes natural and underlines for everyone what our existing customers tell us regularly – they feel understood, motivated and purpose-driven when working with us.” Nico says. “As a Co-Founder of Lyfegen I gladly accept this new title, letting go of my previous title as COO which, I honestly never liked. The choice to change this title feels obvious and necessary at the same time. I would say – just right. “
Furthermore Nico sees three main reasons for the renaming of the position which are:
1. The happiness of the customers at Lyfegen is of utmost importance, it is even a key factor for success at Lyfegen. Hence, Lyfegen wants to establish a point of view that focuses unconditionally on customer happiness, allowing to establish trusted and long-lasting relationships with clear point of contacts.
2. Besides acting directly with the customers, a customer-first environment within Lyfegen is crucial. Embedding the customer perspective in every decision, beginning with product design and ending with company strategy, allows Lyfegen to be the customer-centered company we want to be.
3. Keep it simple and understandable. While a COO can have many focuses, the Customer Experience Officer has just ONE: the customer's best possible experience and success.
Further Nico adds: “It is my firm belief that helping customers to gain success and delivering superior experience in every point of contact can be a major competitive advantage, even a unique selling point. As CXO I can guarantee this kind of philosophy from the product to personal interactions. In combination with innovative technology, this is the key to sustainable success.”
Are you ready to become a happy customer?
READ MORE
Our CEO, Girisha Fernando, gives first-hand insights to what it means to be a “Mindful Leader” and how the COVID19 pandemic has impacted his leadership style.
Admit it, you clicked on this blogpost because the question itself raises endless questions. What is mindful leadership? Is it really possible to be a mindful leader in a high-paced (stressful and sleepless) startup environment? Now add the physiological stress of a pandemic to the equation.
Recently I came across one of the live lectures of Simon Sinek (if you don’t know him: google him), focusing on the topic of “mindful meditation for focused leadership”. I was pleasantly surprised to see that mindfulness and mindful leadership is gaining well-deserved attention in the workplace. Before I dive into how I live by this leadership style at Lyfegen, let’s quickly dive into what it means:
What is Mindful Leadership (without writing a Wikipedia essay)?
Mindful leadership is leading while being aware in the present, focusing (in our case) on the road to success rather than success itself, all while interacting humbly within the team and with customers.
When confronted with challenges, a mindful leader will focus on action rather than control, remaining as agile and calm as possible. After all, you cannot always control the output but can influence how the team gets to it.
Example: It unexpectedly starts raining. A controlling leader will focus on the unforeseen rain and how the team failed to get sunshine (despite it not having necessarily been in their power), micromanaging every consequent step.
A mindful leader will stay calm, gearing up on raincoats & boots for his team, enabling and helping them to adapt their strategy in order to reach sunshine.
While this is a rather simplistic way of looking at mindful leadership, you get the overall idea and how this encourages a high confidence, creative, agile, and cooperative environment.
Mindful Leadership at Lyfegen
I am by no means an expert in mindful leadership and have made my share of mistakes. My Buddhist family background has taught me a lot about mindfulness, incorporating meditation into my daily routine.
However, one would think that practicing mindful leadership is harder in a high-paced start-up environment. I disagree: it is exactly in such an environment that, despite the 14+ hour workdays, one needs to stay present. Focus on the now and continuously fine-tune how to “reach the sunshine”, learning from mistakes on the way.
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit Switzerland hard in March, our team was faced with various challenges in terms of business and speed of implementation. However, team-work was not one of them and for that I greatly attribute this leadership style.
We took everyday as it came and continued, even digitally, to work together like an orchestra in perfect harmony. When comparing to the analogy above, COVID-19 was a true thunderstorm and at the same time, it gave light to a rainbow of opportunities.
My 5 key takeaways for becoming a more mindful leader:
- Focus on the now: optimize how your team works together. The goal will follow as a direct result.
- Focus on the essential: if everything is a priority then nothing is a priority. As a leader, make sure everyone is working towards the same milestones along the road rather than mainly focusing on the goal.
- Always remain humble: treat others the way you expect them to treat you (unfortunately a lot of people in other companies know this but don’t live by it).
- Never be afraid to fail. Let go of fear to unlock maximum potential.
- Always take a moment, as a leader, for self-reflection & calm. At Lyfegen, we have a little room in our office with some bean-bags where anyone can retreat and meditate during the day. If you don’t find me at my desk, this is where you’ll find me.
READ MORE
To build the best software ever, you also need the best team ever. We are meticulous in our selection and delighted to announce that we have found a gem for our junior quality engineer position: Alina Bratu has joined Lyfegen to improve the quality and user experience of our platform. We sat down with Alina to learn about her experience, her goals, and her aspirations.
Hello Alina, and welcome to Lyfegen! Please tell us a little about yourself: Where are you from, and what’s your educational and professional background?
Hi! I grew up in the city of Buzau in Romania and currently live in Bucharest. In college, I studied public administration and later decided to pursue a career in analytics. With the recommendation of friends, I decided to move towards software testing – which is the best decision I’ve made!
What excites you about being a junior quality engineer?
I like to view software testing as the work of a detective who follows clues that eventually help them to solve a case. It is a challenging and ever-changing line of work, and the best thing about it is that it truly impacts the delivery of quality products in a tech-driven world.
Why did you decide to join Lyfegen?
The company’s mission to make healthcare more accessible resonated with me, and I was really excited about the opportunity to work on a project that has the potential to impact the world. Working in a start-up environment with such a motivated and talented team is an amazing chance for me as a junior QA to develop my career while applying the knowledge I gained in the past year to something new and meaningful.
What do you want to learn or improve on this year?
My main goal this year is to learn more about the healthcare industry while also expanding my QA knowledge and expertise.
How will your know-how help to improve our customers’ experience of the Lyfegen platform?
As a QA engineer, I am responsible for tracking down any defects that might affect the users’ interaction with the platform. As I enjoy doing this ‘detective work’ and challenging the software in different ways, together with the developers, I can ensure that the user experience will be pleasant and the platform will look and act accordingly.
Let’s get personal: What are your favorite things to do in your free time?
In my free time, I enjoy reading fiction and self-development books and traveling as these activities help me to gain a new perspective and relax. When I’m not engaging in these hobbies, I enjoy cooking, watching movies, and playing board games with my friends.
Is there anything else you’re looking forward to outside of work this year?
I want to achieve balance and start enjoying and practicing my hobbies more. I am also planning to dust off my driving skills as I’ve postponed this for quite some time!
We are super happy to have you with us, Alina!
READ MORE
Nico Mros, Lyfegen’s COO, explains why Lyfegen is a firm believer in the UN Sustainable Development Goals and how the company works towards Goal # 3: Good Health & Well Being.
Chances are that since the pandemic hit, you have at least heard of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. But what do these mean and how does a company like Lyfegen incorporate these in their business?
The Basics
The 17 goals were set in 2015 by the United Nations General Assembly with the intention of reaching these by 2030. The interlinked goals are a “blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all. They address the global challenges we face, including poverty, inequality, climate change, environmental degradation, peace and justice.” Each of the 17 goals outlines even more specific targets, which are constantly monitored and discussed between countries.
Lyfegen & Sustainable Development Goal #3: Good Health & Well being
Ensuring healthy lives for all and promoting well being is an essential goal, even more so since the pandemic affected millions worldwide. That said, this goal aims at improving the health of millions of people, increasing their life expectancy and reducing child and maternal mortality. In addition, it addresses persistent and emerging health issues, focusing on providing more efficient funding of health systems. This in turn, enabling millions of people worldwide to have more widespread access to the medication they need.
Specifically, Sustainable Development Goal #3 outlines the following target:
“3.8 Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all.”
Sounds familiar? Lyfegen’s mission is to help patients to access innovative therapies by driving value-based healthcare. In other words: Doing what’s right for patients!
The pay-for-performance model, which Lyfegen enables through their value-based contracting platform, allows for more people worldwide to have access to innovative and often expensive medication. This directly addressing the UN’s goal to “provide more efficient funding of health systems” and have more “widespread access to medication”.
With some of the leading manufacturers, payers, and care providers already using Lyfegen’s solutions, a clear step towards supporting the UN Sustainable Development Goals is taken. We are proud to be a part of this journey towards a better future!
READ MORE
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.
Curious how value-based pricing decisions are made?
Read the full breakdown of ICER's role in drug pricing.
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.
