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.

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.

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.

‍

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.

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.

‍

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.