Rare Disease Therapies and the Case for Outcomes-Based Agreements
READ MORE
.webp)
READ MORE
Treatments for rare diseases, such as spinal muscular atrophy or CAR-T therapies like tisagenlecleucel, hold transformative potential for patients. Yet, they often come with significant challenges—uncertainties around long-term efficacy, high costs, and the need for tailored patient selection. Outcomes-Based Agreements (OBAs) offer a structured way to address these challenges, aligning financial risk with therapeutic outcomes. However, their implementation requires careful consideration and planning.
The Promise and Practicalities of OBAs
1. What Makes OBAs Valuable?
OBAs shift the focus from upfront costs to real-world outcomes, creating a more sustainable framework for funding innovative therapies. They enable:
• Risk Sharing: Payers and manufacturers align costs with actual therapeutic results.
• Patient-Centric Focus: Treatments are tied to measurable improvements, emphasizing value rather than volume.
• Increased Access: By mitigating cost risks, OBAs can support the introduction of high-cost therapies in resource-constrained settings.
2. Implementation Challenges
Despite their promise, OBAs are not without hurdles:
• Administrative Complexity: Managing OBA agreements involves data sharing, contract monitoring, and performance assessments—all requiring robust systems.
• Data Availability and Quality: Real-world evidence is critical, but gaps in data collection, reporting, and standardization can limit success.
• Stakeholder Collaboration: Successful OBAs require alignment between payers, manufacturers, and healthcare providers. Misaligned priorities or unclear accountability can derail agreements.
How Lyfegen Supports OBA Implementation
Learning from Global Examples
Lyfegen’s Agreements Library—featuring 6,700 public agreements and 20 pricing models from 33 countries—offers invaluable insights into how OBAs have been implemented worldwide. By analyzing these examples, stakeholders can identify models that best suit their unique challenges, reducing the trial-and-error phase of implementation.
Streamlined Scenario Analysis
The Lyfegen Drug Contracting Simulator enables stakeholders to simulate OBA scenarios using real-world data. From adherence-based contracts to outcome guarantees, the Simulator helps users:
• Assess feasibility through scenario modeling.
• Forecast financial implications with real-world inputs.
• Compare multiple pricing models to find the most suitable solution.
Simplifying Administration
Managing the administrative burden of OBAs is crucial. Lyfegen’s tools offer:
• Centralized contract management for version control and compliance tracking.
• Automated data processing to ensure performance metrics are accurately reported.
• Detailed dashboards and trend reports to facilitate collaborative decision-making.
Key Considerations for OBA Success
1. Feasibility Studies Are Essential
Not every therapy or market is suited for OBAs. Conducting thorough feasibility assessments helps determine the viability of such agreements.
2. Data Plans Need Clarity
Reliable outcomes-based contracts depend on well-defined metrics and data collection processes. Establishing these frameworks early is crucial.
3. Commitment from All Stakeholders
OBAs thrive on collaboration. Shared goals, transparent communication, and clear accountability among all parties can ensure smoother execution.
Conclusion
Outcomes-Based Agreements represent an important step forward in addressing the challenges of high-cost, high-impact therapies for rare diseases. With the right tools, insights, and preparation, healthcare stakeholders can unlock the potential of OBAs to improve access, manage costs, and focus on patient outcomes.
Discover how Lyfegen can simplify your journey to outcomes-based contracting. Schedule a demo today to explore our solutions in action.
READ MORE
As value-based contracting (VBCs) becomes the standard, the role of clinical trials has shifted significantly. They are now essential not only for demonstrating safety and efficacy but also for enhancing financial performance. By creating trials that meet the criteria of VBCs, pharmaceutical companies can increase their financial gains, minimize pricing risks, and facilitate smoother negotiations with payers.
According to a report by Deloitte, aligning clinical trials with value-based pricing strategies can lead to improvements in revenue predictability and cost management by as much as 20% for drugs with high market access potential. This improvement stems from linking trial outcomes to real-world efficacy, which reassures payers and reduces the financial risk for manufacturers by basing pricing on demonstrated effectiveness
For CFOs and Pricing Directors, the Financial Impact is Clear
For CFOs and Directors of Pricing, the financial implications of optimized trials in a VBC framework are significant. When trial designs focus on outcomes that matter most to payers—like reductions in hospitalization or improved quality of life—pricing becomes more flexible, and revenue can be projected more accurately. McKinsey & Company points out that outcome-based models also provide a safeguard against pricing volatility, allowing pharmaceutical companies to stabilize revenue by tying payments to real-world performance metrics.
Efficiency Gains through Outcome-Focused Trial Design
Beyond revenue predictability, operational efficiencies are another key benefit. A focus on outcome-based trials reduces the time and resources needed to negotiate with payers, as the trial data itself becomes a compelling point in payer discussions. For Market Access Directors, outcome-driven trial designs support quicker market entry and stronger, data-backed negotiations that build payer confidence.
Lyfegen’s Platform: Streamlining Trial Optimization for Value-Based Contracts
Optimizing clinical trials for VBC is complex, but Lyfegen’s all in one platform simplifies this process. By enabling real-time pricing simulations based on clinical outcomes or financial goals, Lyfegen helps pharmaceutical companies design financially viable reimbursement contracts and align them with value-based pricing. This empowers pricing teams to model financial outcomes, enhancing both operational efficiency and contract efficiency.
Interested in learning how outcome-focused trials can support your pricing and financial goals? Lyfegen’s Simulator offers the tools you need to optimize clinical trials for success in a VBCs framework.
Schedule a demo today to explore how we can streamline your pricing and contract strategies: https://www.lyfegen.com/demo
READ MORE
In value-based contracts (VBCs), clinical trial outcomes are no longer just about proving safety and efficacy—they’re now critical to driving drug pricing and market access strategies. As payers and healthcare systems shift towards outcome-based models, trial data is becoming the foundation for negotiating both price and reimbursement.
Payers are increasingly prioritizing data from real-world evidence and clinical trials for value-based arrangements. The real-world data aligns closely with payers' needs to predict the cost-effectiveness of drugs and determine coverage. For Market Access Directors and Directors of Pricing, this means that clinical trial results can either accelerate or hinder the process of getting drugs to market. Strong trial outcomes not only justify premium pricing but also provide a solid basis for faster, smoother payer negotiations.
This is especially crucial in markets where budgetary pressures and stringent healthcare regulations make it difficult for new therapies to gain market access. The ability to present data-driven evidence of a drug’s real-world impact can significantly shorten time to market and improve access.
Novartis’ Zolgensma, a gene therapy for spinal muscular atrophy, used a value-based contract with installment payments and performance guarantees, adjusting reimbursement if outcomes fell short—demonstrating flexibility for high-cost therapies in outcome-based pricing models
For CFOs, using clinical trial data means greater financial predictability. By tying pricing to outcomes, companies can secure more stable revenue streams, with lower financial risk from market variability.
Are you ready to leverage clinical trial data to improve your pricing strategy and market access? Lyfegen’s Simulator helps you model pricing scenarios based on trial outcomes, ensuring a smoother path to market and better payer alignment.
Schedule a demo today to see how we can support your pricing and market access strategies: https://www.lyfegen.com/demo
READ MORE
Introduction
The UK is taking critical steps to standardize the evaluation of AI technologies in healthcare. Last year, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) conducted a systematic review of health economic evaluation (HEE) studies on AI-based technologies, revealing variability in study quality. To address this, NICE introduced CHEERS-AI (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards for Interventions that Use Artificial Intelligence), a set of standards aimed at study authors and reviewers. Additionally, the UK Government has announced initiatives to boost exports, benefiting industries like pharmaceuticals by removing trade barriers, with a particular focus on entering the Brazilian market.
Key Takeaways for Pharma and AI Developers
1. CHEERS-AI Standards for Consistent AI Evaluation
• What’s Changing: The CHEERS-AI standards, announced by NICE, provide a framework to improve the quality and consistency of economic evaluations for AI-based healthcare technologies. By addressing gaps in reporting and methodology, NICE aims to make these evaluations more reliable, which is essential for determining the cost-effectiveness of AI solutions in healthcare.
• Impact: For AI developers and pharmaceutical companies, CHEERS-AI sets clearer expectations for the economic evaluation of AI products. A standardized approach facilitates more consistent assessments and could expedite the integration of effective AI technologies into healthcare settings. This initiative also ensures that AI innovations meet rigorous health economic standards, which could build trust among stakeholders and speed up adoption.
2. Removing Trade Barriers for Pharmaceutical Exports
• What’s Changing: The UK Government’s plan to eliminate certain trade barriers is expected to enhance export opportunities across several industries, with a focus on easing access to Brazil’s pharmaceutical market. This initiative includes a £2.3 million fund to support trade growth, with an anticipated boost of £5 billion over the next five years. For the pharmaceutical industry, this includes efforts to improve Brazil’s drug evaluation processes, particularly for cancer treatments.
• Impact: For UK pharmaceutical companies, the removal of trade barriers presents an opportunity to expand into Brazil—a significant and emerging market. Streamlined access to Brazil could lead to increased revenue and greater market diversity. Moreover, improving Brazil’s evaluation standards for cancer drugs aligns with the global shift toward ensuring drugs meet consistent, evidence-based criteria, promoting patient access to high-quality therapies.
Conclusion
The UK’s efforts to standardize the economic evaluation of AI technologies in healthcare and remove international trade barriers represent a proactive approach to fostering innovation and expanding market access. NICE’s CHEERS-AI standards provide the healthcare industry with a reliable framework for assessing AI interventions, setting a high standard for future health economic evaluations. Additionally, the government’s trade initiatives offer UK pharmaceutical companies promising avenues for growth in markets like Brazil. Together, these measures underscore the UK’s commitment to advancing healthcare technologies and supporting the global reach of its pharmaceutical industry.
READ MORE
Introduction
Spain is making strides in healthcare by prioritizing education, innovation, and cost-effective care. Recently, the Spanish Council of Ministers allocated over 44 million euros from pharmaceutical sales to support various public health initiatives, focusing on two critical areas: reducing unnecessary care and enhancing Health Technology Assessment (HTA) education for healthcare professionals. These investments are aimed at improving the efficiency of healthcare delivery, reducing costs, and supporting more informed decision-making around drug use and preventive care.
Key Takeaways for Pharma and Payers
1. Funding for HTA Education and Training
• What’s Changing: Part of the allocated funds will go toward continuing education programs for healthcare professionals, specifically to improve their understanding of Health Technology Assessment (HTA). By deepening professionals’ knowledge of HTA, Spain aims to ensure that drug evaluation and therapeutic positioning are guided by evidence-based practices.
• Impact: For pharmaceutical companies, this initiative means greater scrutiny of drug effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, especially as healthcare providers become more proficient in HTA principles. Payers may also benefit, as a well-informed healthcare workforce can make better use of resources, potentially lowering overall costs.
2. De-prescription of Unnecessary Drugs and Promotion of Preventive Care
• What’s Changing: The initiative will also fund programs aimed at de-prescribing unnecessary medications to reduce healthcare costs. Alongside this, Spain is placing a stronger emphasis on preventive care, which not only improves patient outcomes but also curtails spending on unnecessary treatments.
• Impact: For pharma, this push towards de-prescription may affect demand for certain drugs, particularly those deemed low-value or non-essential. However, it also presents an opportunity to align with Spain’s focus on value-based care, potentially promoting medications that are supported by strong evidence of efficacy. For payers, preventive care investments mean a healthier population with fewer costs linked to chronic diseases, reducing the financial burden on the healthcare system.
3. Supporting Innovation Through Therapeutic Positioning Reports
• What’s Changing: Another portion of the funding will support the consolidation of therapeutic positioning reports. These reports will help evaluate and position drugs more effectively within the healthcare system, ensuring that innovative treatments are assessed rigorously before they reach patients.
• Impact: Pharmaceutical companies may see a more streamlined and transparent pathway for introducing new drugs to the Spanish market. This approach promotes fair competition and emphasizes innovation, aligning with Spain’s broader goals of delivering cost-effective, impactful healthcare solutions.
How Lyfegen’s Solutions Can Support Your Strategy
1. Agreements Library: Lyfegen’s Agreements Library provides access to an extensive collection of value-based agreements that can help pharma companies align with Spain’s focus on cost-effective treatments. This resource allows pharma to explore agreements and pricing models suited to Spain’s HTA-driven environment, improving the chances of successful market access.
2. Drug Contracting Simulator: With the Drug Contracting Simulator, stakeholders can simulate pricing models that reflect Spain’s emphasis on evidence-based evaluation. By assessing various pricing scenarios and outcomes, pharma companies can design agreements that align with Spain’s value-based healthcare priorities, supporting successful negotiations and reimbursement strategies.
Conclusion
Spain’s recent investments in HTA education, de-prescription, and preventive care reflect the country’s commitment to a sustainable, efficient healthcare system. For pharmaceutical companies and payers, these changes highlight the need to align market access strategies with Spain’s goals of evidence-based care and cost containment. Lyfegen’s Agreements Library and Drug Contracting Simulator offer essential tools to navigate these shifts, enabling stakeholders to create outcome-driven agreements that support Spain’s healthcare objectives.
Book a personalized demo today to see how Lyfegen can empower your market access strategy in Spain’s evolving healthcare landscape: https://www.lyfegen.com/demo
READ MORE
Lyfegen HealthTech AG announced today that it has raised CHF 2 million of additional capital, bringing its total funding to CHF 3 million. Read the full press release.
BASEL, Switzerland, Sept. 1, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --
- Investors back Lyfegen's mission to make innovative healthcare therapies more accessible and affordable
- Funding secures market-leading position prior to Series A opening in 2021
Lyfegen HealthTech AG, a Swiss health technology company, announced today that it has raised CHF 2 million of additional capital, bringing its total funding to CHF 3 million. The additional funding was completed by private investors and the innovation program of one of Switzerland's largest banks.
Lyfegen has developed a ground-breaking software solution to accelerate value-based healthcare contracting, pioneering in a global market that could reach USD 400 billion by 2024, according to the latest estimates by research firm MarketsandMarkets™. Some of the world's 10-largest pharmaceutical and medical technologies companies are already employing Lyfegen's platform in strategic markets in Europe and South America.
Girisha Fernando, Chief Executive Office and co-founder, said: "Increasingly, healthcare systems around the world are transitioning from fee-for-service payment schemes to value-based contracting. Our solutions support the shift towards sustainable payment models that help ensure patients get the treatments they need at prices they can afford, while healthcare companies make an adequate return on their investment. We are proud to have strong partners and investors on board to support us in this challenging and rewarding mission."
The new funding, combined with the seed capital raised in April 2019 and the founders' contributions, secures the development of Lyfegen's proprietary technology as it continues to roll out its value-based contracting solution in the U.S. as well as additional European and Latin American markets in the areas of oncology, rare diseases and medical devices.
Michel Mohler, Chief Financial Officer and co-founder, added: "We continue delivering on our ambitious goals prior to opening our Series A funding in 2021. This latest additional funding confirms the growing interest of international investors in innovative healthcare technology built for a data-driven world. The funds will be used to further strengthen our leading market position as we prepare for a strong Series A funding round."
About Lyfegen
Lyfegen HealthTech AG is a Swiss healthcare technology company that is pioneering digital value-based healthcare contracting. Lyfegen's patent-pending, ground-breaking software analyses complex healthcare data sets in order to help patients access innovative therapies that focus on the healthcare outcomes that matter most to them. Lyfegen's solutions collect the patient's specific medical profile whilst ensuring the strictest data privacy protocols. Lyfegen's founders Girisha Fernando, Michel Mohler, Nico Mros, and Leon Rebolledo have combined their expertise in life sciences and financial services to create a holistic solution that enables life sciences companies, healthcare payers and healthcare providers to develop and roll out digital value-based healthcare, a market that is set to grow to USD 400 billion by 2024.
READ MORE
The goal of this innovative initiative is to increase the processes of value-based drug procurement, allowing CSC-affiliated health centers to focus on the evaluation of the clinical, economic, and social benefits that the drug can provide in relation to its cost.
For the design of these new procurement models, the "Lyfegen Agreements Library" database and the “Lyfegen Drug Contracting Simulator” were used, and work was done on the automation of administrative tasks and on improving interoperability among hospitals and health administrations. These tools allow the CSC to model various agreements and improve the drug management process in the central contracting office. The Health and Social Consortium of Catalonia thus becomes the first organization in Spain to incorporate these tools.
"From the Consortium, we are convinced that access to innovation and the sustainability of the health system relies on reaching innovative management agreements with pharmaceutical laboratories," says Josep Maria Guiu, director of the Pharmacy and Medication Area of the CSC. "The alliance with Lyfegen gives us a tool to work in this direction and to advance in the establishment of satisfactory agreements that facilitate access to innovation and contribute to the sustainability of the health system."
Girisha Fernando, CEO of Lyfegen, comments that "We are proud to help the Consortium lead access to innovation to improve patient care in Catalonia." "By using our advanced solutions, more than 100 health organizations throughout the region can research, model, and efficiently manage agreements, as well as value-based drug procurement," he adds.
“This allows professionals to really focus on what matters most: patient care.”
The collaboration with Lyfegen reflects the commitment of the Health and Social Consortium of Catalonia to value-based drug procurement and to access to pharmacological innovation, as well as the will to continue working for the implementation of solutions that ensure equity and sustainability of the health system.
The total contracting volume of the CSC, which acts as the purchasing center for the subsidized health sector of Catalonia, was 1.497 billion euros in 2023. Of this amount, 90% corresponded to medicines and 10% to sanitary products.
In recent years, the Consortium of Health and Social Services of Catalonia has incorporated social value aspects into the purchasing processes. For example, it has committed to ensuring that 100% of its drug and sanitary product tenders incorporate environmental clauses by 2024.
Lyfegen is an independent provider of rebate management software designed for the healthcare industry. Lyfegen solutions are used by health insurances, governments, hospital payers, and pharmaceutical companies around the globe to dramatically reduce the administrative burden of managing complex drug pricing agreements and to optimize rebates and get better value from those agreements. Lyfegen maintains the world’s largest digital repository of innovative drug pricing models and public agreements and offers access to a robust drug pricing simulator designed to dynamically simulate complex drug pricing scenarios to understand full financial impact. Headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, the company was founded in 2018 and has a market presence in Europe, North America, and the Middle East. Learn more at Lyfegen.com.
The Consortium of Health and Social of Catalonia (CSC) is a public entity with a local and associative basis, founded in 1983, which has its origin in the municipal movement. The CSC, a reference to the sector and with a clear vocation for service, has as a mission: to promote excellent and sustainable health and social models to improve the quality of life of the people, offering services of high added value to its partners. CSC wants to be the main reference for knowledge and capacity for cooperation, influence and anticipation in the face of the new challenges of the health and social system. All CSC associates are public or private non-profit bodies. For more information, please visit https://www.consorci.org/el-csc/en_index
READ MORE
In light of today’s anticipated press release and exclusive article with AXIOS, we would like to extend a heartfelt thank you to our investors, customers, and team for sharing our vision to transform the healthcare system, helping patients to receive the healthcare treatments they need. The closing of our oversubscribed series A, led by aMoon Fund with additional participation from APEX Ventures and others, marks an important milestone.
Skyrocketing drug prices–especially for high-cost specialty drugs like cell and gene therapies–are accelerating the demand for value-based drug pricing. The move away from volume-based healthcare has never been more needed, and we are happy to play an important role in the shift to a value-based future.
With the $8 million in funding, we will expand our presence in Europe and the U.S. to increase drug affordability for more customers and, more importantly, more patients.
Together, we save lives.
Read the official Press Release
Read the Exclusive article with AXIOS
[caption id="attachment_3253" align="aligncenter" width="200"]
Girisha Fernando
CEO & Founder[/caption]
READ MORE
EGK nutzt die Lyfegen-Plattform, um komplexe Preismodelle für die On- und Off-Label-Verwendung von mehr als 80 Medikamenten zu verwalten.
Basel, Schweiz - 29. November 2022 - Lyfegen, ein globales Healthtech-SaaS-Unternehmen, das den weltweiten Übergang von einer volumen- zu einer wertbasierten (value-based) Gesundheitsversorgung für hochpreisige Arzneimittel vorantreibt, gab heute bekannt, dass die EGK-Gesundheitskasse sich seinem Portfolio von Versicherungspartnern anschliesst, um alle ihre Verträge zur wertbasierten Preisgestaltung für hochpreisige Arzneimittel effizient, sicher und transparent auszuführen.
Die Schweiz, mit den vierthöchsten Arzneimittelausgaben pro Kopf, gab in den ersten neun Monaten des Jahres 2022 8 Milliarden Franken (8,1 Milliarden Euro) für Medikamente aus, die für bestimmte Krankheiten verschrieben wurden. Um die hohen Arzneimittelausgaben zu bekämpfen, hat die Schweiz in den letzten fünf Jahren eine wachsende Zahl von Rabattmodellen für den On- und Off-Label-Einsatz von Medikamenten eingeführt. Die Komplexität der Preismodelle führt jedoch dazu, dass die Versicherer Millionenbeträge für die Überwachung und Beurteilung der Preismodelle ausgeben, was zu entgangenen Rabatten in zwei- bis dreistelliger Millionenhöhe führt.
Mit der Software von Lyfegen kann die EGK mit minimalem Aufwand und maximaler Transparenz Rabatte aus 141 Medikamentenpreismodellen von 32 Herstellern identifizieren und einfordern. Dazu gehören Fälle von seltenen oder chronischen Krankheiten, vielversprechende Therapien, die ausserhalb der zugelassenen Indikation eingesetzt werden können, oder neue Medikamente, die in der Schweiz noch nicht erhältlich oder zugelassen sind. Die Plattform von Lyfegen adressiert die Bedürfnisse der Schweizer Krankenversicherer nach Kosteneffizienz und Digitalisierung. Sie hilft, bestehende Komplexitäten im System zu lösen und wirkt hohen Versicherungsprämien entgegen.
„Wir freuen uns, die EGK zu unterstützen und eine aktive Rolle bei der Bewältigung der zunehmenden Komplexität von Medikamentenpreismodellen zu übernehmen, um den nachhaltigen Zugang zu innovativen Medikamenten und Therapien in der Schweiz zu unterstützen“ sagte Nico Mros, CXO und Mitgründer von Lyfegen. „Indem wir uns darauf konzentrierten, die Implementierung der Plattform so einfach wie möglich zu gestalten und auf die EGK einzugehen, konnten wir schnell Ergebnisse präsentieren und die Zusammenarbeit erfolgreich starten!“
"Mit der Lyfegen-Plattform baut die EGK ihren Fokus auf Nachhaltigkeit und Effizienz zum Wohle ihrer Versicherten weiter aus", sagt Carolina Pirelli, Leiterin Leistungen und stv. Geschäftsleiterin bei der EGK. "Die immer grösser werdende Zahl von Preismodellen für Medikamente stellt die Versicherer vor Herausforderungen in Bezug auf Ressourcen und Prozesse. Mit der automatisierten Verarbeitung von Preismodellen über die Lyfegen-Plattform können wir unsere aktuellen Anforderungen perfekt erfüllen und sehen uns mit der Flexibilität, dem Fokus und dem Verständnis von Lyfegen in guten Händen."
Über Lyfegen
Lyfegen ist ein globales SaaS-Analyseunternehmen im Gesundheitsbereich, das eine Plattform für wert- und ergebnisbasierte Verträge für Medikamente, Therapien und Medizingeräte anbietet.
Krankenversicherungen, Pharma- und Medizintechnikunternehmen sowie Spitäler nutzen die sichere Plattform für Tausende von Preismodellen in der Schweiz, Europa, dem Nahen Osten und Nordamerika. Die Lyfegen Plattform unterstützt die Verhandlungen und ermöglicht die automatisierte Ausführung von wertbasierten Preismodellen durch die Analyse von real-world Daten durch intelligente, lernfähige Algorithmen.
Weltweit renommierte Krankenversicherungen, Spitäler, Pharma- und Medizintechnikunternehmen haben die zum Patent angemeldete Plattform von Lyfegen bereits implementiert, um wertbasierte Preismodelle für Medikamente, Therapien und Medizingeräte zu skalieren und damit den Zugang zu Behandlungen sowie Therapieergebnisse für Patienten zu verbessern.
Lyfegen wurde von Personen mit jahrzehntelanger Erfahrung in den Bereichen Gesundheitswesen, Pharma und Technologie gegründet und leistet Pionierarbeit bei der Umstellung von der volumenbasierten und kostenpflichtigen Gesundheitsversorgung auf die wertbasierten Gesundheitsversorgung. Weitere Informationen finden Sie unter www.lyfegen.com.
Über die EGK-Gesundheitskasse
Die EGK-Gesundheitskasse ist ein KMU-Krankenversicherer mit Sitz in Laufen (BL). Die EGK-Gruppe umfasst die EGK Grundversicherungen AG (Grundversicherung nach KVG), die EGK Privatversicherungen AG (Zusatzversicherung nach VVG) sowie die EGK Services AG (Verwaltung). Sie versichert schweizweit rund 100'000 Personen in der Grundversicherung, 80% von diesen verfügen auch über eine EGK-Zusatzversicherung.
Natürlichkeit und Nachhaltigkeit gehören zur Werthaltung der EGK. Sie gilt als Pionierin beim uneingeschränkten Zugang zu exzellenter Komplementärmedizin. Sie lanciert und unterstützt in der ganzen Schweiz Aktivitäten zur natürlichen Stärkung der Gesundheit.
Read on PR newswire in English
READ MORE
Die Vertragssoftware von Lyfegen wird von Kostenträgern im Gesundheitswesen und führenden Pharmaunternehmen eingesetzt, darunter Novartis, Roche, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) und Johnson & Johnson.
NEW YORK/BASEL, 20. September 2022 /PRNewswire/ – Lyfegen, ein globales Healthtech-SaaS-Unternehmen, das den Übergang von volume-zu value-based Healthcare für hochpreisige Medikamente vorantreibt, gab heute eine überzeichnete Serie-A-Finanzierungsrunde über 8 Millionen Dollar bekannt, die vom Investmentfonds aMoon mit zusätzlicher Beteiligung von APEX Ventures und weiteren Investoren angeführt wurde.
Derzeit sind weniger als 2 % der Krankenversicherten, die Spezialarzneimittel benötigen, für 51 % der Arzneimittelausgaben verantwortlich. Die Kosten für Spezialarzneimittel in den USA laufen aus dem Ruder: Sie stiegen allein von 2020 bis 2021 um 12 % – und es gibt keine Anzeichen für eine Verlangsamung, denn es kommen immer mehr Zell- und Gentherapien auf den Markt. Infolgedessen wird Value-Based Contracting, die Nutzung wertorientierter Verträge, für die Kostenträger des Gesundheitswesens zu der entscheidenden Alternative, um nur für Medikamente zu zahlen, die tatsächlich wirken.
Bis 2025 werden die Nettoausgaben für Medikamente in den USA voraussichtlich bis zu 400 Milliarden US-Dollar betragen. Darüber hinaus kommen regelmässig neue Medikamente auf den Markt. Es fällt Pharmaunternehmen immer schwerer, sich mit den Kostenträgern auf kommerzielle Bedingungen zu einigen. Damit steigt die Gefahr, dass Patienten keinen Zugang zu lebensrettenden Therapien erhalten. Lyfegen hilft Regulierungsbehörden, Pharmaunternehmen und Kostenträgern bei der Einführung wertorientierter Zahlungsmodelle, indem sie den gesamten Prozess der Datenerfassung, Anonymisierung und Vertragsverhandlungen für alle Parteien digitalisiert. So kann die Preisgestaltung und Kostenerstattung für Medikamente vereinfacht werden.
„Wir freuen uns, diese Finanzierungsrunde bekannt zu geben und dieses Vertrauensvotum von aMoon, APEX und weiteren Investoren zu haben, die den Wandel im Gesundheitswesen verstehen und unser Bestreben um den Ausbau der Lyfegen-Plattform unterstützen", sagte Girisha Fernando, CEO und Gründer von Lyfegen. „Wir arbeiten derzeit mit führenden staatlichen Kostenträgern, Krankenversicherungen in Europa, den USA und dem Nahen Osten sowie mit einigen der weltweit grössten Pharmaunternehmen zusammen. Wir beabsichtigen nun, unsere Präsenz in den USA weiter auszubauen und Partnerschaften mit privaten und öffentlichen Krankenversicherungen einzugehen. Die Abkehr von der volumenbasierten Gesundheitsversorgung war noch nie so notwendig wie heute, und wir freuen uns, dass wir eine wichtige Rolle bei der Umstellung auf Value-Based Contracting spielen können."
„Lyfegen adressiert einen bedeutenden Marktbedarf in einer Branche, die sich dramatisch und schnell verändert, und wir sind begeistert, dass wir mit unserer Investition dazu beitragen können, ihre Anstrengungen zu unterstützen", erläuterte Moshic Mor, General Partner bei aMoon und ehemaliger Partner bei Greylock and Greylock Israel. „In Zeiten von Budgetdruck und Rezession im Gesundheitswesen braucht die Welt Lösungen wie die von Lyfegen mehr denn je. Wir sind stolz mit diesem erfahrenen Führungsteam zusammenzuarbeiten, das weiterhin den Zugang zu neuen Medikamenten verbessert, während es die wertorientierte Gesundheitsversorgung immer mehr zum Mainstream macht."
Informationen zu Lyfegen
Lyfegen ist ein unabhängiges, globales Softwareanalyseunternehmen, das eine wert- und ergebnisbasierte Vertragsplattform für Krankenversicherungen, Pharma- und Medizintechnikunternehmen sowie Krankenhäuser auf der ganzen Welt bietet. Die sichere Plattform identifiziert und operationalisiert wertbasierte Zahlungsmodelle kostengünstig und macht diese mit einer Vielzahl von realen Daten und maschinellem Lernen skalierbar. Mit der zum Patent angemeldeten Plattform von Lyfegen können Krankenversicherungen und Krankenhäuser eine wertorientierte Gesundheitsversorgung einführen und skalieren und so den Zugang zu Behandlungen, die Gesundheitsergebnisse der Patienten und die Kostenersparnis verbessern.
Lyfegen hat seinen Sitz in den USA und der Schweiz und wurde von Persönlichkeiten mit jahrzehntelanger Erfahrung im Gesundheitswesen, in der Pharmaindustrie und im Technologiebereich gegründet, um den Übergang von der volumenbasierten und kostenpflichtigen Gesundheitsversorgung zur wertorientierten Gesundheitsversorgung zu ermöglichen. Weitere Informationen finden Sie auf www.lyfegen.com.
Verwandte Links:
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/lyfegenhealth
Pressekontakt: yael@gkpr.com
Ansprechpartner für Investoren: investors@lyfegen.com
Read the Exclusive article with AXIOS
Read the Press Release on PR Newswire
READ MORE
Each year, the NAMD (National Association of Medicaid Directors) Conference in Washington D.C. brings together the nation's Medicaid directors, leaders in the industry, and key decision-makers for a one-of-a-kind conference. With the global public health emergency, the Medicaid system and the work of Medicaid directors and their staff has never been more important. While COVID-19 has disrupted health care at all levels, it has shown the importance of more innovative payment models and the need for broader access to treatments. The shift towards value-based healthcare has become one of Medicaid’s hottest topics, with CMA and Lyfegen joining forces to present the latest value-based contracting technology at this year’s NAMD Conference.
We sat down for a brief interview with CMA’s President, Ken Romanski, and Lyfegen’s CEO, Girisha Fernando, to gain more insights into the importance of this partnership:
Thanks for joining us, Ken and Girisha. Can you tell us why this partnership is an important milestone, both for CMA and Lyfegen?
Ken: Our partnership with Lyfegen is a key milestone for CMA as we expand and complement our portfolio of technology-based solutions with extremely high-value business analytics products. Our utmost priority is to support Medicaid programs by lowering costs, while at the same time improving health outcomes for vulnerable citizens.
Girisha: This partnership sets the basis to create enormous value for our state healthcare payers and pharma. By partnering together, we enable our customers to implement value-based pharmacy agreements, actively managing the budget impact of new treatments and aligning existing formulary spending with value for beneficiaries.
For Lyfegen, this is a market entry into the U.S. – why CMA?
Girisha: CMA’s experience and technical expertise are unique. CMA is a highly recognized technology partner for State Healthcare Payers across the nation, with over 20 years of experience. Lyfegen has made a conscious decision to combine its capabilities with CMA to enable our customers to leverage the potential of value-based agreements for their pharmacy programs.
What is the value of this partnership for healthcare payers?
Ken: CMA is very excited to work with Lyfegen and our clients to deliver tens of millions of dollars in savings per year by leveraging our experience in Medicaid data management to implement this robust value-based analytics platform.
Girisha: Our customers benefit from the combined years of experience and unique expertise in data and value-based healthcare solutions. We focus on providing the first proven, scalable, highly secure value-based agreement platform for State Medicaid that allows our customers on average to avoid 54 million dollars in treatment costs that do not work and gain 7 million dollars in efficiency due to the fully automated end-to-end process. We are extremely excited to present all aspects of our partnership and present the value and opportunities our platform can bring to State Medicaid programs at NAMD.
Join CMA and Lyfegen at NAMD and understand first-hand how they can support you to realize savings for your pharmacy programs, improving patient health outcomes with their unique value-based agreement platform.
READ MORE
Fünf Männer aus der Region wollen die Gesundheitsbranche aufmischen. Im 2018 wurden sie von der Plattform «Innovation Basel» für ihre visionäre Idee nominiert: Eine digitale Plattform, die eine Kombination aus Blockchain und Cloud verwendet, um faire Medikamentenpreise zwischen Herstellern und Versicherungen auszuhandeln. Was heisst das aber und was ist dabei so visionär?
(Bild: zVg) Das Lyfegen Team: Diese fünf Männer haben eine Vision und eine Mission. Die Idee liess Girisha Fernando nicht mehr los: Der 29-jährige Basler wollte nach neun Jahren bei der Roche im Market Access, Pricing und IT unbedingt «etwas noch Spannenderes, Revolutionäres machen», wodurch Patienten im Dschungel des Gesundheitswesens geholfen wird. Aber es sollte dabei auch für Pharmaunternehmen und Versicherer eine Win-Win-Situation entstehen.
Zusammen mit seinen Mitstreitern Leon Rebolledo, Michel Mohler und Nico Mros gründete er 2018 «Lyfegen» und entwickelte eine bahnbrechende Idee: Eine auf Blockchain und Cloud basierte Software Lösung, die es Versicherern und Herstellern von Medikamenten erlaubt faire Preise anhand deren Wirksamkeit für den einzelnen Patienten auszuhandeln.
Faire Preise bedeuten unter anderem auch, dass die Vergütung dieser Medikamente auf der Wirkung des Medikaments basiert. Wenn ein Medikament bei einem Patienten besser wirkt, dann wird ein Preis A bezahlt. Wenn ein Medikament bei einem anderen nicht so gut anschlägt, dann wird Preis B vom Versicherer an den Hersteller fällig oder sogar nichts bezahlt. Unser Tool ermöglicht genau diese faire, wirkungsorientierte Preisgestaltung, was sich auch Value-based Healthcare nennt. So ein Tool gibt es auf der ganzen Welt bisher nicht. Name Surname
Position, Copmany
Fachleute sprechen hierbei von «Wertbasierter Gesundheitsversorgung». Dieses Thema ist aktueller denn je, auch in der Schweiz, in der steigende Behandlungs- und Medikamentenpreise zu höheren Kosten für die Bevölkerung führen. Es müssen neue, nachhaltige Modelle eingeführt werden, um die Kostenexplosion im Gesundheitswesen aufzuhalten.
Warum aber ist so ein Tool wertvoll? «Weil unser Tool Daten sicher sammelt, analysiert und dann den jeweiligen Partnern, sei es ein Versicherer oder ein Hersteller wie Pharmaunternehmen, die Daten anonym, automatisiert und gleichzeitig zuspielt.» Dies geschieht mit Hilfe der Blockchain (eine dezentralisierte Form der Datenverarbeitung und -sicherung, die beispielsweise Geldeinheiten, Wertpapiere, Besitz- oder Grundrechte verwaltet, siehe Erklärung in der Infobox), ganz ohne Kryptowährung, betonen die fünf innovativen Köpfe.
(Bilder: PEXELS) Im Gesundheitswesen explodieren die Kosten. Eine revolutionäre Idee könnte dieser Entwicklung entgegen wirken.
Die Idee hat schon für viel Wirbel in der «Szene» gesorgt. Und sie gehen mit ihrer Idee aufs Ganze: «Wir haben schon 750’000 CHF von einer Gruppe von Basler Business Angels erhalten», sagen die Lyfegen-Gründer. Diese Business Angels seien selbst erfolgreiche Unternehmer. Namen dürfe man leider keine bekannt geben. Zudem müsse man zu 100 Prozent hinter einer Innovation, einer Vision oder einer Idee stehen, die der Gesellschaft helfen könne, betonen sie. Fernando: «Ich bin fest davon überzeugt, dass nicht nur unsere Lösung, sondern auch die Denkprozesse, die wir bei unseren Kunden anregen, die Implementierung einer wertbasierten Gesundheitsversorgung vorantreibt. Konzept und Lösung sind innovativ.»
Vertrauen und Transparenz zwischen Ärzten und Patienten ist immens wichtig. Darauf basiert auch das Konzept des Value-based Healthcare.
Zwar sei man bei Lyfegen sehr technisch veranlagt, jedoch steht der Kundennutzen und der so genannten «Impact» für alle Parteien im Vordergrund. Also auch für die Versicherten und für das gesamte Gesundheitswesen. «Unsere Lösung trägt dazu bei, Patienten Zugang zu innovativen Behandlungen und der bestmöglichen Gesundheitsversorgung zu ermöglichen. Wir wollen Leben retten. Punkt», betont CTO Leon Reborello. Girisha Fernando kann aus eigener Erfahrung berichten: «Mein Grossvater hatte Prostatakrebs und die Ärzte sagten, dass es Medikamente gibt um seine Lebensdauer zu verlängern. Aber die Versicherung wollte aus Kostengründen nicht für das Medikament bezahlen. Dies muss aufhören – durch wertbasierte Vergütung würden die besten und innovativsten Medikamente für Patienten und Ärzte zugänglich. Mit unserer Lösung tragen wir dazu bei, dies zu verwirklichen.»
READ MORE
In June, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted unanimously (5-0) to examine rising list prices of insulin, but also to probe possible anti-competitive practices by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with respect to the use of rebate arrangements. Rebates are payments from drug manufacturers to PBMs in exchange for moving market share towards so-called preferred products on the formulary.
The FTC has specifically cited instances in which cheaper generics and biosimilars are excluded from PBM formularies, as this may violate competition and consumer protection laws.
The FTC inquiry into pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) practices could lead to legal action prohibiting certain rebate practices. In turn, this could induce major changes in the U.S. rebate system. Formulary management could become increasingly value- or outcomes-based, rather than simply a function of a financial power play between drug makers and PBMs. Or, rebates could fall by the wayside altogether, to be replaced by a combination of upfront discounts in lieu of rebates and value-based pricing arrangements. Partnering with Lyfegen may be the solution for manufacturers and payers alike, as its platform can put users on the right track towards successful implementation of value-based pricing arrangements.
The FTC has warned of legal action against PBMs if its inquiries find proof of anti-competitive practices. Here, the agency raised the stakes when it included terms like “commercial bribery” in its statements to describe what it perceives as anti-competitive rebates in the insulin market.
The latest FTC inquiries follow a recent investigation by Senators Grassley (R-Iowa) and Wyden (D-Oregon), which blamed rebate schemes for much of what ails the prescription drug market. Furthermore, nearly two years ago, Senator Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) and colleagues commissioned the General Accounting Office (GAO) to examine rebates. The GAO report is due out this fall.
PBMs receive rebates from drug manufacturers in exchange for preferred positioning on the formulary, which in turn drives market share. Experts have criticized rebates for the fact that payers often don’t base their decisions to include a drug on comparative clinical- and cost-effectiveness. Rather, decisions are strictly based on financial terms, namely which manufacturer offers a higher rebate payment to the PBM; a financial power play in which PBMs may threaten not to cover certain drugs if they don’t get the rebate they want. This applies to insulin as well as numerous other therapeutic categories.
What’s worse is when rebate traps or walls are involved. Branded manufacturers leverage their position as market leaders by offering financial incentives to PBMs and health insurers in the form of “all or nothing” conditional volume-based rebates, in exchange for (virtually) exclusive positioning on the formulary. This can mean keeping competitors off the formulary entirely, or severely limiting formulary access to a competing drug with drug utilization management tools like step edits. Here, a patient must use a preferred drug and fail on it (a so-called “fail-first” policy) before “stepping up” to a non-preferred drug.
Because the portion of the rebate retained by PBMs is often calculated as a percentage of a drug’s list price, PBMs can have incentives to establish formularies that favor branded drugs with higher list prices and larger rebates over lower priced biosimilars, specialty generics, or even branded competitors. Rival drugs entering the market lack sufficient sales volume to be able to offer the same level of rebates to PBMs that originator firms can provide.
Proof of the establishment of anti-competitive practices could lead to legal action being taken against PBMs. The question then becomes what would replace rebates? Payers may establish an entirely different formulary management system that is more value-based. Surely, it would be a system that’s less contingent on the role of the financial power play between drug makers and PBMs.
In areas such as immunotherapy targeting certain cancers, cell and gene therapy, and rheumatology, there are already a growing number of value-based agreements.
Girisha Fernando, CEO and Founder of Lyfegen, which offers a platform to track value-based agreements with real-world data, said that many outcomes-based deals are kept secret and therefore under the radar, so to speak. Commercial payers generally don’t share publicly what types of value-based deals they have with drug companies to maintain their competitive advantage. Yet, in an interview with Endpoints News Fernando stated that he’s observed at least a 300% increase in value-based agreements over the last five years. The Lyfegen Platform enables more efficient and transparent management of value-based drug pricing contracts by using intelligent algorithms to capture and analyze patient-level drug cost data.
Fallout from the FTC inquiry – should rebates be identified as anti-competitive - may entail further increases in value-based dealmaking.
About the author
Cohen is a health economist with more than 25 years of experience analyzing, publishing, and presenting on drug and diagnostic pricing and reimbursement, as well as healthcare policy reform initiatives. For 21 years, Cohen was an academic at Tufts University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Amsterdam. Currently, and for the past five years, Cohen is an independent healthcare analyst n a variety of research, teaching, speaking, editing, and writing projects.
READ MORE
Pharmaceutical regulating authorities in the U.S. and Europe are under increasing pressure to approve new treatments as quickly as possible. Expedited approval programs were created to speed up patients’ access to innovative treatments that meet unmet health needs or treat life-threatening diseases. But concerns about post-approval follow-up persist. Value-based drug pricing arrangements are a solution that generates real-world data and evidence of a drug’s safety and benefit to health outcomes.
Global health authorities must consider the risks of bringing a new drug to market quickly with limited data about a product’s safety and effectiveness–these risks versus the potential benefits of a new drug that addresses an unmet medical need, alleviates a public health emergency, or saves a patient’s life. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) are the ones weighing those risks and benefits and guarding the safety of pharmaceutical products and medical devices.
The usual approval process for pharmaceutical products is similar for both agencies. It includes pre-clinical testing, three clinical trials, and a final approval before manufacturers can sell their drugs to patients. Drugs that show potential and meet certain criteria may qualify for an expedited approval process.
Expedited drug approval programs
Both the European and U.S. agencies have developed expedited approval programs to speed up the process of drug development and approval when a treatment shows the potential to meet an unmet medical need or treat a life-threatening condition. A new drug may qualify for consideration under more than one expedited approval program.
· Priority-review designation (PR) – started in 1992, ensures the submission application will be reviewed within 6 months instead of the usual 12 months
· Accelerated approval (AA) – started in 1992, allows drugs to be approved using a surrogate endpoint instead of the outcomes of a clinical trial
· Fast-track designation (FTD) – started in 1997, a process to expedite the development and review of drugs designed to treat unmet medical needs and serious, life-threatening conditions
· Breakthrough-therapy designation (BTD) – started in 2012, speeds the development and review of drugs with the potential for better health outcomes compared to the results of current treatments on the market
Related Post: Value-based pricing vs best price? Medicaid's best price problem
· Accelerated assessment – started in 2004, a review of the application to be completed in 150 days instead of 210 days if there are no major objections from the authorizing agency
· Exceptional circumstances authorization – started in 2005, eligible for drugs that treat extremely rare diseases and where it is not possible to conduct large clinical trials
· Conditional marketing authorization (CMA) – started in 2006, accelerates approval of drugs designed to meet an unmet medical need or serious, life-threatening disease
· Priority medicines scheme (PRIME) – started in 2016, reviewers are appointed earlier than usual in the development process, mostly used for orphan medicines
Comparing FDA and EMA use of expedited approvals
A study published in 2020 in The BMJ (British Medical Journal) compares the use of expedited approval programs by the FDA and the EMA. The focus of the study included approvals of new medicines from 2007 to 2017. During that time, the FDA approved 320 new drugs, and the EMA approved 268.
The study shows that, as of April 2020, there was an overlap of 75% (239) of new drugs which were approved by both the FDA and the EMA. Most of the drugs approved by both agencies were developed to treat cancer, digestive and metabolic disorders, or blood and cardiovascular disorders.
Out of the 320 drugs the FDA approved, 57% (181) of the new drugs qualified for at least one of the FDA’s accelerated approval programs. Out of the 268 drugs approved by the EMA, only 15% (39) qualified for one of the EMA’s expedited approvals.
A different study of global drug approval programs, covering January 2007 to May 2020, focused on expedited approvals for 128 new cancer drugs. The EMA approved 73% (94) out of the 128 new drugs and qualified 46% of them through expedited approval. The FDA expedited 91% (117) of the new cancer drugs through at least one accelerated approval program. (In 2019, all the cancer drugs the FDA approved during the year qualified for expedited approval.)
Of the six jurisdictions in the study, the FDA was the first to approve 80% (102) of the new cancer drugs. In Europe, delays in submissions of regulatory applications slowed many of the approvals. The EMA’s approvals of the same 102 drugs took an additional median time of 9.7 months.
Related Post: Indication-specific pricing to make inroads in the U.S.
Post-approval confirmatory trials
The expedited approval process in both Europe and the U.S. relies on post-market, real-world clinical data to confirm the safety and effectiveness of a drug. After the FDA or EMA grants expedited approval and the drug is on the market, the manufacturer is required to conduct confirmatory trials to gather enough real-world evidence to transition the drug from an expedited approval to a regular approval. Both the FDA and the EMA carry a backlog of confirmatory trials that were not completed on time.
An NPR (National Public Radio) analysis of FDA and National Institutes of Health data showed there are around 200 drugs with expedited approvals currently on the U.S. market. Many drugs, especially cancer treatments, have more than one accelerated approval to cover expanded uses. Close to half of these drugs transitioned to standard approvals after confirmatory trials, and another 9% were withdrawn.
The 30 years of data NPR reviewed also revealed that 42% of confirmatory trials didn’t start within the first year after the drug was made available to patients. Some confirmatory trials were delayed by three or more years, and even up to ten years.
The EMA also appears to have a substantial percentage of manufacturers who are slow to transition expedited approvals to standard approvals. In 2016, only about half of the drugs that received expedited approvals from the EMA had converted to standard approvals. Manufacturers who switched to standard approvals took an average of 4 years to complete the conversion process.
Gathering real-world evidence through value-based drug pricing arrangements
Both healthcare payers and drug manufacturers benefit from value-based drug purchasing arrangements for drug treatments that come to market under expedited approval programs.
For manufacturers, the real-world evidence generated by a value-based agreement may be quite helpful for a few reasons. First, the data could satisfy the requirements for post-approval confirmatory trials. Second, manufacturers can show with real-world evidence that their treatment offers better benefits to patient outcomes as compared to competitors’ products. Third, manufacturers can use the data supporting the real-world effectiveness of their product to negotiate and justify their drug’s list price and preferential position on a payer’s formulary.
While payers want the expedited approval process to bring treatments for unmet needs to patients as quickly as possible, they may still have unanswered questions post-approval about a new drug’s benefits. Under a value-based arrangement, payers can collect and analyze real-world evidence to address their uncertainty and concerns about a drug’s safety, benefit to patient health outcomes, and cost-effectiveness.
Value-based pricing agreements between payers and manufacturers allow both parties to share the financial risk of a drug not performing as expected. And if a drug underperforms, real-world data from the value-based agreement can reinforce the terms of a manufacturer’s rebate. Therefore, manufacturers willing to share risk and enter value-based drug purchasing arrangements with payers have a competitive advantage.
The Lyfegen Solution
Lyfegen is an independent, global analytics company that offers a value-based contracting platform for healthcare insurances, pharma, and medtech companies wanting to participate in value-based drug pricing agreements. Lyfegen’s software platform includes three-fold functionality to implement value-based, data-driven agreements with greater efficiency and transparency: data ingestion, agreement execution, and insights generation. The Lyfegen Platform collects real-world data and uses intelligent algorithms to provide valuable information about drug performance and cost.
By enabling the shift away from volume-based and fee-for-service healthcare to value-based healthcare, Lyfegen increases access to healthcare treatments and their affordability.
To learn more about our services and the Lyfegen Platform, book a demo.
READ MORE
The high-costs of newer drug treatments make the adoption of non-traditional, value-based drug purchasing arrangements a necessity for healthcare payers and administrators trying to manage their budgets, provide patients with quicker access to the most effective treatments, and reduce wasteful spending on treatments that don’t work. Recent regulatory changes and advanced AI contracting software options are making value-based drug pricing arrangements easier.
Even before the onset of the pandemic, annual budgets for public and private healthcare insurers were strained by the high and increasing costs of prescription drugs. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical manufacturers are bringing new and even more expensive drug treatments to market each year. According to Bloomberg, the median list price for a year’s supply of a new drug introduced to the U.S. market in 2021 was $180,007.
Thanks to COVID-19 vaccines and COVID-related treatments, pharmaceutical sales reached record levels in 2021. Sales in North America account for close to half of the total $7.3 billion global market revenue for that year. And since prescription drug prices are higher in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world, the increasing costs of drugs are a top concern for policy makers, healthcare payers, and consumers.
New, more expensive drug therapies are in development
A growing niche and focus for pharmaceutical companies is high-cost cell and gene therapy products. Market analysis by Grand View Research forecasts the global cell and gene therapy clinical trials market to reach a compound annual growth rate of close to 15% and an estimated market revenue of USD 24.5 billion by 2030.
While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved only a limited number of cell and gene therapies so far, expedited approvals of new drugs and favorable designations of new therapies as orphan drug or breakthrough therapies support increasing consumption of these new drug therapies in the U.S. market. The FDA predicts that by 2025, it will approve up to 20 cell and gene therapy products a year.
Healthcare payers and consumers feel the pain of higher drug prices
Even though payers are getting rebates and not paying drug manufacturers’ full list prices, they still have cause for concern as drug prices increase annually. Payers need to protect their annual budgets from outsized expenditures, especially for specialty drugs.
Both payers and patients suffer the effects of high and increasing drug prices. A study of 14.4 million pharmacy claims made from 2010 to 2016 revealed the median healthcare insurer payments for specialty medications rose by 116%; the median patient out-of-pocket costs increased by 85%. Drug list prices during the same 7-year period more than doubled, rising faster than inflation.
Drug manufacturers recognize the need for non-traditional, value-based payment arrangements
A new cell or gene therapy’s price tag may generate as much attention as the drug’s ability to treat disease. For example, one of the most expensive drug therapies in the world is Zolgensma, approved by the FDA in 2019. Novartis Gene Therapies (formerly AveXis) developed the drug to be a cure for around 500 infants born each year in the U.S. with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). A full course of treatment is priced at $2.125 million.
Soon after Zolgensma received FDA approval, some of the top U.S. insurers quickly set up tight restrictions limiting coverage of the treatment. To help payers manage the impact of the cost and ensure patient access to Zolgensma, Novartis offers insurers the option of either a 5-year, pay-over-time contract or an outcome-based agreement.
The list price of Zyntelgo, the latest gene therapy to be approved by the FDA, surpassed Zolgensma as the world’s most expensive one-time drug therapy. Zyntelgo was developed by bluebird bio as a single-use treatment for an inherited blood disorder, beta thalassemia. According to bluebird, Zyntelgo’s price of $2.8 million is a good value when compared to the estimated $6.4 million worth of lifetime care costs for a patient living with beta thalassemia.
Estimates suggest that only around 850 patients in the U.S. will meet the criteria for treatment with Zyntelgo, and not all of those who are eligible will want the drug. Predictions of Zyntelgo’s annual sales revenue range from $64 million to $200 million.
The majority of patients eligible for Zyntelgo are covered by commercial health insurance, with most of the rest using Medicaid. Bluebird is offering payers a sizeable refund if the treatment underperforms or fails. If patients still need blood transfusions within two years after receiving Zyntelgo, bluebird will refund the payer up to 80% of the treatment’s costs.
Payers recognize the benefits of using value-based drug pricing agreements
Outcome-based agreements help payers address any uncertainty about the effectiveness of a new treatment, gain insight into a drug’s value to patient health outcomes, and reduce the risk of overpaying for a low-value treatment. The real-world evidence collected while managing value-based drug arrangements helps manufacturers justify their list price and reinforces refunds and rebates to the payer if the treatment doesn’t deliver results as expected. So why has there not been greater use of value-based drug agreements?
Regulatory barriers to value-based drug purchasing arrangements eliminated
This year, U.S. legislators have addressed most of the legislative hurdles that, in the past, hindered value-based drug purchasing arrangements. Policymakers updated two pieces of legislation to support increased adoption of value-based drug pricing agreements.
The Medicaid Best Price rule was changed in July, allowing pharmaceutical manufacturers taking part in Medicaid to report multiple best prices. This was followed by the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in August, which allows Medicare to negotiate directly with drug manufacturers over the prices of some of the most expensive drugs covered by the Medicare program.
Overcoming technological challenges to implementing value-based drug agreements
Another significant obstacle to increased adoption of value-based drug pricing arrangements has been the difficulty in operationalizing complex, data-driven, outcome-based contracts. These non-traditional agreements require a powerful, interoperable contracting software platform with extensive data collection and analysis capabilities to make real-world evidence both accessible and insightful.
To take on an outcome-based contract, an organization has two options. The first is to develop the IT framework in-house and devote management resources to monitor compliance and data security. This option is expensive, time-consuming, and beyond the current capabilities of many organizations.
The second option is to outsource the administrative burden of an outcome-based contract. In recent years, third-party vendors have developed comprehensive contracting software to bridge the gap and help manufacturers, payers, and providers transition from fee-for-service into value-based agreements.
The Lyfegen Solution
Lyfegen is an independent, global analytics company that offers a software-as-a-service platform for healthcare insurances, pharma, and medtech companies wanting to participate in value-based drug pricing agreements without making large investments in software upgrades. With extensive industry expertise and a vast library of resources, we can assess your current capabilities and advise and guide you through pre-implementation. Deployment of our customizable and scalable contracting platform is quick and integrates seamlessly into your existing workflow without compromising data security or compliance.
Lyfegen’s software platform includes three-fold functionality to implement value-based, data-driven agreements with greater efficiency and transparency: data ingestion, agreement execution, and insights generation. The Lyfegen Platform collects real-world data and uses intelligent algorithms to provide valuable information about drug performance and cost.
By enabling the shift away from volume-based and fee-for-service healthcare to value-based healthcare, Lyfegen increases access to healthcare treatments and their affordability.
To learn more about our services and the Lyfegen Platform, book a demo.
READ MORE
How the U.S. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review is reshaping market access
In the U.S., comparative clinical effectiveness analyses are gaining traction as ways to inform coverage, pricing, and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals by both public and commercial payers. And, while use of cost-effectiveness data to inform coverage decisions is prohibited in the public sector (Medicare and Medicaid) it can be used in the commercial sector.
A recently released Xcenda analysis shows that 70% of U.S. commercial payers identified comparative clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence in the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) published reviews as the most important items in the reports with respect to informing coverage and reimbursement decisions.
Additionally, 50% of payers said that long-term cost-effectiveness – for example, cost-per-Quality-Adjusted-Life-Year – is “very impactful” in informing the decision-making process. And, as the figure below shows, 52% used results from an ICER assessment in pricing negotiations while 38% implemented a prior authorization protocol based on an ICER evaluation.
Source: Xcenda, International Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) annual meeting presentation, May 2022
Further bolstering the Xcenda analysis, an Evidera study from late 2019 suggested that ICER can influence value-based benchmark prices. The use of value-based pricing is increasing in the U.S. And, where appropriate, ICER favors the use of value-based contracting to align price and value. In fact, in certain instances such as gene therapies, ICER believes that such treatments can only be viewed as being cost-effective if value-based contracting is applied. Partnering with Lyfegen may be the solution for manufacturers and payers alike, as its platform can put users on the right track towards successful implementation of value-based pricing arrangements.
To illustrate the impact ICER assessments can have with respect to pricing and reimbursement decisions, let’s consider ICER’s evaluation of PCSK9 inhibitors – indicated for individuals with inadequately treated levels of LDL-cholesterol. In 2016, two PCSK9 inhibitors were approved by the Food and Drug Administration: Alirocumab (Praluent) and evolocumab (Repatha). ICER reviewed the drugs’ clinical- and cost-effectiveness and suggested the list prices needed to be substantially reduced to make the treatments cost-effective.
What ensued was the establishment of several ICER-payer partnerships that led to formulary exclusions of these therapies and subsequent “price wars” as manufacturers of Praluent and Repatha drastically lowered their list prices to remain competitive.
Broadly, cardiovascular disease represents a competitive market with an established standard of care that includes numerous therapeutic options for most patients. Here, payers were able to leverage ICER’s assessment of the PCSK9 inhibitors in negotiations with drug manufacturers. In turn, this led, for example, to one manufacturer lowering the wholesale acquisition cost of Praluent to $5,850, down from $14,600.
In other therapeutic categories with much less competition, ICER’s impact is less clear-cut. For example, in a therapeutic area such as spinal muscular atrophy, characterized by low prevalence, high mortality rates, and lack of effective treatments, ICER’s cost-effectiveness analysis either did not influence payer coverage - as with the drug Spinraza (nusinersen) - or may have been leveraged by the manufacturer to push for wider acceptance among payers -as with Zolgensma (onasemnogene abeparvovec).
In 2019, ICER published its final recommendations on spinal muscular atrophy therapies. To meet an ICER-imposed cost-effectiveness threshold of up to $150,000 per life year gained, Spinraza would need to be priced at a maximum of $145,000 for the first year of treatment and $72,000 annually for subsequent years. This was considerably lower than Spinraza’s list price of $750,000 for the first year and $375,000 annually for subsequent years. ICER also recommended that Zolgensma could be priced at up to $2.1 million per treatment to be considered cost-effective, which turned out to be in line with its list price of $2.125 million at launch.
Interestingly, although ICER’s analysis found that Zolgensma was cost-effective while Spinraza was not, payer coverage for both drugs followed a similar trend over time, with payers restricting access in the initial periods immediately after launch and later relaxing these criteria.
The shift in coverage criteria could be due to an initial reflex response that payers have to restrict access to extremely expensive medications, followed by a loosening of criteria. Historically, this has been the case. Subsequently, after acknowledging the dramatic clinical benefits that Spinraza and Zolgensma have demonstrated in clinical trials for treating a disease with no other therapeutic options, payers relent, if you will. Also, in the case of Zolgensma, ICER’s evaluation may have led to a further easing of payer restrictions.
Of course, cost-effectiveness analyses, such as the ones published by ICER, must invariably be adapted for local use. Context matters, nationally, but also intra-nationally, in different jurisdictions and sub-markets. Further challenges include local or federal (national) regulations which may prevent the use of cost-effectiveness analyses under certain circumstances; stakeholders’ resistance to adopting such analyses or be bound by their findings; and the general lack of available (and appropriate) cost-effectiveness data.
Nevertheless, there is a consistent trend which points to the growing influence of ICER evaluations on payer decision making, specifically with respect to drug pricing and reimbursement. Clinical- and cost-effectiveness data can be used to determine whether to cover a technology, inform the use of prior authorization or other conditions of reimbursement, and serve as a benchmark for price negotiations with manufacturers.
About the author
Cohen is a health economist with more than 25 years of experience analyzing, publishing, and presenting on drug and diagnostic pricing and reimbursement, as well as healthcare policy reform initiatives. For 21 years, Cohen was an academic at Tufts University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Amsterdam. Currently, and for the past five years, Cohen is an independent healthcare analyst n a variety of research, teaching, speaking, editing, and writing projects.
READ MORE
Signs point to a greater role for indication-specific pricing in Medicare and Medicaid
Indication-specific pricing is a differential pricing method used by payers. Conceptually, it’s based on the idea that certain drugs with multiple indications have differential relative clinical benefit for each indication, or for each distinct patient subpopulation. The rationale behind indication-specific pricing is that the comparative clinical value of a drug can vary widely across indications, accordingly, so should the price if price and value are to align.
The figure below shows the difference between a uniform price – in this case, the price for indication A; green line – applied to all indications versus indication-based pricing.
Figure: Indication-specific pricing
The standard pricing model for pharmaceuticals constitutes a single price across all indications; in this instance, the price for indication A. It’s straightforward, as there is only one price. Besides, it’s the model stakeholders in the healthcare system have been accustomed to for decades. Moving to indication-specific pricing implies different prices for the four indications A, B, C, and D.
The most straightforward approach to indication-specific pricing by payers for a drug approved for, say, two different indications is to simply treat it as two different drugs. This would require two types of packaging, unique sets of National Drug Codes, for instance, for each of the packages, and for injectable drugs, two different Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) J codes.
Indication-specific pricing is appealing because it supports value-based healthcare by aligning price and value. But it’s not an easy task for both drug manufacturers and payers to set indication-specific prices, as this requires patient stratification, and ultimately anchoring of prices to certain measures of cost-effectiveness, such as the cost per Quality-Adjusted-Life-Year (QALY).
Thus far, the use of indication-specific pricing has been limited in the U.S. to several pilot programs. Specifically, the pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) Express Scripts employs indication-specific pricing in number of different classes of cancer drugs, and the PBM CVS Caremark does this for several auto-immune diseases.
According to the PBMs, indication-specific pricing can provide a justification for higher prices for secondary indications that provide greater clinical benefits. In the context of value being assessed, this may help address payer resistance to expanding coverage to include supplemental indications.
Partnering with Lyfegen may be the solution for manufacturers and payers alike, as its platform can put users on the right track towards successful implementation of indication-specific pricing arrangements. The Lyfegen platform identifies and operationalizes value-based indication-specific models in a cost-effective manner.
Indication specific pricing could alter prices for the biologic Avastin (bevacizumab), for example, when used for cervical cancer and colon cancer, respectively, depending on the willingness to pay threshold, which in turn may be based on different cost per QALY estimates.
Also, there are differences in the comparative value of the cancer drug Herceptin (trastuzumab) when used in different indications (metastatic versus adjuvant HER-2 positive breast cancer). A possible solution to this problem is for Herceptin to have two prices, one for its metastatic indication, and another for its adjuvant indication.
When Novartis won its groundbreaking CAR-T approval, Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel) in 2018, both the drugmaker and U.S. policymakers at Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) touted performance-based and indication-specific pricing as ways to help finance the $475,000 therapy. Unfortunately, the CMS backed away from a plan to implement a value-based contract for Kymriah. This decision may be revisited, as the pipeline is filled with cell and gene therapies that have large upfront costs for CMS, which must somehow be managed.
Moreover, given the many value-based experiments state Medicaid agencies are currently involved in – from value-based formularies to subscription models for the purchase of hepatitis C medications – this could spur more use of indication-specific pricing in Medicaid.
New “best price” rules in Medicaid went into effect July 1, 2022. The reason for changes in best price rules is to induce more use of value-based contract arrangements, including indication-specific pricing. Newly established protocols allow for the reporting of multiple best prices.
Specifically, to facilitate the broad adoption of these types of contracts, the novel best price rule allows drug manufacturers to report a range of best prices to the extent they may be determined by varying discounts under value-based pricing arrangements, along with the regular best price under any non-value-based pricing arrangements.
Here, value-based pricing arrangements are outcomes-based contracts which vary rebates based on patient outcomes. This can be stratified by indication. In this context, lower discounts may be offered for patients with better-than-expected outcomes in certain indications, and higher discounts for poorer outcomes and lower-than-expected clinical effectiveness of a drug in one or more indications.
About the author
Cohen is a health economist with more than 25 years of experience analyzing, publishing, and presenting on drug and diagnostic pricing and reimbursement, as well as healthcare policy reform initiatives. For 21 years, Cohen was an academic at Tufts University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Amsterdam. Currently, and for the past five years, Cohen is an independent healthcare analyst and consultant on a variety of research, teaching, speaking, editing, and writing projects.
Sign up & be the first to know about INNOVATIONS
* By sending this message, you agree to our privacy policy.
