Gene Therapies: Negotiating the Priceless-Insights from the Lyfegen 2024 Drug Contracting Trends Report
READ MORE
Insights & Articles
5 min
Advanced gene therapies that could “practically cure” patients suffering from sickle-cell disease (SCD) are just over the horizon. But they may not reach the people who need them most, many of whom are minorities with fewer financial resources and are reliant on Medicaid for their health coverage. Figuring out how to pay for their treatment looms as one of the biggest questions – both economic and ethical - facing US public health policymakers in the coming years.
Amid Medicaid’s efforts to cut spending, the dilemma of how to cover these drugs could end up increasing rancor and anger in the country – or it could spur budgetary creativity. While programs like Medicaid have traditionally filled the gap between availability and lack of affordability in treatment, the cost of SCD therapies developed by Vertex and CRISPR – estimated at nearly $2 million a dose – could quickly overwhelm even Medicaid's robust resources, especially in states that have higher rates of the disease. And this is just the beginning. As more ultra-expensive drug and cell therapies are developed for numerous conditions in the coming years, the question of how to pay for them looms large.
The American healthcare system has been long accused of discriminating against the poor and minorities – and that discrimination is likely to come into far greater focus when millions of the poorest Americans who could benefit from new therapies are unable to take advantage of them. Altogether, there are over 40,000 SCD patients on Medicare in any given year - about 60% of the estimated 100,000 victims of the disease in the US. Of the 74,817 hospitalized for sickle cell disease in 2023, 69,889 (93.4%) were African-American; on average, one of every 13 Black babies are born with sickle-cell trait (SCT), a forerunner of the disease. Even for SCD patients who can afford private insurance, the out-of-pocket cost for therapy is very burdensome. But for the poor and others who lack private health coverage, Medicaid is a singular life raft – the difference between life and a possibly very abrupt death.
Given the situation, it's likely that patient advocacy groups will make a strong bid for increased government funding. And given the issues of social justice and racism surrounding the historic lack of interest in SCD by the medical establishment, there's a good chance that funding will be forthcoming. But budgets are still budgets; if Medicaid is going to spend more on SCD therapies, it is going to have to cut other payments, especially given the strong pressure to cut Medicaid spending – both on the federal and state level, even in states where the incidence of SCD is high.
Related Post: Sickle cell disease gene therapies are here, but how is society going to pay for them?
This could be the time for Medicaid to follow in the footsteps of Medicare, and implement changes in the way it pays for treatments, specifically implementing models where payment is based on patient outcome. Indeed, Medicaid has proposed doing this, but it must move much faster if it wants to help those with SCD benefit from treatments expected to be approved by the end of the year.
Medicare recently adopted a limited form of results-based drug pricing for some of its most expensive drugs. The legislation initially covers ten high-priced drugs, with the list expanded to 20 by the end of the decade. Under the program, the government will pay a price closer to that demanded by the drug’s maker if a drug does in fact significantly reduce the costs of lifetime treatment. But if a drug does not have the desired result, the cost would be significantly lower. Experts are predicting significant savings for the government.
Medicaid, through CMS/CMMI, plans to do something similar - negotiate results--based contracts for gene-based therapies on behalf of all 50 state Medicaid programs. According to government data, the lifetime cost for treating SCD patients through 64 years of age is also close to $2 million. So Medicaid would be spending roughly the same amount on each patient receiving gene-based therapies, while reducing or eliminating costs for treatment of those over 64. These outcome-based contracts, also called value-based contracts, would allow drug-makers to be paid full price only if the treatment does end up working. These contracts could also allow Medicaid to pay in installments, rather than upfront. In addition, if treatment works faster or better than expected in some patients, there could be room in these contracts for drugmakers to be paid more, or paid earlier. Drug companies and science would also benefit from the extended real-world data involved in these contracts, which track the progress of treated patients for years.
But this model is likely to come too late for many with SCD: CMS/CMMI will only be running a pilot negotiation program in 2026 at the earliest. This means that it's very possible that Medicaid will have to, at least temporarily, ignore very promising gene-based therapies that could help hundreds of thousands of people because it can't pay for them.
Meanwhile, the public pressure and demand for widespread implementation of SCD gene therapies is likely to be very high. Lives are at stake; as is correcting a historic injustice. So how will officials deal with an increase in public pressure to pay for therapies? One possibility is to appeal to the private sector for help. Infact, the NIH will be partnering with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to provide some $200 million to increase the development of affordable gene therapies for SCD and HIV by providing funding to researchers to develop lower-cost therapies, and assistance to those who need treatment. Another option could be transferring unused state Medicaid allocations for SCD from states with very low incidence rates, like Idaho, to states with higher incidence rates, like Mississippi.
Regardless of the solution Medicaid adopts, there's no question that a storm has been raging for years over who gets what in the American healthcare system – and that storm is likely to strengthen as gene-based therapies for SCD become available. Given the history of how the establishment has dealt with that disease – and the people who are its biggest victims – it's likely that changes to how Medicaid pays for expensive therapies will come sooner rather than later. These changes must happen, or inequality in the American health system will only become worse as the pipeline of life-changing gene and cell therapies grows.
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
READ MORE
With price tags in the millions, gene therapies are redefining medicine—and reshaping how we negotiate access to it. For both payers and pharmaceutical companies, these breakthrough treatments present a shared challenge: how do you fund what feels priceless?
From Zolgensma to Hemgenix, gene therapies promise one-time cures for rare and life-threatening diseases. But the financial model behind them can’t follow the traditional playbook. These treatments call for a smarter, more collaborative approach to pricing—and that’s exactly what’s taking root.
Why Payers and Pharma Need a New Playbook
Unlike conventional drugs, gene therapies frontload their cost while delivering benefits over time. That disconnect forces a fundamental rethink of how pricing, reimbursement, and risk-sharing are handled.
According to the Lyfegen 2024 Drug Contracting Trends Report, health systems worldwide are moving toward innovative agreements: outcome guarantees, installment plans, and subscription-based models. These aren’t just experiments—they’re becoming essential tools to balance patient access with financial responsibility.
For payers, it’s about managing risk while maintaining equity. For pharma, it’s about demonstrating value in a way that aligns with clinical reality. Either way, the direction is clear: shared risk, shared benefit.
Global Shifts That Are Shaping the Market
The trends are global and accelerating. In the United States, payers like Blue Cross Blue Shield and Medicaid are embracing outcome-based models for sickle cell gene therapies like Casgevy and Lyfgenia. Brazil’s Ministry of Health uses installment payments for Zolgensma, spreading risk over five years while tying reimbursement to real-world outcomes.
In Europe, countries like Spain and Italy combine restricted coverage with annual reassessments, ensuring that high-cost therapies are only reimbursed if they continue to deliver results.
The message? Pricing innovation is no longer a nice-to-have—it’s the only way forward.
How Lyfegen Bridges the Gap
At Lyfegen, we help payers and pharma move beyond the negotiation table—and into action.
• Our Agreements Library, the world’s largest digital repository of value-based contracts, helps you understand what others are doing and where the benchmarks lie.
• Our pricing simulation engine lets both sides explore scenarios before committing—making deals smarter from day one.
• And our automated platform handles everything from contract setup to rebate tracking, saving time, reducing risk, and driving transparency.
A Smarter Way to Fund the Future of Medicine
Gene therapies will continue to challenge the limits of what we think healthcare can afford. But with the right models and tools, both payers and pharma can find common ground—ensuring that innovation reaches the patients who need it most.
Curious about what’s next in drug contracting?
Download the 2024 Drug Contracting Trends Report for exclusive insights, real-world examples, and global benchmarks.
READ MORE
The UK government is taking a bold step toward modernizing public services by cutting red tape, integrating AI into operations, and bringing NHS England back under direct ministerial control. This reform signals a shift toward efficiency, innovation, and better patient care—one where AI-driven solutions like Lyfegen can play a pivotal role.
NHS England was originally established in 2012 as an arm’s-length organization to insulate the health service from political interference. Over time, however, bureaucracy accumulated, slowing decision-making and increasing costs. With Starmer’s decision to fold NHS England’s functions back into the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), the system is poised for a fresh start. This restructuring aims to eliminate redundant roles, reduce administrative waste, and reallocate resources to frontline care—ushering in a new era of efficient and accountable healthcare management.
A key takeaway from Starmer’s announcement is his strong push for automation. The government is aiming to cut administrative costs by 25%, ensuring that resources are directed where they matter most: patient care.
Some of the expected changes include:
By integrating NHS England’s functions into the DHSC, the government is positioned to strengthen and streamline negotiations with pharmaceutical companies. This shift could lead to:
One of the most promising aspects of this reform is the government’s commitment to leveraging AI to transform operations. For an AI-powered platform like Lyfegen, this presents a significant opportunity to deliver real-world benefits in healthcare management. Here’s how Lyfegen can help:
While AI promises to revolutionize healthcare efficiency, successful implementation will require overcoming hurdles such as:
Transforming the NHS is no small task. Beyond balancing innovation and cost, the government must manage vast amounts of healthcare data and navigate the complexities of implementing change at scale. However, Starmer’s announcement represents more than just another cycle of NHS reforms—it’s a meaningful step toward a future where efficiency and technology-driven innovation deliver real, lasting benefits to patients.
At Lyfegen, we’re ready to support this transformation by delivering AI-powered solutions that drive real savings and faster patient access. Let’s build a smarter, more efficient NHS together.
Want to see how our AI-powered solutions can support smarter drug pricing and better healthcare access? Let’s schedule a demo today.
Sign up & be the first to know about INNOVATIONS
* By sending this message, you agree to our privacy policy.
